    [Senate Hearing 109-709]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-709

                        ENHANCING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE:
                        A HEARING ON PENDING LEGISLATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                      OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
                     THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT
                            OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                             HOMELAND SECURITY AND
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 29, 2006

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                            and Governmental Affairs

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    29-509 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax:  (202) 512-2250. Mail:  Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    TOM COBURN, Oklahoma                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island      MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

               Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                 Michael L. Alexander, Minority Staff Director
                      Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk

       OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE
                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

                      GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    TOM COBURN, Oklahoma                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island      MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

                       Andrew Richardson, Staff Director
                  Richard J. Kessler, Minority Staff Director
                Nanci E. Langley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                          Emily Marthaler, Chief Clerk
                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Voinovich............................................     1
        Senator Akaka................................................     3
        Senator Lautenberg...........................................     4

                                   WITNESSES
                            Thursday, June 29, 2006

    Hon. Dan G. Blair, Deputy Director, Office of Personnel
      Management.....................................................     6
    Darryl Perkinson, National President, Federal Managers
      Association, on behalf of the Government Managers Coalition....    13
    Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
      Employees Union................................................    15
    Jacqueline Simon, Public Policy Director, American Federation of
      Government Employees...........................................    17
    Patricia McGinnis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council
      for Excellence in Government...................................    18

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Blair, Hon. Dan G.:
        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Kelley, Colleen M.:
        Testimony....................................................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    McGinnis, Patricia:
        Testimony....................................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
    Perkinson, Darryl:
        Testimony....................................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Simon, Jacqueline:
        Testimony....................................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    44

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions and answers submitted for the Record from:
        Mr. Blair....................................................    68
        Mr. Perkinson................................................    76
        Ms. Kelley...................................................    79
        Ms. Simon....................................................    80
        Ms. McGinnis.................................................    82

        ENHANCING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A HEARING ON PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2006

                                     U.S. Senate,
                    Oversight of Government Management,
                            the Federal Workforce and the
                         District of Columbia Subcommittee,
                        of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
    Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Voinovich, Akaka, and Lautenberg.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VOINOVICH

        Senator Voinovich. Good morning. Today's hearing,
    ``Enhancing Employee Performance,'' will come to order.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to examine two bills
    within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction, the Federal Workforce
    Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act, which I
    introduced on June 13, and the Federal Supervisor Training Act,
    introduced by Senator Akaka on Tuesday. Today's hearing
    initiates the public discussion on these two bills.
        I welcome the legislation that you introduced, Senator
    Akaka.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Hopefully, the two of us will be able to
    work on it and get something done together.
        Senator Akaka. I enjoy working with you and look forward to
    addressing these issues together.
        Senator Voinovich. Thanks. I am pleased that today's
    witnesses include individuals who have testified before this
    Subcommittee on many occasions. Dan Blair said this is OPM week
    here in this Committee. I welcome you back. During my time in
    the Senate, I have worked closely with all of you to enact
    numerous reforms, including the Federal Workforce Flexibility
    Act of 2004, and I am confident we can continue that tradition.
        As I said, today's hearing is the beginning of the process
    to consider these two bills. I look forward to listening to the
    views of all interested parties--the Administration, employee
    organizations, unions, the agencies that have had to implement
    these proposals, and those in the non-profit, good government
    sector.
        I understand there will be comments, recommendations, and
    concerns about the content of these bills. I welcome those
    comments. I believe engaging in this constructive dialogue will
    enable us to find a way to make continued improvements to the
    environment in which our dedicated Federal employees work.
        As the Comptroller General stated during this
    Subcommittee's hearing on Tuesday, overall throughout the
    government, performance management systems are, and this is his
    words, ``abysmal.'' Abysmal. I do not believe it is fair to the
    hard-working Federal employees of this country to subject them
    to such poor systems.
        The purpose of my legislation is to improve the performance
    appraisal process. The legislation Senator Akaka and I have
    introduced would help accomplish this goal by requiring that
    Federal employees annually receive a written performance
    appraisal. Current law only requires periodic appraisals of job
    performance.
        This legislation would require that an individual
    performance appraisal be aligned with the agency's strategic
    goals and be developed with the employee. The performance
    appraisal systems would make meaningful distinctions among
    employee performance, which means no more pass-fail systems.
    None of these requirements currently exist in the statute. The
    legislation, then, would require agencies to use this
    information in making personnel decisions.
        I believe the sections of the bill that may generate
    concern among some unions are those that would prevent an
    employee from receiving an annual pay adjustment or within-
    grade increase if that employee has not earned a successful
    performance appraisal. I support pay-for-performance. I know
    this section of the bill would go a long way towards addressing
    a concern identified in the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey
    that employees do not believe differences in performance are
    recognized in a meaningful way. In that survey, only 29 percent
    of the employees believed differences were recognized.
        However, before an agency would even reach the point where
    an under-performing employee would be denied a pay increase,
    the agency would have to work with the Office of Personnel
    Management to develop and refine its performance appraisal
    system. Employees would then have one year under the
    performance appraisal system to understand how it would be used
    to make pay decisions.
        The bottom line is, we are not going to let any agency
    implement pay-for-performance unless we know they are prepared
    to do it. Pay decisions would not be arbitrary or capricious.
    Managers would be required to receive appropriate training to
    judge the performance of their subordinates, make expectations
    clear to employees, and give constructive feedback. This would
    not happen overnight, but this training is essential to improve
    overall government performance.
        Furthermore, I would like to note that many people were
    concerned, including some here today, that when Congress
    authorized new personnel systems for the Departments of
    Homeland Security and Defense, that these new systems would
    quickly be implemented with minimal planning. I was committed
    to making sure that these systems were implemented well, and
    not simply fast. In fact, I went over to the Pentagon in March
    2004 and met with Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary of the Navy
    Gordon England and urged them to slow down the implementation
    of the National Security Personnel System. They did so.
        Senator Akaka and I held a hearing this past April on NSPS.
    DOD had just begun implementation for the first 11,000
    employees. Again, I went to the Pentagon in March 2004, and
    they are starting to implement it this year; 2 years later. I
    believe, at least I think Senator Akaka and I were impressed,
    that they were doing it in a thoughtful, careful manner. The
    point is, it can be done well within the Federal Government.
        The robust performance appraisal system, as required in my
    bill, would not be arbitrary and capricious. I believe most
    employees want to know that their supervisor is paying
    attention. They want to know where they stand and how they are
    doing on their jobs. Employees need to discuss, with their
    managers, their strengths and weaknesses and receive feedback
    so they can improve their skills and grow professionally.
        Finally, the bill would authorize pay-for-performance for
    individuals hired as senior level or senior technical experts,
    consistent with the statute for the Senior Executive Service.
        I now yield to my good friend Senator Akaka for his opening
    statement. Senator Akaka.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA

        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this very important hearing today on our respective
    bills. You and I know that strong employee performance
    translates into improved agency performance, which is why the
    measures we have introduced deserve attention. We both want to
    make the Federal Government an employer of choice, and I
    commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your continuance and strong
    leadership, of this effort.
        Nothing is more important to the success of Federal
    programs than how the Federal Government hires, fires,
    compensates, and evaluates its employees. To be effective,
    government programs and services depend on well-trained
    employees and skilled managers. And yet, because supervisor
    training is left to the discretion of the individual agencies,
    this training is often inconsistent and its availability is
    many times plagued by inadequate agency resources. Meaningful
    training matters and it should not be a discretionary option
    for agencies.
        Federal workers deal with a broad and complex range of
    issues affecting our Nation and the world. They understand that
    well-trained managers empower them, which in turn improves
    programs and saves taxpayers money. Training also strengthens
    communications skills, ensures that employees have a clear
    understanding of their roles and responsibilities, and promotes
    stronger manager-employee relationships.
        That is why I introduced the Federal Supervisor Training
    Act. My bill will bridge this training gap that exists now and
    help ensure that Federal managers have the necessary skills to
    manage and meet agency missions.
        The legislation has three major training components. First,
    the bill will require that new supervisors receive training in
    their initial 12 months on the job, with mandatory retraining
    every 3 years on how to work with employees to develop
    performance expectations and evaluate employees. Current
    managers will have 3 years to obtain their initial training.
        Second, the bill requires mentoring for new supervisors and
    training on how to mentor employees.
        Third, the measure requires training on the laws governing,
    and the procedures for enforcing, whistleblower and anti-
    discrimination rights.
        Agencies will also be required to set standards that
    supervisors should meet in order to: Manage employees
    effectively, assess a manager's ability to meet these
    standards, and provide training to improve areas identified in
    personnel assessments.
        I also believe this training will address the perceived
    shortfalls in the General Schedule, or GS. I know there are
    those who believe that the government should throw out the GS
    because, in their view, agency employee performance has not
    improved. I, on the other hand, believe that the lack of
    manager training is a primary reason the GS has not lived up to
    expectations. The GS was designed to be a performance-based
    compensation system that is both transparent and credible.
        Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the support my bill has
    received from the Government Managers Coalition; AFGE; NTEU;
    IFPTE; the AFL-CIO; Metal Trades Department, as well as the
    Partnership for Public Service. And, I want to thank you again,
    Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing and your efforts in
    these areas. I also want to thank our witnesses for being here
    today. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator
    Lautenberg.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I admire your
    interest in trying to make government more efficient and I know
    that you come from an environment where employees were a
    critical part of your functioning in your previous positions in
    government.
        I have been honored to serve in the Senate for 21 years.
    Before that, I worked in the private sector. I helped start a
    company that was listed as one of the six best companies in
    America, included with companies like General Electric and
    Chevron. I and two brothers founded that company. So I speak
    from some experience.
        When I look and see what happens here, I, too, would like
    to see efficiency and productivity, and I believe that
    government employees are among the most dedicated staff that I
    have seen, and that includes all of my business experience.
    When I came to the Senate and left ADP, we had 16,000
    employees. It is dwarfed now because they have 44,000, but our
    work was primarily in the personnel area. So in many ways, this
    zealous commitment creates a loyalty rarely found.
        Seeing each group from a personal experience tells me that
    as a result, exceptional performances are often given by
    government employees who have little more than the security of
    their job that attracts them to it, because if it is
    competition for higher wages, they can do a heck of a lot
    better outside the government. While there may, and there
    always are, malingerers and people who are lazy, the question
    of letting political influence creep into the decisionmaking, I
    think, is a high risk.
        Now, when we talk about the unions and collective
    bargaining, things have happened. In the wake of the terrorist
    attack on September 11, 2001, Congress told the Department of
    Homeland Security and Department of Defense to overhaul their
    pay and workplace rules, to get rid of the General Schedule
    band system that has been in place since 1949.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a role for collective
    bargaining. I am a strong believer in organized labor. I
    learned of my father's experience when he was growing up and
    how employment was in the days before unions. The people who
    rushed to their death in the World Trade Center, trying to save
    lives of people that they never met, were members of a union.
        But in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Bush
    Administration saw an opportunity to close down organized
    labor, got new workplace rules it wanted for DHS and the
    Department of Defense, and so far, those rules haven't worked
    out as planned. Courts have ruled that they go too far in
    stripping the rights of workers. In fact, the latest such
    ruling was handed down Tuesday of this week by the Federal
    Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, and it is clear
    that this approach was not the right way to go.
        If the Administration really wants to make government more
    efficient, more accountable, I urge them to sit down with
    public workers and find ways to accomplish that goal. Given the
    importance of the mission of DHS, we need to attract the best
    and the brightest. Taking away employees' rights and
    protections isn't going to attract the kind of workers that we
    need to keep America safe.
        Mr. Chairman, as we look around this room and our offices,
    I have never seen a more dedicated, committed group of people
    working. I think the same is true of departments throughout
    government. So while I salute the effort to make the system
    work better, I do also recommend that we keep in mind that the
    security factor is a huge factor in people working in
    government, knowing that it is a reliable place to work and
    that if they do their job, they will move along, that there are
    some extra conveniences.
        Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
    Congratulations, by the way, on your company. That is
    wonderful. That should make you feel good. It is like your
    child is growing up and it is doing great.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes, just the poor boys, the three of
    us. My father died from an occupational exposure when he was 43
    years of age and he was a health faddist, and his brother died
    similarly at a very young age. So I have strong worker
    orientation. When I see that our company is listed with GE and
    the others, it is a mind-blowing experience. I have been lucky.
        Senator Voinovich. That is great.
        Our first witness today is Dan Blair. Linda Springer is out
    in the field. I spent a lot of time with her this week, and she
    is visiting all OPM offices. When OPM did their annual employee
    survey, employees said they felt that the management was
    disconnected from the employees. So Linda is out there spending
    time with folks and letting them know that she cares about them
    and wants to hear what they think needs to be done to help them
    do a better job.
        So, Mr. Blair, we are very glad to have you here, and if
    you will stand, I will administer the oath. Do you swear the
    testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth,
    the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Blair. Yes, I do.
        Senator Voinovich. Mr. Blair, you may begin.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DAN G. BLAIR,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE
                        OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Blair. Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, and Senator
    Lautenberg, thank you for inviting the Office of Personnel
    Management (OPM) to testify about the proposed Federal
    Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act,
    S. 3492, and the proposed Federal Supervisor Training Act, S.
    3594. I am pleased to testify here on behalf of OPM and
    Director Linda Springer. I know that we are all pressed for
    time, so I will ask that my full statement be included for the
    record, and I am happy to summarize.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Blair appears in the Appendix on
    page 29.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        Mr. Blair. OPM is pleased to endorse and support your
    legislation, S. 3492, Mr. Chairman. We view enactment of this
    legislation as an important step to ensure that we are able to
    have a 21st Century compensation system for Federal employees.
    I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge your steadfast
    commitment and Senator Akaka's commitment to improving Federal
    management policies and practices. The support of you both has
    been essential to the significant changes we have already
    achieved.
        As we look to the future, we view S. 3492 as laying
    essential building blocks entirely consistent with the
    direction future personnel reforms must take. As you know,
    years of experience with effective pay-for-performance systems
    with nearly 100,000 Federal employees has made clear that
    further experimentation is not needed. We firmly believe having
    Congress spell out these requirements in statute sends a
    powerful message to employees, managers, and the American
    public.
        Senator Akaka, I want to recognize you, as well, for your
    efforts in crafting the Federal Supervisor Training Act, S.
    3584. I understand it was introduced Tuesday evening and OPM
    staff is studying the specifics at this time. However, let me
    say that I believe we share general agreement about the
    necessity for and the benefits of good quality training of
    managers and supervisors, and we look forward to working with
    you on this legislation as well.
        Both of your bills emphasize training, and let me give you
    a snapshot of our efforts to date. OPM, under both of these
    bills, would be prepared to set standards and offer effective
    training, as we have with the Human Capital Initiative under
    the President's Management Agenda. Through that agenda, OPM has
    provided extensive guidance to agencies redesigning their
    performance management systems to better improve employee
    performance plans by ensuring their alignment with
    organizational goals and focusing employees on achieving
    results.
        This year, agencies have identified what we call beta, or
    test, sites to implement and assess the revised systems, and
    those agencies will complete the performance appraisal cycle at
    their beta site by September 30 of this year.
        Mr. Chairman, we are pleased your bill sets a direction to
    move further towards pay-for-performance. With respect to the
    specific pay-for-performance proposals contained in your
    legislation, we agree strongly that creating a basic
    performance contingency for getting any pay increase is a very
    reasonable first step. We owe it to the vast majority of good
    performers to acknowledge their positive contributions and not
    treat their underperforming counterparts in an identical
    fashion.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to note clearly that your bill
    includes appropriate and significant safeguards and due process
    requirements to reassure employees they will be treated fairly.
    We agree this is an essential element for any pay-for-
    performance feature.
        That concludes my oral statement. I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak to your proposals and am available to
    answer any questions you might have.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        We will have, I think, one round of questions for 5
    minutes. I understand OPM in May issued a new regulation
    requiring agencies to submit data to OPM on employee training.
    This will be very helpful to us in understanding agency needs
    and correct the longstanding frustration I have with agencies'
    inability to tell me how their training dollars are being
    spent. I am still frustrated. I think in their budget
    submissions there ought to be a separate line for training so
    that we know agencies are using money for training their
    people.
        Both Senator Akaka's and my bills mandate training for
    supervisors and managers. Are there additional steps we, in
    Congress, should consider to ensure agencies have the necessary
    resources to deliver this training without compromising
    training for other employees' skills?
        Mr. Blair. Let me first say that we issued those
    regulations back in May and they ask agencies to report on
    their training plans, expenditures, and activities, creating a
    basic inventory of what training is taking place out there. It
    will do so in an electronic format, which will be made
    available to us, and presumably the Congress, if or when asked.
    It will give a better snapshot of what training is taking
    place.
        The President's budget this year had roughly $20 million in
    training needs in the area of performance management across
    agencies. It wasn't one line item in the budget. Rather, it was
    embedded in each agency and department's request. For instance,
    OPM had a portion of that which was roughly around $2.1
    million. We are still working with the appropriators to ensure
    that request is maintained.
        But, gathering this data by way of this regulation is going
    to be a significant first step in addressing what, I think,
    Senator Akaka has said earlier is a patchwork of training that
    occurs across government. We agree this is a problem. We think
    that we can do a better job of inventorying it, looking at
    exactly what is out there in order to get a better idea of
    where we need to move forward.
        But I think that both of your bills speak very highly of
    training, and that is something, I think, that there is broad
    agreement on.
        Senator Voinovich. One of the things that disturbs me is
    that our appropriators sometimes ignore how important money is
    for training and for human resources. I would hope that OPM is
    weighing in on the budget for max HR at the Department of
    Homeland Security because the House just cut its funding. We
    need to get some help to get that money restored, although it
    will not be as much money as they had originally asked for
    because of the recent court ruling. Are you and Director
    Springer working on that?
        Mr. Blair. We are going to be working on that, and I would
    also say that we would also be looking to leaders like yourself
    to help us in that endeavor, because it is important that these
    systems be properly funded in order to move forward.
        Senator Voinovich. I think it is incumbent on all of the
    Members of the Senate to share with the appropriators how
    important dollars are for human resources.
        The other thing, Mr. Blair, is that we will have
    representatives testifying today from two of our major unions.
    They are really concerned about adequate protections in Title V
    to protect employees and their pay against retaliation by
    managers, and would they be preserved under my legislation?
        Mr. Blair. I would say that today----
        Senator Voinovich. We are always worried about
    arbitrariness and capriciousness. How do we safeguard to make
    sure that performance appraisals and pay decisions are not
    arbitrary and capricious?
        Mr. Blair. I certainly don't think that any of us want to
    give short shrift to those kinds of considerations. Today,
    those protections are in place, and those protections would
    remain and be made consistent with today's law under your bill.
    So I think that it addresses those concerns very well.
        Senator Voinovich. What I would like to do is to have you
    provide me with a survey of where situations have arisen where
    people feel they have been treated unfairly and share that with
    me.
        Mr. Blair. OK.
        Senator Voinovich. Later this Congress, this Subcommittee
    will be having a hearing on the implementation of pay-for-
    performance in the Senior Executive Service. I would be
    interested in hearing from OPM if there are folks that have
    gone through the process and where someone feels that they
    haven't been treated properly, what the procedure is, and I
    would like to hear about that, too.
        Mr. Blair. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Blair, I want to thank you for your testimony and I also want
    to thank you for your continued commitment to public service.
        Mr. Blair. Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. I am pleased to note OPM's initiative to
    track training. OPM has fought for improved performance
    management training.
        Mr. Blair, you have heard from Senator Lautenberg and also
    from the Chairman concerning relationships between employees
    and the managers. Senator Lautenberg believes, as I do, that
    the Administration should sit down with employees. Ms.
    McGinnis, who is on our second panel, makes an interesting
    point in her written testimony that the level of trust between
    political employees and civil servants impacts Civil Service
    reform.
        Mr. Blair, what suggestions do you have for improving the
    trust between employees, managers, and political appointees?
        Mr. Blair. I think the basic underlying foundation for
    building trust is fair, open, and transparent communication,
    and that is one of the reasons, I think, that Senator
    Voinovich's bill is so important, because it starts to build
    that line of communication. One way to develop that is to make
    sure that a supervisor and a manager have clear expectations
    for what they think an employee should be doing, and those
    communications should be transmitted, should be in writing, and
    they should be consistant. There should be feedback made
    available. The employee's input should be considered, as well,
    in establishing those expectations.
        So I think the first building block in building that kind
    of trust is making sure that expectations are communicated and
    communicated well. From then, I think you can build on that.
    You can move forward on that in ensuring that supervisors and
    managers understand their role and that employees understand
    that managers and supervisors are going to be held to the same
    levels of accountability that employees are. I think that is
    very important, that you don't have inconsistent treatment of
    employees across the workforce.
        I think both of those things are very well enshrined in
    Senator Voinovich's bill, and I think that would put us on a
    very positive step forward to address the concerns you just
    raised.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Blair, has there been any discussion
    within OPM to bring back the Labor-Management Council of the
    last Administration?
        Mr. Blair. Well, I am not sure what you mean. Are you
    talking about partnerships? We have a Labor-Management Council
    at OPM that deals specifically with OPM issues. But if you are
    referring to the partnership agreements that were a part of a
    previous Administration, I am not aware of any.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Blair, you note that the 1978
    Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) includes requirements for
    employee performance appraisals that were drafted prior to the
    Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). You
    conclude that the CSRA paid little attention to strategic
    contributions and expected results. However, there is nothing
    in the CSRA that prohibits the linkage between performance
    appraisal systems with strategic goals and annual performance
    plans and GPRA. My question is, why do you believe agencies
    have not made this linkage that you say is missing under the
    General Schedule?
        Mr. Blair. Well, I think that agencies weren't held
    accountable for making such linkages. I think that for a long
    time, the focus wasn't on results or outcomes or
    accountability. I think that the President's Management Agenda
    has helped turn us in that direction. I think that more
    statutory reform will be needed. I would note that Senator
    Voinovich's bill would bring about those kinds of alignments,
    and I think it is very important that agencies move forward,
    and I think progress is being made. We are not where we need to
    be on performance management, but I don't want to say the glass
    is half-empty when, in fact, tremendous progress has been made
    in the past 5 years.
        I referenced in my oral testimony and my written testimony,
    for instance, the test sites that we have at the agencies that
    will be the incubator, the laboratory for better performance
    management, which then could spread throughout the agencies or
    departments where they are located. We will be getting more
    results from those at the end of the fiscal year. I think that
    it is very important to have strong, robust performance
    management systems aligned where you have strong, robust
    performance evaluation systems in place.
        I think it can do nothing but help improve morale. I think
    when a supervisor or manager sits down and communicates clearly
    with an employee to set expectations, when that employee
    provides that kind of feedback in that situation, those are the
    types of situations where employee input is valued. Outcomes
    are expected, but it is transparent, it is credible, and it
    will move us forward, I think, in building a higher-performing
    workforce.
        Senator Akaka. I have a follow-up question, but because my
    time has expired, I will submit my remaining questions for the
    record.
        Senator Voinovich. OK, thanks.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Blair, you obviously must be
    familiar with the opinion of the circuit court and with the
    story that was in the Washington Post where they say the
    Department's regulations--Homeland Security, we are talking
    about--renders collective bargaining meaningless, it is utterly
    unreasonable, impermissible because it makes no sense on its
    own terms, the three-judge panel found. Another point in the
    50-page opinion, the government's position not only defies the
    well-understood meaning of collective bargaining, it defies
    common sense. I urge you to read the article, if you haven't
    seen it, by Stephen Barr yesterday.
        How do we comport ourselves with that kind of a judgment by
    an appeals court? And when in your comments I see that you say,
    years of experience with effective pay-for-performance, nearly
    100,000 employees, have made it clear that further
    experimentation is not needed, so how do you measure your
    success? I ask in the interest of a very perceptive Chairman,
    who makes us obey the rules, so the 5 minutes applies to you as
    well as it does to me. So Mr. Blair?
        Mr. Blair. Last year, we had the opportunity to prepare for
    Senator Voinovich and for Senator Collins, and we would be
    happy to provide that for you, a report on the experience that
    we have seen with alternative personnel systems across
    government. Current law provides for demonstration project
    authority in which you can experiment with a number of
    different aspects of personnel management. A number of the
    demonstration projects out there have incorporated pay-for-
    performance.
        Senator Lautenberg. Were these a selected group of
    employees that were tested, or that were questioned?
        Mr. Blair. You mean that were a part of the demonstration
    project?
        Senator Lautenberg. Particular departments----
        Mr. Blair. Yes, sir, they were. Many were in the Department
    of Defense, but you have employees at the Department of
    Commerce, and I can provide you with the inventory. It was
    across government.
        Senator Lautenberg. I would ask you to do that, because the
    one thing I can't disagree with the Chairman on, and that is
    that there is absolute need for training. Any organization this
    size, this complicated and cross-referenced in so many ways
    needs constant, particularly management training. It is
    distressing to find out that funds are either not available or
    are not used in that manner.
        Mr. Blair. If I can just continue a little bit further,
    because I think that this will help further our discussion, it
    is interesting, especially with those alternative personnel
    systems and the experience we have seen, when you go into these
    systems, there is great employee angst, anxiety, and
    uncertainty about these new systems when they enter it, and
    that is only fair----
        Senator Lautenberg. These are subjective views of yours,
    sir.
        Mr. Blair. Well, no, these were----
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, I am going to ask you to furnish
    in writing----
        Mr. Blair. I will be happy to. I mean, based on the surveys
    that we have done----
        Senator Lautenberg. In the interest of time, I am going to
    continue and we will live by those rules. Is morale a factor
    when evaluating the success of these programs?
        Mr. Blair. Absolutely. That is what I was going to address.
    We look at employee satisfaction, and over time, employee
    satisfaction starts at a low level and increases, and increases
    to the point that the majority of employees would not want to
    go back to the old General Schedule system after having
    experienced these systems. So clearly, there is room for
    improvement from the General Schedule. These systems employ
    performance management and evaluation plans which recognize
    distinctions in employee performance, reward better
    performance, and make----
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes, I know the opinions that you
    expressed and I respect them. Honestly, I do. But there are a
    couple things that I really want to get to. One of them is the
    collective bargaining situation that was revealed in the
    commentary by the circuit court. What do you think about that?
    Is the court making sense or not?
        Mr. Blair. I haven't had a chance to study the 50-page
    opinion yet, but I will say the Administration certainly had
    one side. The unions had another. The court ruled for the
    unions, and at this point, the Administration is deciding what
    course of action to proceed. We certainly respect the court's
    opinions in terms of----
        Senator Lautenberg. I hope so.
        Mr. Blair [continuing]. Not moving forward, but I think
    what is also interesting in here is that there are other
    opportunities to move forward in areas outside the labor-
    management relations area and that seemed to be the focus of
    the court's attention. I think it is important to note that
    Senator Voinovich's bill has no labor-management changes in
    that, and so I wouldn't want one to confuse the DHS and NSPS
    proposals with the proposal that Senator Voinovich has.
        Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Blair, have you been in government
    a long time? I don't know you.
        Mr. Blair. Actually, I used to serve on the staff of the
    full Committee for 4 years.
        Senator Lautenberg. You did? Any experience with outside
    employment practices, outside of government?
        Mr. Blair. No, sir.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. It will
    be interesting, Senator Lautenberg, the first spiral of the new
    National Security Personnel System is underway, so we will have
    a good chance to see how that is working. We will have some
    oversight hearings to monitor implementation. This is what
    Senator Akaka and I had a hearing on in April.
        Second, it is interesting that entities, such as the
    Department of Defense laboratories, operate successful
    alternative personnel systems and have asked to be kept
    separate from the new National Security Personnel System until
    it has been in place. They want to be able to compare data
    before making additional changes.
        We need good information from people about how this system
    is actually working.
        Senator Lautenberg. Excellent.
        Senator Voinovich. Mr. Blair, thank you very much.
        Mr. Blair. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. I want to also echo Senator Akaka in
    thanking you for your service.
        Mr. Blair. And thank you for yours, as well.
        Senator Voinovich. I just want to say that I was really
    impressed this week, and I think Senator Akaka was, as well,
    when Director Springer came in with her team. It seems like
    there is a new day in OPM. Let us just keep working on it, OK?
        Mr. Blair. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        I would now like our next panel of witnesses to come
    forward. Darryl Perkinson is here on behalf of the Government
    Managers Coalition. Welcome to my good friend Colleen Kelley,
    President of the National Treasury Employees Union. Colleen,
    good to have you back again. Jacqueline Simon, I am so pleased
    that you are here for the American Federation of Government
    Employees. And Patricia McGinnis, who has been working with me
    since 1999 on Federal human capital policy, is here for the
    Council for Excellence in Government. I think we have a really
    good, well-balanced panel. You have the management side, the
    union side, and we have, I guess, the good government side. You
    are all good government.
        Now that you sat down, will you stand up and I will
    administer the oath. Do you swear that the testimony you are
    about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Perkinson. I do.
        Ms. Kelley. I do.
        Ms. Simon. I do.
        Ms. McGinnis. I do.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Mr. Perkinson, it is nice to
    have you back again. We are anxious to hear your testimony. I
    ask you all to observe the 5-minute rule. Your written
    testimony will be included in the record. Mr. Perkinson, please
    proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF DARRYL PERKINSON,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FEDERAL
      MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT MANAGERS
                               COALITION

        Mr. Perkinson. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich, Ranking
    Member Akaka, and Members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me
    to be here representing both the Government Managers Coalition
    and the Federal Managers Association to present our views on
    enhancing employee performance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Perkinson appears in the Appendix
    on page 34.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My name is Darryl Perkinson and I am the President of the
    Federal Managers Association. I testify before you today not
    only on behalf of the organization I head, but also as a member
    of the Government Managers Coalition. The GMC was founded
    earlier this year to unify five major executive and management
    associations, the Federal Aviation Administrator Managers
    Association, the Federal Managers Association, the National
    Council of Social Security and Management Associations, the
    Professional Managers Association, and the Senior Executives
    Association, in advocacy for common-sense solutions to bolster
    good government through the Federal workforce.
        Our coalition is a deliberative body and we only put forth
    positions that have received the unanimous support of the
    members of the coalition. When we reach unanimity on a
    position, the GMC speaks for nearly 200,000 Federal
    supervisors, managers, and executives, ranging from career
    senior executives to mid-range GS supervisors.
        To date, we have endorsed four broad legislative
    initiatives to improve employee performance: Rewarding Federal
    employees for not abusing sick leave; an extension of the
    probationary period for most new employees to 2 years; clarity
    on the status and treatment of managers when subordinates file
    EEO complaints; and mandatory supervisor training and
    retraining for those who manage other Federal employees. The
    GMC endorses these initiatives, which we believe will improve
    the overall effectiveness of managers to enhance employee
    performance and produce more results for their agencies.
        It is clear to us that this does not happen to the degree
    that it should. Mandatory training is the only way to ensure we
    are not only hiring the best and the brightest, but we are
    giving them the tools to do their jobs to the best of their
    abilities.
        In order for mandatory training to achieve results, we
    believe there are five critical elements that are essential.
    Every supervisor and manager in Federal Government must receive
    mandatory supervisory training within one year of their initial
    appointment. Supervisors and managers should receive updated
    training every 3 years after the initial training. Training of
    managers must become a priority within each Federal agency and
    department. A specific authorization of Federal funds must be
    made to underwrite the costs of training that is in addition to
    money currently allocated to each agency and department for
    personnel costs. And managers must be afforded participation in
    processes that arise from constructive feedback and evaluations
    required of them from this legislation.
        The GMC is pleased that this Subcommittee recognizes the
    need for mandatory training programs to be implemented for all
    supervisors and managers throughout government. Current law,
    Public Law 108-411, requires agencies to establish a training
    program for managers on how to manage employees whose
    performance is unacceptable, how to mentor and improve employee
    performance, and how to accomplish performance appraisals.
    However, there is no accountability for managers to
    participate, and when budgets are tight, these discretionary
    programs are often the first to have their funding cut. This
    problem is exacerbated by the fact that ongoing personnel
    reforms require a well-trained, well-versed management team to
    implement, and they challenge supervisors to learn new skill
    sets. Experience from this ongoing reform effort has shown that
    managers must be well trained in advance to meet the challenges
    of a Federal pay system that is moving to pay-for-performance.
        The legislation introduced by Chairman Voinovich, the
    Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management
    Improvement Act, includes much of the GMC's desired program,
    providing for training within a year and every 5 years
    thereafter. We would like to thank Chairman Voinovich and his
    staff for accepting the suggestion by the GMC that the program
    allow supervisors to receive credits for training so they do
    not have to retrain upon transferring to a different job within
    government.
        We also commend Ranking Member Akaka for his continued
    interest and action on this important issue and for including
    in his legislation, the Federal Supervisor Training Act, an
    accelerated time table and noted authorization of funds. In
    these times of strained budgets, training is viewed often as a
    secondary expense and is, therefore, the first program to meet
    the chopping block when Congress, the Administration, or an
    agency must allocate funds. With mandatory training taking the
    force of law in these bills, Congress and the Administration
    will be obligated to recognize the fundamental requirement to
    train Federal supervisors and the management force. Our biggest
    concern is that your efforts in drafting this legislation and
    bringing to it the final passage will not achieve the results
    unless you seek a specific authorization of funds to underwrite
    the costs of that training.
        I thank you for the opportunity to present our views and I
    will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank
    you.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Perkinson. I think it is
    wonderful that you have all joined in a coalition because that
    gives us a nice perspective from all of you on the management
    side of government.
        Mr. Perkinson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Ms. Kelley.

    TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
                        TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

        Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman Voinovich,
    Ranking Member Akaka, and Senator Lautenberg. I really
    appreciate the opportunity to be here today at this important
    hearing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on
    page 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Chairman, NTEU appreciates your recognition of the need
    for supervisor training, accountability, and development. NTEU
    also appreciates Senator Akaka's introduction of the Federal
    Supervisor Training Act, S. 3584. We believe that S. 3584
    expands and develops in a very positive way the basic mandate
    for supervisor training in S. 3492.
        S. 3584 adds several essential features to a supervisor
    training initiative that NTEU views as critical. A more
    detailed description of the type of training to be required,
    specifying that training must be interactive and instructor-
    based, more than simply a review of written materials. Training
    must be delivered by training professionals in a situation,
    either face-to-face or Internet-based, which allows dialogue,
    questioning, and interaction between student and teacher.
        S. 3584 also requires more than simply training in the
    supervision of employees, but it requires working with
    employees, communicating with them, and discussing their
    progress. A good manager needs to do more than correctly
    evaluate an employee. A good manager needs to know how to
    develop an ability to help his or her subordinates to become
    top performers. Absolutely essential, we believe, is the
    requirement in the Akaka bill to include supervisor training on
    prohibited personnel practices, particularly violations of
    statutorily prohibited discrimination and whistleblower rights.
        S. 3584 also adds another important feature which is
    missing in S. 3492, the promulgation of management performance
    standards. While S. 3492 refers to holding supervisors
    accountable, it does not include any penalties, disincentives,
    or rewards that are tied to managerial performance. It is
    unclear to me what provisions in the bill would provide that
    accountability.
        NTEU is also concerned, as Mr. Perkinson identified, as to
    whether this training initiative will be adequately funded.
    NTEU would prefer that this legislation clarify exactly where
    the resources will come from to finance this important
    initiative.
        With regard to S. 3492, much of the section dealing with
    performance appraisal systems is already in place. For example,
    linking the system with the strategic goals in the annual
    performance plan of the agency is a basic tenet of GPRA. While
    the bill calls for a written performance appraisal annually,
    OPM regulations currently call for a written rating of each
    employee on an annual basis. We have no objection to the
    language in S. 3492, which makes clear that a written
    performance appraisal is required annually.
        The major change, however, in this section adds the term
    ``compensating'' to the list of uses for which the performance
    appraisals can be used. Current law states that agencies can
    use performance appraisals as a basis for training, rewarding,
    reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and
    removing employees. The purpose of including ``compensating''
    in this list is made clear in Section 4 of the bill, which
    states that an employee whose summary rating of performance for
    the most recent completed appraisal period is below fully
    successful, that employee may not receive the annual across-
    the-board or locality pay increases.
        Under current law, an employee who has received an
    unacceptable performance evaluation may not receive a grade or
    a step increase. These increases are tied to performance and it
    is entirely appropriate that they be withheld if an employee's
    performance is less than acceptable. The annual across-the-
    board and locality increases, however, were created by the
    Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act with the purpose of
    achieving comparable pay between Federal employees and their
    counterparts in the private sector. These increases are tied to
    the position and location, not to the individual, and
    therefore, withholding these increases based on the performance
    of the individual completely drops the goal of comparability,
    which has been the goal of the Federal sector for decades. If
    Congress wants to drop the goal of comparability with the
    private sector as the basis of Federal pay, I think that should
    be noted and debated. That is clearly the result of what this
    proposal will be and NTEU opposes that.
        According to a GAO report last year, they identified that
    three-tenths of one percent of employees rated in the year were
    rated unacceptable. This is an extremely small number and
    should not drive major changes in the basic tenets of our pay
    system.
        The 2005 GAO report also identified various impediments to
    dealing with poor performance. They identified time and
    complexity of the processes, lack of training in performance
    management, and communication, including the dislike of
    confrontation. None of the top impediments cited include lack
    of sufficient disincentives for poor performance. Rather, the
    impediments highlight managers' reluctance to engage in the
    processes that will have an impact rather than on the processes
    themselves.
        I would close by identifying another feature in the bill
    that I was very surprised at, and this was a portion that says
    that the rank and file employees would be denied across-the-
    board and locality increases unless a performance-based
    standard is achieved. However, it appears that SES employees
    would be provided with a pay increase totally unrelated to
    individual performance. To increase pay for the highest-paid
    employees regardless of their performance in the same piece of
    legislation that would be cutting the pay for front-line
    employees based on performance is only going to increase the
    skepticism about a new pay-for-performance system being fair.
        I would also identify time lines as a potential concern for
    NTEU. S. 3492 says that agencies will have to have new
    appraisal systems certified by OPM by July 2007. Based on the
    problems both DHS and DOD have been having in designing new
    systems, this seems a very short period of time, and also to
    affect pay increases for the SES 180 days after enactment, long
    before other sections of the bill would be in place, will give
    the appearance that the goal of this legislation is about
    providing the highest-paid employees with pay increases
    unrelated to their performance, and I would hope that is not
    the case.
        So I appreciate the opportunity to testify and welcome any
    questions you have.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Ms. Simon.

       TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE SIMON,\1\ PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR,
              AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

        Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Akaka, and Senator
    Lautenberg, on behalf of the more than 600,000 Federal and
    District of Columbia employees AFGE represents, I want to thank
    you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Simon appears in the Appendix on
    page 44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        You have asked for AFGE's views on two legislative
    proposals, the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and
    Management Improvement Act and the Federal Supervisor Training
    Act. AFGE appreciates the time and attention that have gone
    into the development of these proposals as well as the evident
    intention to improve the functioning of the Federal Government
    and the ability of Federal managers to perform their jobs
    competently.
        The proposal in S. 3492 takes a new turn from previous
    proposals. Heretofore, pay-for-performance proposals have been
    promoted as opportunities to reward high performers and help
    the government recruit and retain the best possible talent.
    Although these schemes invariably include a punitive element,
    that element is usually barely mentioned. The emphasis is
    always on the positive, the promise of higher pay for employees
    and higher performance for agencies.
        Yet this bill provides virtually nothing in the way of
    reward. The emphasis is all on the negative, the threat of
    punishment for so-called poor performance. S. 3492, in other
    words, takes an emphatic position on the proverbial, which
    works better, the carrot or the stick? This is all stick and no
    carrot.
        The proposal to withhold the annual pay raise in S. 3492,
    if it were the only thing that had happened to Federal
    employees, and we knew that it were an end in itself, would be
    one thing. But after 5 years of having the Bush Administration
    take away collective bargaining and appeal rights from the two
    largest agencies in the Federal Government, and knowing of
    their desire to spread this bad system government-wide through
    the Working for America Act, and even after three negative
    court decisions, AFGE cannot support even a modified version of
    S. 3492.
        During the same period when Federal employees have had to
    try to fend off the Administration's efforts to take away
    collective bargaining and appeal rights and privatize their
    jobs, we have also had to put up with skyrocketing health
    insurance premiums and an OPM that either cannot or will not
    engage in serious negotiations with insurance companies to keep
    a lid on their greedy behavior and whose focus in regard to
    health insurance has been to try to shift more costs onto
    employees and retirees. Now, we believe that is a performance
    problem that needs attention.
        In the meantime, overall Federal pay continues to lag
    behind the private sector and State and local governments by
    about 14 percent, on average, nationwide. If we start making
    the annual pay raise optional, it will only lay the foundation
    for reducing raises even further in the future, thereby
    punishing the more than 95 percent of Federal employees who by
    all accounts are doing a very good job.
        Contrary to what some pay-for-performance advocates have
    suggested, Federal employees do not lie awake at night hoping
    their supervisor will withhold the annual pay raise from their
    less-than-stellar coworker. When they are not worrying about
    their lengthy and increasingly expensive commutes, the rising
    cost of health insurance, and whether their jobs are going to
    be contracted out, chances are they are worrying about how to
    keep up the pace at work, where they are continually expected
    to do more with less and do so without gratitude or
    recognition.
        On the rare moments when they might think about poor
    performers in their workplace, what they do want is for their
    supervisor to take appropriate action to correct the behavior
    of the poor performer. It is undoubtedly the case that
    sometimes people are poor performers because they are lazy, or
    have a negative attitude. For those employees, the supervisor
    should take action under current law. Put the employee under a
    performance improvement period and then take disciplinary
    action if that doesn't succeed.
        Often, however, people are poor performers because they
    truly don't understand how to do their work, or they think they
    do but need additional training and attention from their boss.
    They may be in the wrong job. For those employees, withholding
    an annual pay raise will only serve as an intimidation and a
    disincentive to ask for additional help. It won't help get the
    job done.
        In contrast to S. 3492, the proposed Supervisor Training
    Act is focused on positive strategies that make sure Federal
    managers receive adequate, high-quality training designed to
    teach them how to help all Federal employees improve their
    performance. One thing that bears mention is that the bill
    establishes a program whereby experienced supervisors mentor
    new supervisors by helping them with such important managerial
    skills as communication, critical thinking, responsibility,
    flexibility, motivating employees, and teamwork. In the context
    of political denunciations of the current system's emphasis on
    longevity, it is refreshing to see a legislative proposal that
    values the benefits of tenure and experience and the
    transmission of knowledge and skill.
        This concludes my statement. I would be very happy to
    answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may
    have. Thank you.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Ms. McGinnis.

        TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA McGINNIS,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT

        Ms. McGinnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
    be part of this discussion. I want to compliment you and
    Senator Akaka for the very constructive bipartisan effort that
    you have shown over the years in trying to improve government
    performance and also to develop the potential of Federal
    workers to do their jobs well. The full Committee and this
    Subcommittee really are a model in the Congress for
    bipartisanship.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis appears in the Appendix
    on page 62.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As you know, the Council for Excellence in Government is a
    nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that focuses on improving
    performance of government, building public-private
    partnerships, and engaging the American people to improve
    government results and accountability. We are a group of
    private sector leaders who have served in government and truly
    care about these issues.
        Attracting and developing talented people for public
    service is one of our key objectives, and as you know, we have
    worked hard to bring different perspectives on these issues
    together in constructive discussions. A series that you
    participated in, we held with the Washington Post to focus on
    what the new public service can look like given the huge number
    of retirements and the opportunity to reshape it. We brought
    together for the first time in an historic session the union
    leaders, AFGE President John Gage and Colleen Kelley from NTEU,
    with OMB Deputy Director Clay Johnson and Comptroller General
    David Walker. This was the first time they had ever appeared in
    public on a panel together, talking with each other.
        It was very interesting. We had two sessions, one on their
    vision for public service 10 years out, because we wanted to
    get beyond all of the litigation and legislation and issues on
    the table now. It was very interesting how much of a consensus
    there was. I think they were surprised themselves when they
    heard each other.
        John Gage talked about a rebirth of the service culture in
    the Federal Government, more collaboration, more choice, less
    of an adversarial relationship between employees and
    management. Clay Johnson talked about a culture where getting
    better is just what we do, getting better personally,
    professionally, programs getting better. Colleen Kelley
    described a workforce that is valued, respected, and recognized
    as having expertise, and employees who would be given the
    resources to do their jobs well. And, of course, David Walker
    also talked about a rebirth of public service where the
    government would be an employer of choice and we would be able
    to attract the best and brightest.
        The consensus on this vision falls apart when these leaders
    get into details of how we should get there, and that is why I
    brought up the lack of trust that Senator Akaka mentioned
    earlier and also the lack of ownership of solutions. Those two
    things, the lack of trust and the lack of participation and
    ownership of the solutions, I think are the main roadblocks to
    meaningful reform.
        John Gage was deeply cynical about cronyism and patronage.
    Colleen Kelley called for a two-way conversation between
    management and employees. Clay Johnson talked about a bad tone,
    the wrong tone. And David Walker said, and we certainly agree
    with this, that the current GS system is not market-based, it
    is not skills, knowledge, and performance oriented, and it does
    not result in equal pay for work of equal value over time. I
    think it is really too bad that the discussion now is either
    let us stick with what we have or let us do something
    dramatically different, and there seems to be nothing in
    between that we can agree on.
        That is why I think your legislation, and also Senator
    Akaka's bill, represent important steps, progress that could be
    built upon to create a much larger reform effort.
        Linda Springer came to the forum and talked about--and I
    think this is very important because it should be part of the
    conversation about reform--the challenge to recruit, engage,
    and manage a whole new wave of employees who want more flexible
    work arrangements, greater mobility, and different kinds of
    training. If you look out there at the job market and who we
    are going to have to recruit, we need to understand both what
    they are going to find attractive about the government and also
    what are the state-of-the-art best practices, many in the
    private sector, that we should be emulating.
        You joined us in one of these sessions to announce that you
    were going to introduce this bill. We really appreciate that.
        Let me turn to what the employees say about these issues,
    because I think that should guide the discussion, almost more
    than what the leadership of either the unions, the
    Administration, or other organizations have to say.
        Senator Voinovich. Ms. McGinnis, if you can kind of wrap it
    up, I would appreciate it.
        Ms. McGinnis. I will. In the Federal Human Capital Survey,
    the most negative aspects of government service, I think,
    represent the to-do list. One, if you took this bottom part of
    the list, you would base personnel decisions on merit,
    recognize differences in performance in a meaningful way, deal
    with poor performers--that actually is a very big concern among
    employees, provide opportunities for employees to get better
    jobs, and improve certain benefits.
        And then if you look at the differences between public and
    private sector, you would add working on increasing the level
    of satisfaction with training, the level of satisfaction with
    information received from management, and how good a job my
    supervisor is doing.
        That is a great agenda for change and the council supports
    both bills before us today.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. I would like to
    comment. I have been working on personnel issues for 8 years.
    When Congress debated NSPS and max HR, I advocated for binding
    arbitration. I think the fact that we had ``meet and confer''
    where at the end, management did what they wanted, did not end
    well. It went to the courts and they have made their decision.
    I don't know what the Administration intends to do next, but
    from this Chairman's point of view, I would like to move
    forward and see if we can't concentrate on figuring a way that
    we can work together.
        Ms. Kelley, you mentioned the fact that three-tenths of one
    percent were not satisfactory. David Walker described the
    performance appraisal systems as abysmal. I know that it is not
    reflective of reality. GSA Administrator Steve Perry, who once
    worked for me, said when he came to GSA, the performance
    appraisal system was zero. I think if someone goes back and
    looks at what he did there, they will find that it is much
    improved. There were some super performers. They started to
    take the time to write effective performance appraisals. It
    wasn't just, get it over with and go on, file it and forget it.
        The point I am making is that the performance appraisal
    really is to let somebody know where they stand, let somebody
    know that someone cares about them. But the worst thing, I
    think, for anyone is to come to work for an agency, come in
    every day, do their work, and not know whether or not they are
    doing a good or bad job, how they can improve, or how the work
    that they do is connected with the goals of the agency. This is
    the goal of my bill.
        It seems that there is one thing that has unanimity here:
    Training. Ms. Kelley, you remember I sent that survey to 12
    agencies when I first came to Congress. I asked them how much
    they were spending on training. Eleven came back and said they
    didn't know. One said, yes, we do, but we won't tell you.
        How do we get training ingrained in the administrative
    branch of government? How do we make sure that is getting done?
    How do we also communicate with the Congress about the
    importance of these dollars to employee satisfaction and
    excellence and doing a better job for the American people?
        Ms. Kelley. I think that is an appropriate question and a
    complex one, because for me, what I have seen over the years is
    that the tone and attitude come from the top. That is where the
    recognition and support has to be, and it is not there as a
    rule. And even when you get to the point of, as you suggested,
    Chairman Voinovich, a line item in the budget, in my
    experience, training is about a lot more than just a line item.
    Although, a line item would be a good place to start, at least
    to know that there were funds identified for it. One of the
    things that often blocks training from being delivered, as it
    should be, out in the workplace is the staff time away from the
    job that it would take to be in training, and that is never
    ever built into whatever the budget dollars are, even if they
    would share those with you and put the appropriate dollars in.
        The second issue I would identify is the substance of the
    training. There are many agencies who will tell you that they
    do training and they can tell you how many hours they did. But
    if you ask employees if that is the training that they need to
    do their job, they would tell you no, that the training being
    provided is not the training that they need, or that they
    should be provided by the agencies. I think many managers would
    say the same thing.
        Senator Voinovich. One of the requirements in my
    legislation is that before an agency could go forward with the
    new system they would have to be certified by OPM and
    managerial training has to be completed so that the employees
    know what they are doing. It must be quality and not just going
    through the motions.
        Any other comments about how we can guarantee the money for
    training?
        Ms. Simon. Sir, I would like to comment on your original
    question with regard to training. I think that, although you
    are right, there is certainly unanimity on this panel, and
    probably any other, that funded training would be a valuable
    and important component of the success of any kind of
    performance management system. The really difficult question
    would be, what would be the content of the training.
        Where the conflict arises is the question of how much
    discretion managers will have to set those performance
    standards, defining what those standards are, and what role
    employees can play in the development of those standards. These
    are very difficult issues, and when they are established
    unilaterally and/or established in a way that they can be
    interpreted entirely at the will of management, training is the
    least of the problems. That is the difficult part.
        Senator Voinovich. So, if OPM is going to be the overseer
    on this, it would seem to me that the kind of things that you
    are talking about would involve communication so there is
    consensus. I would sure do that, sit down with the agency and
    say, here is what we think, what do you think about this. So
    that they start out from the beginning with some understanding
    of what is this that we are talking about.
        Ms. Simon. Well, there is no question about that. But, in
    the context of, just, for example, DHS and DOD, the
    conversations our union has been involved in with the
    management of those agencies and the people in those agencies
    charged with trying to design the type of performance criteria
    would be involved in a performance appraisal, a lot of times
    what is presented are these extremely vague competencies, they
    are called, and they have to do with personal characteristics
    that are extremely difficult to pinpoint----
        Senator Voinovich. Pardon me for interrupting you, because
    I am limited in my own time, also.
        Ms. Simon. Sure.
        Senator Voinovich. Have you looked at the Senior Executive
    Service and the first spiral of NSPS?
        Ms. Kelley. I read a paper about it, but I wouldn't know--
    --
        Senator Voinovich. I will tell you, I would really like you
    to look at how the Spirals are being implemented. They are
    working to address what both of you are concerned about. In
    other words, I would really like you to look at how they are
    going about training the trainer, implementation, including the
    program, and the training they have done to conduct performance
    evaluations. I really would like you to look at it and tell me
    what you think of it.
        Ms. Simon. One last very quick comment----
        Senator Voinovich. Yes?
        Ms. Simon [continuing]. And that is a lot of what we have
    looked at in that context has involved what can only be
    described as highly political standards and politicized
    standards for evaluation, and that is really where the problem
    lies.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, I would ask you to do it
    specifically. Tell me what you think. Tell me how it is
    politicized.
        Senator Lautenberg, and then we will have another round.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        For Ms. Kelley, you heard my question before that I asked
    about morale. Do you try to gauge that in some way, whether
    formally or informally, and how do you do it?
        Ms. Kelley. Actually, I travel a lot and visit with Federal
    employees in all of our agencies at their workplaces and I
    don't have to do very much questioning or research, because
    usually within the first 5 minutes, employees are starting a
    conversation with me about how bad morale is. It is always
    framed around the fact that they are all looking for--not all,
    but many of them are looking for other jobs. They are counting
    the days until they can retire.
        There was a time when I would talk to our members when
    everyone knew their eligible retirement date but very few were
    planning on going on that date. That is very different today.
    Many in the workforce, Homeland Security in particular, is
    where I hear that employees are looking for other jobs. It is a
    place that they do not feel supported. They do not feel that
    their work is respected, that their opinions are valued, and
    they are not looking at staying with DHS for a long time.
        Senator Lautenberg. Do you have an idea what the turnover
    in DHS is? I think, Mr. Chairman, DHS has a fairly high
    turnover rate. Are you familiar with it?
        Ms. Kelley. I know anecdotally it is a high turnover. When
    I have asked for that number, they have told me they cannot--
    they have told me it is standard with the rest of government,
    which I do not believe, and that they cannot share the numbers
    with me because it is a national security issue. So maybe if
    this Subcommittee were to ask that question, they would provide
    you with the turnover numbers, and I would be very interested
    in those, too. But I know it is higher than----
        Senator Lautenberg. We have no problem asking that
    question.
        Senator Voinovich. In fact, we ought to have an oversight
    hearing on the reorganization. Let us face it, putting all
    those agencies together and forming one department and one
    culture. Senator Lautenberg, do you remember how we came up
    with the idea? Senator Lieberman initiated it on the
    recommendation of the Hart Rudman Commission. Remember that?
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
        Senator Voinovich. The Administration initially said no.
    Well, the public pressure built up, so finally the light went
    on at the White House. When the Department was created, it
    combined 22 agenceis and 180,000 employees, the biggest
    management undertaking that this government has had since
    creating the Defense Department.
        Senator Lautenberg. Sure. Twenty-two departments merged
    into a department, 180,000 employees----
        Senator Voinovich. It hasn't worked well. What
    Administration should have done is evaluate what agencies might
    go together, maybe start out with four or five. So here we are,
    but the Department has some major problems, and----
        Ms. Kelley. And so many of those decisions were made
    without any input from employees or the unions who represent
    them. There were unilateral decisions made. They were bad
    decisions made from an operations standpoint and surely from an
    employee morale perspective.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, remember when they were developing
    the regulations, we talked about that. That is why I said we
    would have been much better off with binding arbitration so
    that people would have worked it out early on, because they
    would have known there was somebody objective or impartial that
    would make the final decision if there was not consensus.
        Senator Lautenberg. Also, Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair
    to say that there was a lot of flailing about in panic, in
    dismay about what had happened, that it was so terrible. In our
    country's history, it is probably one of the most significant
    events that changed our world. So as a consequence, there was a
    rush, unfortunately, I think, hasty, and I have made some
    outlandish recommendations about maybe--I am not sure about
    divorce, but at least separation for now, an agreed upon mutual
    separation agreement.
        Right now, Ms. Simon, can't managers and supervisors
    already award quality step increases to high performers and
    withhold regular step increases for poor performers?
        Ms. Simon. Yes, that is absolutely the case. What is unique
    in the proposed legislation is to put the locality-based salary
    adjustment and the National Employment Cost Index based-salary
    adjustment at risk and contingent upon a performance appraisal.
    Within-grade increases have always been based on performance
    and Federal employees become eligible for them at certain
    intervals over the course of their careers. But they are
    performance-based.
        Senator Lautenberg. But why is this system inadequate to
    ensuring accountability for employee performance?
        Ms. Simon. Oh, I don't think that it is inadequate. If
    there is anything about it that is inadequate, it would be the
    size of the within-grade increases. They are not enormous. But
    I think surveying the academic literature on what motivates
    employees, particularly public employees, to higher
    performance, money is not the only thing. I don't mean to
    downplay it by any standard. Federal employees are underpaid
    relative to their counterparts who perform similar work in the
    private sector, which is why the principle of comparability was
    enshrined in the law many times over, but most recently, since
    1990, in FEPCA.
        But there are performance-based elements. Last year, or was
    it 2 years ago now, the Workplace Flexibility Act gave enhanced
    flexibility to Federal managers to reward employees they wanted
    to retain or recruit, presumably based on their either manifest
    high performance or potential for very high performance. There
    are many flexibilities within the existing system that haven't
    been adequately funded, which is why they are rarely used. But
    there certainly are opportunities to reward high performers
    and, of course, there is also more than adequate, I would say,
    management authority for dealing with poor performers.
        Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, the obvious picture that
    is drawn in terms of what needs to be done is if you look at
    the military today and see that in the Reserve, the Guard,
    there are huge bonuses, relatively speaking, for people with
    certain skills that challenge the existing structure. And I
    think the same thing happens today in the Federal Government.
        Mr. Perkinson, I want to ask you, what is the effect of
    proper functioning Federal departments when political
    appointees have no relevant experience to the job that they are
    nominated for? Is that a matter of some consequence?
        Mr. Perkinson. With leadership coming from the top, yes,
    sir, there are times when it does affect management, but I
    think in the management ranks and speaking for managers, we a
    lot of times understand, adjust, and work with our employees to
    the maximum.
        I guess one of my big fears or one of my big problems with
    all this discussion is when we talk about poor performers and
    managers not adhering to or listening to the needs of the
    employees, the public gets this perception it is a major
    percentage of our employees. But I go to work every day and 90
    to 95 percent of our employees do great jobs and dedicated to
    this country and it is outside the scope of the leadership. We
    put the management responsibility to those people at the agency
    level and they are at the grassroots dealing with the
    employees. And I say it has been my perspective in my travels
    that the only things that get highlighted are those things that
    hit the press. The poor performers stand out. Yet every day, 90
    to 95 percent of our people do an outstanding job for this
    country and support this country to the maximum.
        Senator Lautenberg. I believe that.
        Ms. Simon, I noted something in your comments that aroused
    my curiosity. We are saying here that in the private sector
    that pay-for-performance is a fad. I hadn't heard that and I
    was just curious as to how you draw that conclusion.
        Ms. Simon. I drew the conclusion based on a survey of the
    literature on human resource management that I try to keep up
    with. In particular, I have followed the work of Professor
    Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford University's Business School. He is
    often quoted in the context of these debates arguing that pay-
    for-performance eats up enormous quantities of resources and
    makes everyone unhappy and has yet been empirically shown in
    large private sector firms not to justify its cost, its
    administrative cost, when the actual impact in terms of
    productivity improvement is measured in any objective way.
        Consequently, there are many large corporations in the
    private sector that have done away with elaborate differentials
    for employees in the same positions in terms of their pay
    increase----
        Senator Voinovich. If you could move on.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, you and I,
    in our debate, used a little bit of the time, so I would like
    to use some that I lost.
        Senator Voinovich. All right. Go ahead.
        Senator Lautenberg. Just for a moment more, thank you.
        This stunned me, Mr. Chairman, because while I am largely
    on your side of the issue, I don't know of any company that has
    decided that what we will do is pay on the basis of longevity
    and not performance. I want equity and fairness. I want the
    right for employees to have collective bargaining. My father
    described an incident, when he was a young man working in a
    mill of standing with his hat in his hand because his manager
    told him that if he took off of work for a very important
    religious holiday, that he shouldn't come back to work. That
    left a mark on my thinking almost for ever, because collective
    bargaining then came into play and it was different.
        So this is a new one for me. While I am very conscious of
    our responsibility to our people who work for us and the
    outstanding performance that we get, and in this body here, let
    me tell you, working for Senators, that is really a trial.
    [Laughter.]
        So I thank you all for your appearance and your views, and
    Ms. Simon, if you could give us anything that supports that----
        Ms. Simon. I would be happy to.
        Senator Lautenberg. OK. I appreciate it. Thanks, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
        I am just going to finish up with the same question I
    started with. How do we guarantee that the money for training
    is going to be available? Senator Akaka, Senator Lautenberg,
    and I agree it needs to be done. It doesn't seem like it is
    happening. Ms. McGinnis, do you have any ideas on that?
        Ms. McGinnis. I do think that honing in on the investment
    needed for training, what is being invested now and what is
    needed, would be very helpful. We know that in the private
    sector, 2.5 percent to 3 percent of payroll is allocated for
    training. It is hard to get those comparable numbers for
    government. They really don't exist. But there are studies that
    show that certain industries are spending as much as twice as
    much on training as government. So we need to know what we
    should be aspiring to and look at the state of the art training
    and what aspects of training do correlate with performance.
        Senator Voinovich. That is a good idea. I can't remember
    now the percentage. When I was mayor, we had nothing. I think
    we looked at General Electric and found they allocated 10
    percent.
        Ms. McGinnis. You really need to know----
        Senator Voinovich. Maybe that number is high, but these
    high-quality performing organizations put a lot of money in
    training. Perhaps getting information like that across to the
    agencies and to Members of Congress will demonstrate how
    important it is to a good functioning organization. We must
    recognize that this is money well-spent, a good investment in
    good government.
        Ms. McGinnis. I would recommend that.
        Senator Voinovich. Mr. Perkinson.
        Mr. Perkinson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share with
    you, I think the line item is a good start. I wouldn't say that
    it would be adequate, but to give you an example, Senator
    Akaka, a few years ago in the shipyard community, when they
    were trying to restart their apprentice programs, the money was
    getting lost in the Department of Defense overall
    authorization. Senator Akaka took great steps in applying an
    apprentice appropriation for the naval shipyards so that they
    could get started, and they dedicated those funds to start up
    that program and to get the apprentice funding done. We have
    now gone to where the money is now within the Naval Sea Systems
    Command budget, but that first step in dedicating it to that
    effort caused focus at the agency level to where those funds
    were spent for that specific type of training. So putting the
    line item in, I think, is the right start in having some
    management tool to ensure that those funds are being dedicated
    to the level of training that we would like to have.
        Senator Voinovich. Any other comment on that?
        [No response.]
        Senator Voinovich. I had a hearing earlier this week with
    David Walker and with OPM Director Linda Springer. My
    observation is that they are on the right track. I will say
    that I am impressed with Linda Springer. I think she is
    sincere, hard working, and wants to get the job done. We didn't
    have any of you there, and it seems to me that if reforms are
    going to be successful, at least from my perspective, you have
    to have a really good Office of Personnel Management. I mean,
    it has to be functioning, it has to have the resources to do
    the job. They have to have the competencies in place to
    evaluate whether or not people have been trained up to the
    point where they can do objective performance appraisals.
        I would like each of you in the next couple of minutes to
    just give me a quick appraisal of how do you think OPM is
    doing?
        Mr. Perkinson. I will start off. I think OPM is making
    strides in the right direction. I think we have a long way to
    go in that regard because a lot of times, policies that are
    implemented and discussed stay within the beltway. When you get
    down to the agency level and to the office level, those
    policies and procedures, that are great ideas, are not
    implemented at the local level, for whatever reason. Be it
    budget, be it agency decision, whatever, they are not
    implemented.
        So that being said, I think that we could give Linda
    Springer and OPM, if we would give them some type of
    authoritative push through for the policies and procedures that
    they do----
        Senator Voinovich. Are you familiar with the new plan that
    she has, and the metrics that she is using?
        Mr. Perkinson. Yes, sir, but I still contend, and it has
    been my experience, that there is some disconnect when it goes
    down to the local level. She is working hard on it and she is
    making steps in the right direction, but at the local level, we
    haven't seen it.
        Ms. Kelley. I think that they have good intentions and are
    focused on a lot of the right issues. I have a very open and
    functional relationship with Linda Springer and look forward to
    working with her on these issues. In my experience, two things
    happen. Even when OPM puts forward good, solid advice and plans
    for implementation, they really have no authority to make that
    happen in the agencies. So it is selectively implemented or not
    supported at the top of the agency and definitely down at the
    local level, as Mr. Perkinson describes. That, too, has been my
    experience.
        And there are also other things that I think OPM could
    reach in and correct across government that they haven't done
    yet and I am hoping they are going to, and these are issues
    that I am identifying for Director Springer and will continue
    to work with her on.
        Senator Voinovich. Has she asked you for your advice on the
    things that you think need to be done?
        Ms. Kelley. She has been very open to any issues that NTEU
    wants to discuss and has brought us issues that she wants our
    input into, so yes.
        Senator Voinovich. I just want you to know, I want OPM to
    be the best managed agency in the Federal Government. Without
    that, nothing will happen.
        Ms. Kelley. I know that you do----
        Senator Voinovich. I would really appreciate as much input
    as possible from you and from AFGE and from the Federal
    Managers Association to try and really get that input.
        Ms. Kelley. We will do that.
        Senator Voinovich. Ms. Simon.
        Ms. Simon. Yes, thank you, sir. We have a slightly
    different relationship with OPM because AFGE represents the
    employees of OPM, so I have been sitting here thinking about
    how to answer your question in a politic way. Certainly the
    employees in the headquarters office have had their lives
    turned upside down because OPM has pursued A76 competitions
    with a vengeance, one after another, one bigger than the next,
    and so there is tremendous uncertainty about the future and
    instability and worry and low morale of the rank and file
    workers there.
        Senator Voinovich. I wasn't aware that they were doing
    that.
        Ms. Simon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich. Have they matured enough so that the MEO
    is competitive with the private sector?
        Ms. Simon. Well, one of the problems with A76 is even when
    the MEO wins, it loses, because invariably, it wins on the
    basis of a proposed alternative that is less expensive and less
    expensive invariably means fewer employees and downgrades. And
    so people are losing their jobs, not as many as would lose
    their jobs if the MEO didn't win, and having their positions
    downgraded. So that doesn't make anyone very happy.
        We have had relatively little contact and communication at
    the highest levels with OPM since Ms. Springer took over, which
    is not to say that it has been hostile, it has just been very
    little communication. But certainly among the rank and rile
    employees of OPM, there is a lot of unhappiness over the
    relentless pace of A76.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Ms. McGinnis.
        Ms. McGinnis. I think Linda Springer is a real breath of
    fresh air. I think she brings to OPM a very practical market
    and performance-oriented approach and she knows the value of
    people in government. So it is very balanced. Her progress on a
    strategic plan and metrics, I think, is commendable. She is not
    waiting for anything. She is moving ahead. The work that she
    has begun on career patterns and preferences, thinking ahead to
    how to recruit and retain and develop the best and brightest
    workforce of the future, I think is quite commendable, as well.
        The role of OPM as a constructive partner to the agencies,
    I think, does have a way to go, but it is on that path and I
    think her leadership is terrific. I can't speak to the morale
    issues, but you can look at that same survey that we have
    talked about and see where OPM stacks up in terms of morale. So
    we ought to all take a look at that. I don't think it is at the
    bottom.
        Senator Voinovich. The problem that we have is that the GAO
    report used 2004 employee survey data. Quite frankly, that
    report showed it wasn't very good. I think that Ms. Springer is
    trying to remedy that situation. We will be getting more GAO
    analysis, but I think you would all agree, that OPM has more to
    do with your lives than any other agency.
        I want to thank you very much for being here. Senator Akaka
    and I are well aware of the fact that nothing will get done
    this year without unanimous consent in the Senate, as you have
    observed. So we are going to see if we can't work something out
    between the two of us on these two pieces of legislation. It we
    can't, we will see you next year. [Laughter.]
        Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29509.055