Federal Manager's Daily Report: Monday, October 11, 2004 FEDweek is the largest information resource in the federal government with now over one million weekly readers. To Subscribe, Go to http://www.fedweek.com/subscribepopup.htm *********************************************************** Valuable Information for the Federal Family
Federal Job Search http://www.fedweek.com/Jobs/default.asp Job Bulletin Board http://www.fedweek.com/Jobs/default.asp Brand New Federal Manager's Daily Report--FREE Daily Electronic Briefing http://www.fedweek.com/subscribepopup.htm ********************************************************** In This Week's Issue 1. Reform Bill Would Order Management Changes 2. FAA Managers, Supervisors Denied Back Pay 3. GAO: Pass-Fail Performance Systems Meaningless *********************************************************** 1. Reform Bill Would Order Management Changes A civil service benefits bill passed by the House (S-129) would among other provisions require agencies to align their training with performance plans and strategic goals, establish a comprehensive management succession program, and provide special training to managers who are dealing with unacceptable performances. The measure, touted as the major civil service reform bill before Congress this year, earlier was passed in a slightly different version by the Senate. S. 129 would require each agency to appoint or designate a training officer, who would be responsible for developing, coordinating and administering agency training. The individual could be the same person as the Chief Human Capital Officer. In addition, the bill streamlines critical pay authority for positions that are difficult to fill and enhances annual leave benefits for those hired into the government in mid-career. It also grants compensatory time off for time spent traveling outside duty hours; that time off could not be converted to money. 2. FAA Managers, Supervisors Denied Back Pay The Federal Circuit Court Of Appeals has denied back pay to a group of supervisors and managers at the Federal Aviation Administration's Albuquerque air traffic control center. The supervisors and managers receive compensation partly based on the volume and complexity of air traffic over Albuquerque, for which FAA assigns an ATC classification, in this case ATC 10, assigned in 1998. The appellants argued it really should be ATC 11, and they wanted the difference between pay and benefits between the two, even though FAA has not reclassified the Albuquerque center. As supervisors, they are not union members, but nonetheless claimed to be third-party beneficiaries to a collective bargaining agreement as well as a "memorandum of understanding," reached in 1999 between FAA and the National Air Traffic Control Association. The appellants alleged that the CBA and MOU obligated the FAA to reclassify the Albuquerque Center as an ATC-11 facility when the air traffic increased in 1999, and that FAA breached the CBA and MOU by refusing to do so. A federal claims court initially blocked the effort, "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," a decision upheld by the appeals court. According to the decision, the appellants brought suit under the Tucker Act, which grants the federal claims court jurisdiction over actions that are "founded either upon the Constitution, or any act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or un-liquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort" - 28 U.S.C. 1491, 2000. Under the Tucker Act, the federal claims court's jurisdiction is, "limited to actual, presently due money damages from the United States," and requires litigants, "to identify a substantive right for money damages against the United States separate from the Tucker Act itself." The FAA managers argued that their "substantive right for money damages" was established because FAA breached the CBA and MOU, but the court found they were not covered by those agreements. As such, they "do not have a contract with the United States and cannot base a claim for money damages against the United States on a contract to which they are not a party," according to the decision. 3. GAO: Pass-Fail Performance Systems Meaningless A pass-fail performance system does not provide enough meaningful information "to recognize and reward top performance, help everyone attain their maximum potential, and deal with poor performers," the Government Accountability Office has said, in response to questions following a Senate hearing on progress in human capital management. Senator George Voinovich, R-Ohio, has asked GAO if, "instead of allowing each agency to create its own performance management system, should the federal government return to a uniform multi-level performance evaluation system?" GAO said the Office of Personnel Management recognizes that agencies need to take different approaches to performance management depending on their specific situations, but noted that under the July 2004 OPM interim final regulations, "agencies must have, at least four, but no more than five rating levels, among other things, in designing their new performance-based senior executive performance management systems." Only after both OPM and the Office of Management and Budget agree that agency "performance managements systems, as designed and applied, make meaningful distinctions based on relative performance," may agencies raise the senior executive pay cap, said GAO. FEDweek 11541 Nuckols Rd. Suite D Glen Allen, VA 23059 (804) 288-5321 Website: http://www.fedweek.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are subscribed to federalmanagersdailyreport as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
