ML19259B525
| ML19259B525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/08/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7903010373 | |
| Download: ML19259B525 (60) | |
Text
.
NUCLE AR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION -
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING BY OPM ON SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE Place - Washington, D. C.
Octe - Thursday, 8 February 1979 pag 3 1 - 59 rw
(~C2) 347-37CQ ACE. FEDERAL HE?ORTERS,INC.
Orgad R..~. -
7 9 0 3 010 3~/3
" ".* C"* 8" weshing:::n. c.c. 2ccoi NATlCNWICE COVEtACE. C AILY
1
~
CR2638
(
t
.a.
.\\
g r
DISCLAIMER-This is. an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Reculatory Cor.:lission held on 8 February 1979 in the Comission s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., wasjitngt.on, D. C.
The i
meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
t h'i s transcrip -
has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
' The transcript is intended solely for general informa'tfonal purposes.
t As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or in ormal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions or opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or, beliefs.
No pleading or other pacer may be filed with tna Comission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to an" state =ent or argumen,.
contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize.
g g
k O
2 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
l PUBLIC MEETING
{
4 BRIEFING BY OPM ON SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE 5
6 Room 1130 1717 H Etreet, N. W.
7 Washington, D. C.
8 Thursday, 8 February 1979 9
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.
10 1 B EFORE.
I 11 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 12 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner
(
13 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 14 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner l
l 15 PRESENT:
l 16 Messrs. Gossick, Donoghue, and Kelley.
i i
17 Ms. Greenburg, Ms. Norry.
i l
18 i
je i
l 20 l l
I i
i 21 l
22
~~
23 l
24 wrewas seuran. im.,
25 '
l i
i
CR 2638 3
LF.ONE 't. l >
jl-1 1
ERQQEEQEEqS 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we could come to order.
3 Apparently, we have a number of Commission meetings 4
going on this morning.
This one, at any rate, will convene 5
now.
6 We're very happy to welcome Sally Greenburg, who is 7
here to tell us some things about the Senior Executive Service, 8
which we are eager to know.
9 And I've got some questions.
10 l And why don't -- Lee, do you have any comment to 11 make?
12 Why don't we turn the floor over to you, 13 Miss Greenburg, and fire away.
14 MS. GREENBURG:
How would you like me to go about it?
15 What would you like me to give you, a status report?
i 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I think a few minutes on where we l 17 are right now would be helpful, and then there are some 18 questions I'd like to a.sk.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My colleague is practicing 20 1 for the day when he takes over as anchorman for one of the l
l 21 newspapers.
22 (Laughter.)
t 1
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Got everybody doing this very 24 well.
eFeders Reconm, Inc.
25 MS. GREENBURG :
As you may know, we set a deadline l
j12 4
1 of January 2nd for a receipt from the agencies of their 2
request for a Senior Executive Service, numbers for career 3
'eserve positions, and for noncareer appointment authority.
We haven't -- for awhile, I thought it was because 4
5 we haven't developed the muscles that OMB has.
I since checked 6
with OMB, and I hear that they get a trickle of latecomers, 7
too.
And they've been in business a lot longer than we have.
8 But, the fact is we don't have some packages on 9
January 2nd and many more about the 20th of January.
{
10 We are shooting for March 1st, probably now, the 11 week after that to be giving agencies back their allocations.
12 Where we are now is that we have totaled up 13 government-wide requests and they weren't excessive, on the la whole.
In fact, we have a target of ceiling of 10,777, and 15 the initial wave or requests came in at 10,667.
The grest i
16 computer in the sky up there must have been working.
I don't 17 know how they managed to come that close.
j 18 But, the truth is that we don't want to allocate, 19 on the first go around, the whole 10,777.
We had coubt built 20 into that, so we don't consider it politically desirable, in l
21 view of the congressional oversight ~, to go right up to the 22 ceiling the very first go around.
So, we are going to cut back probably in the order, 23 24 government-wide, of 15 to 20 percent.
That will not be done w.oers a.comn inc.,
25 '
automatically.
That is, some agencies, of course, went l
l 1
5 I
overboard in their requests.
Some agencies were very modest 2
in their claims on the new numbers, and we're not going to 3
apply a 20 percent cutback.
We're going to do it agency by 4
agency, and we will be negotiating with agencies.
5 Our first cut of our position on it looks that it 6
will be in this vein.
Of course, all the existing supergrade 7
positions will be covered.
Then, there are -- we have dividing 8
the remaining positions, which were essentially grade 15 or 9
growth positions, into three categories.
10 One is unequivocally supergrades, and that's about one-third of the extras over what we have now.
I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sally, what does that base --
I 13 existing supergrade, government -- what kind of a number chunk 14 is that against the 10,7?
15 MS. GREENBURG:
It's about 7000 in SES, of the 10,777, covers residual GS positions, individual performers, l
16 17 scientists, and so on, who are not in SES.
There are about a 18 thousand of them.
19 10,777 is really 9,777 in terms of SES.
About 7000 20 of them are the existing base.
21 Then, the remainder that have been asked for, as I 22 about one-third of them are very definitely justified.
- say,
~
23 About one-third of them are -- in analysis, looks as if you all 24 were -- I use the term, "you all," meaning all the agencies.
l cafederal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I assume that applies to the other
j l4 6
I folk?
2 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes, yes.
And the middle third could 3
go either way.
In some of those cases, we simply don't have
,o 4
sufficient information to be able to judge; and in other cases, 5
the judgment may be rather arbitrary, based on this number.
6 that we intend to come to.
7 Essentially, agencies are going to get a substantial 8
increase over the 7000.
But, how large, I'm not sure.
9 Probably about a 20 percent increase could be what I'd -- yes, 10 1 about what I'd figure.
11 So, they've asked for --
I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ultimatcly?
13 MS. GREENBURG :
Ultimately, this go around period.
t 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh.
15 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
This go around, there will be 16 about a 20 percent increase, government-wide; and that, again, 17 will atply to each agency, over what they have now, but, 18 ecually, about a 20 percent decrease over what they asked for.
l t
19 Working it that way, we're going to get our first i
20 cut this week, review it with our -- not a chairman -- we've 21 been calling him " Chairman" so long -- director.
Right, that's 22 the trouble with changing organizations, we're going to review 1
23 it with our director and then start working with the agencies 24 individually so that we might be coming back and saying we're i
I r=4enw neomn. is I
25 proposing giving you 40 of theses positions and not giving you l
l I
ji 's 7
I these 20 positions.
2 And you can rebut and will have a back and forth 3;
arrangement, and eventually, around the 1st of Marck, we will 4
be coming out with a firm number.
That will give you time, 5
by the middle or the end of March, to get out individual 6
letters.
7 You have first to make your firm designations based 8
on what you've been given, positions; some of the ones that 9
you had intended presumably will not be permitted to be labeled 10 that way.
I I I.
So, you'll have to make your final designations.
12 Then, you'll have to get your letters to the individuals who 13 are in those positions, offering them SES conversion.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do we have a deadline date?
15 MS. GREENBURG:
We're targeting March 15th'.
That is 16 not a deadline.
The actual deadline, I believe, is April 14th.
17 It cannot be done beyond that, because they must have 90 18 calendar days in which to decide.
And the end date is July 13th.
L i
19 The decision has to be made by the 12th.
I 20 So, I think it's April '4th is the end possibility 21 for getting these letters out.
The earlier you get them out, 22 of course, the easier it will be for paper processing and so 23 on.
24 You'll give yourself a couple of weeks time frame in Ace-Federot Reporters, Inc.
25 there.
i
ji 6.-
8 1
We will also be getting, by the first week in March, 2
a rather detailed brochure detailing the features of the SES 3
that apply government-wide and giving people very precise 4
information on what will happen to them personally if they go 5
in and if they don't go in, in terms of the government-wide 6
program.
7 Each agency, at the same time, should be able to 8
give them information on how the agency intends to operate 9
the Senior Executive Service within the agency, so th.at they 10 have a fairly good picture of what they're getting into, that's 11 required; so that during that 90-day period they can make an 12 informed judgment on whether or not to join or to remain in 13 their present position.
14 And that's about where we are.
I 15 COMMISSIONER GOSSICK:
Do you have any prediction, goal,orfeelingastowhatthepercentageofacceptanceinthel 16 17 SES by the individual is?
18 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes, but it looks like it will go 19 above 80 percent.
20 COMMISSIONER GOSSICK:
About 80 percent?
21 MS. GREENBURG :
Yes.
22 MR. DONOGHUE:
When we get your mark, will it be by 23 positi~on or a number?
24 MS. GREENBURG:
It will be essentially by number.
co-Federne Rooorters, Inc.
25 During the negotiating process, it will be stated probably that I
i
9 il 7 1
some of the positions that you've said are Grade 16 are not.
2 Now, you understand the SES has the classification 3
authority, but, of course, you've got to be right.
4 So, if you choose to label one of the positions that 5
we said we don't think that is a supergrade, you had better be 6
prepared to show that it is.
7 In other words, if you're labeling grade 14s or 15s 8
supergrades, someone is eventually going to come back and say 9
you've got to reclassify th.at downward, becuase we will be l
l 10 doing reviews.
But we aren't going to be doing pre-audits, and 11 if you think you can build the position up, for example, add 12 more to it to make it genuinely a supergrade, we're not saying 13 you cannot label any of those positions supergrade.
14 So there will be a considerable area of choice.
- But, 1
15 again, you've got to be prepared to define your actions.
l l
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, when you come back, you'll 17 be coming back with sort of an OMB mark, here's the number, and>
1 18 if you're interested, here's what you do?
l 19 MS. GREENBURG :
Yes.
As you undoubtedly know, OMB 20 will say, "Here are S2f',000 for something," and you choose to f
i 21 use it for something else.
And that is often done, I under-22 stand.
It seems it was often done to us in our own program.
23 In any case, you can do that.
But you had better be i
i 24 able to define it.
l kwFund Rwornn, tn '
25 COMMISSIONER GOSSICK:
Sally, with that number, the I
jl'8 10 1
categorization of SES versus non-SES, like the cases we were 2
talking about, is that --
3 MS. GREENBURG :
I will be given two numbers.
4 Essentially, you will be given an SES number.
If you've asked 5
for a non-SES number, you'll get a non-SES number.
And there's 6
a third muicer not too many have asked for.
That's the number 7
of what we used to call Public Law 313, scientific and research 8
positions.
9 (Commissioner Gilinsky entered the room at 10:00 a.m.)
10 1 MS. GREENBURG:
There will be three numbers for some 11 agencies, two for others, and others might not have any of the 12 SES non-grade types.
So, you will be getting three separate 13 numbers.
14 COMMISSIONER GOSSICK:
Right.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What fits into this non-SES 16 number?
I l
17 MS. GREENBURG:
Non-SES numbers are GS individual 18 preformers.
You, of course, didn't use GS -- but there is that 19 type.
20 Now, you probably -- it's a little questionable l
21 whether or not, if you have separate authority, and they're not 22 in the SES, I'd like to work with you privately, really, to 23 find out whether or not you can retain that authority in some 24 cases.
a-F eers n corrers, inc.
25 For the non-SES position, you're in a little different, i
I
jl.9 11 l
1 position from the agencies which do not have independent 2
authority.
3 So, it's possible that there may be some re;idual 4
authority remaining.
The fact is that the law was drafted 5
rather loosely, and there's some room for maneuvering in there.
6 And we're not quite sure we've testet the limits of that.
7 That might be people like a special assistant to 8
someone.
It might be people like a technical adviser who has 9
no staff, but is just a high level scientist who advises you.
l 10 1 The second category are these ST types, the public 11 law types, whoever, to be R&D, who again don't have any l
12 supervisory responsibilities.
So, that would be an extremely 13 high level bench scientist.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
R&D or technical persons?
15 MS. GREENBURG:
Not a technical adviser, but it 16 specifically makes it R&D.
So, you're really talking about, in 17 this case, about an ind.ividual bench scientist.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For STS?
l l
19 MS. GREENBURG:
That's what I'm saying.
I'm going to l
20 have to work with you a little.
We haven't gotten all the 21 answers.
General Counsel is scampering around trying to work 22 out these things.
~
23 The problem is the law is a little bit hazy on this 24
- theory,
.o we're working on that.
You definitely will get an c.-F.eers n.corters, inc.
25 SES number.
There's no question about that, and you may have l
12 jl 10 I
retained some of your old special authority.
2 COMMISSIONER GOSSICK:
There are certain positions 3
now, like our Inspector General, our auditors, and adjudicatory-4 type person, I believe, specifically spelled out in your 5
bulletin.
It said that these would not be in the Executive 6
Service.
7 MR. DONOGHUE:
They would not be general.
8 MS. GREENBURG:
That's right.
They would be --
9 right.
Yes, that's onother number that you will be getting.
l 10 I You will be gett.ing a number which says you will have a certain 11 number of career reserved positions.
12 Now, At the outset, we thought it was going to have If a -- too low a number.
He have a floor to reach, a statutory 14 floor, on the r umber of career reserved, government-wide;' and 15 we were under the impression that we would have difficult ~y i
16 reaching that 21oor.
17 It tarns out we are not having any difficulty reachingi l
18 that floor, so we're not insisting that agencies arbitrarily l
classifypositionsascareerreservedunlesstheyreallyneededl 19 20 definition.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are you going to come back with 22 a number for career reserve or an identification by position?
23 MS. GREENBURG:
In a sense, it's both.
The positions 24 do have to be on the career reserved, identified and published a Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 in the Federal Register.
So, the career reserved designation I
13 jl 11 9
1 does appertain to a particular position.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, in your response to us, 3
you will be giving us specific position identifications?
4 MS. GREENBURG :
That's right, on the career reserved.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Actually, that's a subset of 6
the total number of SES.
So, in a sense, you will already have 7
ceen saying, "Here are the ones that are career reserved, SES; 8
and, in addition, here's a certain number of additional SES 9
slots which you may allocate among the rest?"
i 10 MS. GREENBURG:
You do not have to -- for example, if 11 you decide that a position were vacant and you've decided that 12 you didn't want to establish that position, even though it 13 were labeled career reserved, you would not have to use one of 14 your numbers for that.
15 So, what you said is not quite accurate.
You can i
16 mix and match, but you could not take a position that we said j
17 is career reserved and just say, "Well, I'd rather call it 18 general."
l 19 MR. DONOGUE:
How about the mark on the appointment 20 authorities?
Will that come at the same time?
f 21 MS. BREENBURG :
Ye.9.
The number of non-careers will 22 come at the same time.
What happened there, the agencies did
~
23 overshoot, there is a 10 percent government-wide limitation on 24 the number of non-career, and they came in with a 12.7 percent,,
l a-FWwW Reorun, lx, 25 which does mean that they're going to have to be cut back by
{
i l
j1 12 14 1
that extra 2.7 percent.
2 Now, that's not one that we are going to try to 3
come under.
It will be 10 percent.
But there will have to be 1
4 a cutback, probably government-wide, of about 200 positions 5
that were requested for non-career, that can't be allowed under 6
the law.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And that also will be at the 8
first stage?
9 MS. GREENBURG :
That's right.
We'll be giving you 10 the complete package.
11 As I said, that's one of the things we'll be discuss-12 ing with you before, too.
We're going to try to avoid coming 13 down with surprises.
Disappointments we expect; surprises 14 we hope we don't come up with.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I had some questions relating to 16 some of the statutory officers of the Commission.
Where there 17 are positions that are mentioned in our organic statutes in 18 some -- with some language, why there seems to be some difficul-19 ty in settling down on how these then become treated under the 20 new Civil Service Act, and so on?
l 21 MS. GREENBURG :
That is a problem.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The particular ones that exist, 23 there are a group under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
24 The Commission has signed -- I believe the language runs, '"five,
co-Federst Recorters, Inc.
25 career officers at grade Executive" turns out to be l
l
15 jl 13 1
" Executive, 5."
2 As I understand it, and I would not want to represent 3
that my understanding is total by any manner or means, that 4
language has been interpreted to mean both prior to passage of 5
the new Civil Service Reform Act and after, that those positions 6
must be career reserved, SES positions.
7 And I must be -- I'll be damned if I understand that 8
and find it very difficult to accept.
9
!!S. GREENBURG:
There is a specific provision in the I
10 statute,which was added by the Congress, which says that a l
11 position in an executive level, which is specifically required 12 in statute to be career, must be career reserved.
13 And that's where that's coming from.
14 I don't know how specific it is, in your statute, but 15 if it says its career, then that's what they've done.
They hAve I
16 said, in our statute, that any executive level position which 17 must be filled by career under old statutes must be career 18 reserved.
I 19 COMMISSIONER AHFARNE:
But I think there's a distinc-l 20 tion, isn't there, Joe, in our case, those aren't specific 21 positions there.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's right.
They're not 23 tied to a specific position.
We're simply given five executive 24 positions to distribute.
We distributed them to persons ratheri a-Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 than to positions.
jl 14 16 1
MS. GREENBURG:
I wonder why?
Did they put that 2
career in your original statute?
Do you have any idea?
3 MR. CONOGHUE:
Nobody knows specifically, and OMB 4
was very chagrined at the time it happened.
5 MS. GREENBURG:
Well, yes, it sounds as if your 6
statute was subject to some of the things our statute was.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
The peculiar characteristic is 8
that a senior management position in the Commission Staff may 9
be held by designated, is absolutely, clearly a general-type 10 1 position -- could be so designated, filled by a person who 11 appropriately fills it and so on.
12 And at some point down the line, we say, "By George, 13 this person is doing great, and we have available in our hip 14 pockets here or vest pockets one of those career 5s, and we're i
15 going to give it to that person for recognition of great-16 service."
i 17 COMMISSIONER GILINKSY:
We don't have the career 5s 18 anymore.
l 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
We do have the career 5s, is what l
20 l the problem is.
l 21 MS. GREENBURG:
No, I think you don't.
I suspect 1
22 what you tell me --
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
They disappear?
l 24 MS. B REENBURG :
Yes.
I think when you said they're co-Fedwei Rooorters, Inc.
25 not a position -- when you say they're just an authority, the l
l
}
jl 15
'l 17 1
authorities are cancelled if they are not Senate confirmation 2
positions.
Are they?
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No.
4 MS. GREENBURG:
That authority is indeed specifically 5
canceled.
The law is not vague on that at all.
You can make 6
them there -- SES -- and you can use them, and you can make them general as long as it doesn't say," Director of such-and-7 such will be a level 5 career appointee," you're all right.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Then, wait, wait.
9 I
10 l I don't understand what it means when the Civil 11 Service ' Reform Act says, somewhere in the statute, " Career 12 Officer," they've got to be career reserved.
13 MS. GREENBURG:
It says " position," and they're only l
14 for a level 5.
15 And, as you say, they' re not designated to. a po. ition. i s
16 I was a little surprised to hear it, because our researcher i
17 didn't find those, and that's why, because they are not 18 positions, they're just authorities.
1 19 So I -- I don't think you've got the problem.
l l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Isn't it correct that the l
20 l
General Counsel is a designated 57 21 22 MS. GREENBURG:
Probably not career.
We only find a very, very small number, government-wide.
23 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There are just these five that are,
l aJewW Reorun, lm.
25 designated as career officers, not by positions, and let me see i
I
j l' 16 '
18 1
if I can read back to you what you seen to be telling me, is 2
that a way to deal with tt 's and perhaps a way, but at least 3
a way under the new law, would simply be to declare that as of 4
the ef fective date of the SES, we don' t have any more.
We 5
don't have five career officers.
6 That's now an obsolete statute of the Energy 7
Reorganization Act, which has been retracted or nullified, or 8
whatever is appropriate language by the Civil Service Reform 9
Act.
10 i MS. GREENBURG:
That's right.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And furthermore, we declare that 12 the officers who have held these -- these do retain under SES, 13 the career reservation sort of rights that attach to that 14 statutory language.
15 MS. GREENBURG:
The individuals will be converted i'
16 to career -- presumably, the,,'re career.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, they're career, for the most 18 part, yes -- they're career officers.
19 MS. GREENBURG:
Right.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And the positions that they hold I
21 under SES will be typically general SES?
22 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But they will have the customary I
24 protection to a career officer in an SES general position?
l La-P-wwW Reorwes, lm.
25 MS. GREENBURG.
Exactly.
l
j l 17 -
19 j
MR. GOSSICK:
What will happen if one of those chose 2
not to enter the SES?
3 MRS. GREENBURG :
If he chooses not to enter the SES, l
4 the position ~will be SES.
The positions will be SES general.
But he will retain the is tel 5, and you'll pay him level 5 5
6 salary, and he'll retain his career status.
And that's exactly 7
what will happen.
You can move him, if you could move him before.
8 9
There's no entitlement to a specific assignment.
If there was I
10
-- so you can move him.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we didn't move him at such 12 time as he left his position for his own reason, then it 13 reverts to the SES general?
14 MS. GREENBRUG:
Exactly.
You can fill it then.
i 15 If you have a non-career appointment authority, you j
i 16 can fill it non-career.
If you have a limited appointment 17 authority -- that is, if you wanted for some reason to bring 18 somebody in for a one-or two-year assignment and have him 19 leave, you can do it that way.
20 Or, you can fill it with another career person.
I 21 That would be the option.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Unless the legal scholars find 23 some flaw in this configuration, which is now laid out before 24 us, why it seems to me a reasonable resolution of effort.
I I
Amfewal Recrun, lm, 25 looked at it.
It seemed to be a headache upon which people had I
jl 18 20 1
substantially differing opinions as to what it all meant.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's even more a reasonable 3
resolution.
I think what Sally has said, that's what the law 4
required.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I say I trust that in arriving 6
at this interpretati'.n we're not in any disagreement with the 7
laws of the land.
8 MS. GREENBURG:
No, I think you're all right.
The 9
fa ct is that the Congress put that provision that was giving l
10 I us ci.fficulties in, thinking of the head of the Forest Service.
11
- Well, t;.' head of the Forest Service is not one of those
~
12 positions.
It has always been filled career, but just by 13 custom.
It does not say in the statute.
So they had a specific 14 target in mind, and they missed it.
They just shot off into 15 space.
16 But, there are about five that do meet that.
But it 17 is tied to position.
And if yours are not positions with 18 authorities, then ycu. are all right.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let us so hold and stick stoutly I
20 to the interpretation.
21 Now, I've got to --
22 MR. KELLEY:
Can I say my silence is neither assent 23 nor dissent, f
e4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE^:
I noticed that, but I t.hought as I
m FewW Rmo,ms, tu.
I 25 long as you didn't break down and pound on the table, I'd keep I
I
j l' 19 21 1
talking.
2 MR. KELLEY:
Well, we're working on this.
It sourds 3
reasonable to me, but I don't have a steady opinion on it.
4 CHAIBMnN HENDRIE:
There is a related proposition, 5
which, again, puzzles me a little bit.
Four officers of the 6
Commission, at grade 4 -- he's one -- and the heads of the 7
three major offices.
I think the -- does the statute refer to 8
them as career officers?
9 VOICES:
No, r.o.
l 10 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It says, " serve at the pleasure 11 of the Commission."
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
"At the pleasure?"
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's " appointed by" and " serve 14 at the pleasure of."
15 Now, the positions under SES are certainly general l
16 positions.
17 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
I 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is absolutely no question 19 about that.
If one of those positions is filled by a career j
l I
20 1 officer of the agency, there are certain rights that attach to 21 his being a career officer, even though he serves in a general 22 postion.
23 I'm curious as to what the interaction of the 24 language of the base statute is, " serve at the pleasure of,"
i co-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 versus the sort of position and grade rights that a career
ji.20 22 1
officer has, even though serving a general position.
2 That is, for those four jobs, is there anything 3
different than for any other general -- SES general job?
4 MS. GREENBURG:
No.
Essentially, the SES replaces 5
all those special authorities of that sort, if the position is 6
in SES.
7 But, of course, what it means is that -- it means 8
that you do not have the right te that position.
No one has 9
a right to a position in the SES.
l 10 So, you can reassign any person.
What you can not l
11 do to any career member of the Senior Executive Service is 12 essentially, say, leave government.
You can't do that.
You 13 have to reassign them to another position in the SES.
14 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
If a person is filling one 15 of those " serve at the pleasule of" positions, not just our
{
16 agency
-- it's obviously across the board in the government --
l 17 what status does that individual have when SES clicks on?
i i
18 US. C EENBURG:
When it clicks on, it usually would i
i t
19 mean that you've got to make a determination whether the l
1 20 individual was a career-type or a non-career-type person.
And 21 you offer the individual either conversion to career or to 22 non-career, based on that determination.
23 And, of course, there's going to be some close calls 24 in here.
You're going to have to decide whether or not an co-Federal Reporters, inc.
25 individual is career type, and at scme places it's clear he has i
ji 21 23 I
been in the government 25 years, and he's clearly a career-type 2
person.
3 In another case, it's very obvious he worked on the 4
last political -- last Presidential campaign, was hired very 5
politically, obviously.
6 But then, there's going to be an area of judgment.
7 The individual, if he doesn't like the judgment that you've 8
made, can carry an appeal to the Merit Protection Systems Board 9
and say, "I am a career type.
I haven't had 25 years.
I have 10 had 12 yeTrs."
And they're going to have to make a finding.
Il There's no body of law or precedent that is going to 12 start making these cuestions come up.
It becomes a matter, 13 first, of your judgment.
I 14 And then, finally, if the individual disagrees with 15 the conclusion that you've come to about whether he's career -
i i
16 type or non-career-type, then he could get a decision from the l 17 Merit Systems Protection Board, sssentially overrt'.ing your 18 judgment in that matter, if it were the case.
19 So, some of them will be close calls.
There is no 20 way - no easy way of distinguishing a hybrid, to say that f
21 it's more this and more that.
If it's a true-mix case, that's 22 the problem.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is there anyone who will be 24 reviewing the agency's calls other than if an appeal is made?
i afWwd Reormn, lm.
25 MS. GREENBURG:
We are in our guidance, saying to the I
ji 22 24 1
individual, if you don't like -- you have the right to appeal 2
directly to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but if you don't like what your agency has come up with, why don't you first 3l 4
talk with the agency, because maybe you can resolve it at 5
that level instead of making a case.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was thinking of the other 7
case -- the agency --
8 MS. GREENBURG:
Well, no, there's nothing in the law.
9 I'm not an attorney, and I don't know whether there's a l
I 10 !
possibility of going to court on a thing like that.
11 There is a possibility for an individual to go to 12 court after the Merits Systems Protection Board has made a
- 13 finding,'but I don't know whether there's any appeal for the 14 agency first to get it.
15 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, no.
Let's take the case.
l 16 of the recent political campaigner, and the agency says, "It's 17 clear that you're a government employee."
18 MS. BREENBURG:
Well, yes, there will be lots of i
l 19 people watching that process.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On the outside, is there any 1
21 system to review it?
Do your people review it, or --
22 MS, GREENBURG:
Yes.
Essentially, we do have the 23 authority to look at the. career types, and we are -- the 24 authority rests with us.
>FWwW Reorms, lm 25 In most cases, we're not going to change the agency i
jlL23 25 1
judgment on this, because it is going to be a matter of 2
judgment, as I tried to say.
But, if we find that you are 3
abusing it, yes, you will get told about that.
4 Now, I was thinking about the --
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Fascinating.
Well, you've helped 6
me over a couple of curiosi';ies on which I must say, opinions, 7
you know, as I've talked tc mple in the agency, have been 8
somewhat mixed.
9 And I guess the way I come out of this, and will 10 I regard the matter, until further authoritative reflection, 11 will be that once SES goes into effect, that that language 12 in the Energy Reorganization Act about the nature of the 13 appointments of our 4s and 5s, and whether they are the career 14 position, and so on, is simply, in effect, null and void.
15 And SES settles a designation, appropriate designa-i 16 tions,for the positions which those people held or for those 17 positions.
And that's that, and that they have no -- they 18 conform to all the SES rules and treatment, and so on, and are !
19 no different from other SES positions.
I 20 Let me ask about the -- what in other agencies may be 21 administrative law judges; and in our agency, we actually have 22 one person,who is designated' Administrative Law Judge, to deal 23 primarily with disciplinary proceedings.
But the corresponding 24 set of officers,under the Commission, are members of the Atomici co Fedtest Recorters, Inc.
25 Safety and Licensing Panel, or Appeals Panel, each of which i
i
ji 24, 26 I
has a chairman, vice-chairman, whatever, and then a nt' her of 2
permanent members; and for the ASLP, a number of part-time 3.
members.
I 4
Now, let's see, these -- the leadership positions 5
are SES.
I think that's what we've come in and said -
.I 6
think agrees?
e tl 7
MS. GREENBURG:
There is some question.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 l
is j
i 16 l
1 17 l
1 18 l
l 19 l
I 20 21
~1 23 24 WFederse Recorters, Inc.
25
27 2638.02 RMG 1 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Question about that.
Some dis-2 cussion would be helpful because there are some questions l
and the Boald members themselves are curious.and so on, about 3
I 4
how all of this fits together.
5 MS,. GREENBURG:
Perhaps if I describe --
6 MR. KELLY :
There's another wrinkle on this.
7 Maybe you could factor it in your discussion.
That is, with 8
the exception of the one ALJ we have had all along, our judges, 9
as you will, are not ALJs, and therefore their pay is not set l
10 I by the Civil Service or its successor.
11 This has not been a problem from the standpoint of simply becausel 12 the independence of the office in terms of money, 13 they all make $47.5.
But you have got, I think, possible 14 problems coming up, because you are going to have the possi-l 15 bility of bonuses for good performance from the Commission.
l l
l 16 And it could create --
l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We have finally devised an I
l 18 incentive system for Board members.
I 19 MR. KELLY:
That is exactly -- I have talked about l i
20 that very point, and there is a concern. AndIamjustraisingl 21 a point, and maybe there is a good answer.
Maybe something I
22 can be worked out.
23 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think the straightforward way i
24 is the bonuses be reciprocal of the total time a Board member aFMwWReorun,lm.
25 spends in. hearings.
s 28 RMG 2 1
MR. KELLY:
They accuse lawyers of charging by the 2
pound.
3 MS. GREENBURG:
Going back to the AT.J problem, 4
ALJs were not included in the SES, even before the Congress 5
wanted to make absolutely certain of that, and they put in 6
statute.
I am saying, they are individual performers, ALJs, 7
the Board members in this case are individual performers, 8
not supervisors and managers.
9 The issue came up about the supervisory, the chief 10 i ALJ grade 17 in other agencies.
We are saying before the j
i 11 statute that they were not in either, because they are not l
12 full supervisors.
t 13 They -- I understand, I have been told they do not 14 have anything to do with evaluating performance.
They don't l
15 have anything to do with discipline or any of those things.
i 16 All they do is say you take these cases, you take 1
17 those cases, I'll take these cases.
They da work flow, buttheh 18 i are not full supervisors.
I 19 MR. KELLY:
They are kind of a mix.
20,
MS. GREENBURG:
I am saying the ALJs, the Chief ALJ,l l
21 that is what our best information was.
That would not be in l
1 i
22 the SES.
But, Congress muted the question by saying ALJs are 23 not.
They jus'. clamped down.
24 ALJs proper would not be in the SES.
These clearly, a-FWeral Ruomrs, lm I
i 25 the members of your boards who are like ALJs, not the Chief ALJ; l
l 1
e
29 RMG 3 1
but like ALJs, equally would be out on the first ground that 2
they are not supervisors and managers.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is the way we have come 4
there.
Let's talk about the chairman, the vice-chairman, the 5
executive secretary, if there is one, of such bodies.
6 MS. GREENBURG:
That's the problem.
They are going 7
to have to make a judgment whether or not they do meet the 8
supervisory or managerial criterion.
I don't know enough.
It 9
sounds to me as if they may.
l 10 1 MR. KELLY:
We put them in that way.
l 11 MS. GREENBURG:
In this case, they are probably in l
12 and then your problem comes up.
We were talking about it I
(
13 before we got the meeting started briefly, and it seems to me l
14 that you can do it and it may not be a perfect answer, but 15 that it is clear that you must Le not only very, very clean, l
16 but perceived to be very, very clean in this respect.
l 17 That you cannot allow yourself to be in a position l
18 of paying off or appearing to be paying off people for siding l
t i
19 in one way or another.
The two things that we were talking 20 about to help would be you are legally entitled, of course, butj i
I 21 the fact is it possibly would be hazardous to ycur health to 22 do it.
i Two things would be -- how you set up the performance l 23 i'
24 review panel of these people, and that would be something that l
a Fenl Rmonm, W.
25 you would want to pick the membership very, very carefully so j
I
30 RMG 1
that you could say look and see the membership.
You can see 2
that there is no possible payoff involved, because they are 3
the ones that are making those recommendations.
I 4
And then, it would behoove you probably to accept 5
the recommendations of the review panel and not frequently 6
overturn them in these specific cases.
Because there would 7
be questions asked as to why you did it.
8 The other thing would be that when you set the goals 9
and objectives for these people, that you very carefully don't j 10 1 put anything in that could interpreted as which way are they i
11 deciding?
~
12 In other words, you just have to set the goals and 1,1 objectives on management grounds and that sort of thing, rather 14 than -- I don't know that you couldn't set them on certain l
15 efficiency grounds in terms of moving cases.
That would be l
l 16 a matter of judgment.
{
17 But, I think you do have to guard yourself against l
18 an accusation that you are paying them off.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In any event, ifIunderstandf 20 what you said, it would be improper for us to -- if we are going l
21 to consider t ese people as SES, to allow them to regularly i
22 participate as members of boards in hearing cases?
l 23 MS. GREENBURG:
Well, no.
24 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't agree.
l' I
a FewW Reorwn, lx, MS. GREENBURG:
I don't think that that -- the fact 25 I i
l
31 RMG 5 1
is that you have to be uble to show why you paid the bonus 2
and it has got to be something that reasonable people could look 3
at and say, "Yes, this bonus was paid honestly for good work 4
without relationship to how this person is deciding on cases."
5 I don't think that would preclude his serving on 6
a case.
7 MR. KELLY:
It is a very unattractive option from 8
the standpoint of a guy like Al Rosenthal.
He likes to sit 9
on cases.
He doesn't just want to run the shop.
l 10 I So, there is a big downside to saying you can only l
11 administer.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There is also a big downside 13 in paying a bonus in that case where he is sitting regularly 14 on cases.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You might very well decide that l
16 these -- they are just for -- nominally at the present time, 17 you might just decide that these in fact are positions in whichi I
i 18 you take -- recognizing the initial setting of the salary under' I
19 the SES, that you do not propose to pay bonuses on these l
20 positions and just make that announcement at the beginning of 21 things in that part of the game.
j i
22 MS. GREENBURG:
That could certainly be, i
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And just eliminating that aspect l l'
24 of it, although in the practical applicati.on, why, by the time Aa-Fews amomn. ix.
25 the five of us got through daciding what our bases were for
32 RMG 6 1
assignment of bonuses, I doubt very much that there would be 2
much problem with charges of influence and so on.
3 But, it would seem to me that that is a possible way 4
to deal with that situation and one which is considered.
5 MS. GREENBURG :
It certainly could.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am somewhat concerned about that, 7
but you think it is appropriate where the chiefs of these 8
panels are expected to exercise not only the traffic direction 9
of the work. but also a more stronger supervisory aspect.
And l l
10 !
I must say, as Vic noted when you were talking about your I
11 description of Chief Administrative Law Judge activities, it 12 seems to be accurate as best we can tall.
But it may not be 13 at all what either was intended or is proper.
14
- I think from our standpoint, I think we clearly look.
I 15 to the chiefs of these" panels, the chairmen of these panels for j i
16 some supervisory activity.
My own view, at least, is that.
I 17 The level of perfection in individual performance 3
t i
18 on our boards does not lead me to believe that it would be i
19 inappropriate for the chairmen of those panels to exercise somei 20 i advice and supervisory functions with regard to them.
l l
21 MS. GREENBURG:
Well, I understand even in the j
22 Administrative Law Judge community proper, there are a small 23 minority of Chief Law judges who do do this kind of thing.
l 24 And I gather that when they go to lunch with their colleagues, wFMust Rwornn, lm.
25 l they have a taster.
Literall', that was that they were joking.
33 RMG 7 1
Of course, what someone said to one of these who was 2
known to be a martinet in that respect, " Don't you think some-3 body better taste that before you eat it?"
So they are not 4
at the moment well-liked, and they are the exception, apparent 1:(,
5 to the norm in the Administrative Law Judge proper.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is also a considerable body 7
of sentiments in the town that taken as a group, the 8
Administrative Law Judge list is not the most splendid example 9
of what sh'ould I say -- perfection of service that one could l
10 I set down.
And I notice an assortment of grumps, grumbles, 11 and "When are we going to get these people under control" sort 12 of initiatives, which suggest that, you know, any feeling on 13 their part that they are beyond reproach is a trifle presump-14 tuous.
15 MS. GREENBURG:
I have heard these things myself.
I 16 So, I think there is something there.
l 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is to be noted that that I
i 18 suggests they are really doing their jobs.
I I
i 19 MS. GREENBURG:
That's right.
It should.
But I 20 ;
think what, Commissioner Kennedy, what you may have -- I may l
21 have not made myself clear when I said " set their goals."
You 22 ;
could give them responsibility to sit on cases, cut you would f
23 not write those things into the goal.
24 You must write managerial things into the goals a Fe-w swomn. im.
25 '
which would relate to the efficiency and effectiveness criteria, 8
34 RMG 8 1
and not to the content of the decision, which would be dangerous.
2 There is nothing illegal about it.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That wouldn't concern me.
4 I would assume we wouldn't do that.
It is the appearances 5
that you mentioned earlier.
No matter what you wrote in the 6
goals, if the individual is actually sitting on cases, to the 7
extent that he does this, the more he does it, the more likely 8
you are to at least get the charge.
l 9
MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
Right.
t l
10 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And in our business, perhaps 11 perception is more important than the reality.
12 MS. GREENBURG:
The perception of impartiality is 13 certainly as important as impartiality.
htisaproblem, and 14 it may be that the solution is simply to say that we.will not l
l 15 give bonuses to those people.
i 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Mr. Hendrie suggested that.
l l
17 MS. GREENBURG:
That is your prerogative.
Bonus is !
I i
18 not.a right.
Bonus is a decision of yours.
l 19 MR. KELLY:
Might there not be a third possibility? l 20 !
I would think from their standpoint, speaking again about the l
l l
l 21 supervisors, Chief ALJ people, I suppose if you asked them l
22 themselves, I would like to sit on cases, I would like to get 23 bonuses, and I would like to preserve my independence in the 24 option we have talked about, eliminate one of the three.
n FMust Rwomn, lw l 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Choose one.
l I
35 RMG 9 1
MR. KELLY:
Choose one.
Let me get to the point.
2 What about some sort of mechanism whereby your Agency, 3
an outside agency, rank their performance just in the case of 4
the ALJ7 5
MS. GREENBURG:
That's in a sense what I was getting 6
at with the notion of picking your performanct review panel 7
carefully.
There is nothing to say a performance has to be 8
drawn from the Agency, and you could have an ALJ sit on it.
9 You can have an attorney sit on it, the Bar Associa-10 1 tion.
You can have the office of personnel management do it.
11 So, you could configure.
12 MR. KELLY:
Our Office of Personnel Management?
13 MS. GREENBURG:
No, ours, sorry.
You can do it in 14 a number cf ways.
But, the test would be if you help it up l
15 to a critical member of the public, would they say clean?
i 16 That's the test.
17 MR. KELLY:
I would think the idea of getting some j
l 18 kind of outside review board ought to be at least thought about!
I 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me under the i
20 best af circumstances, the notion of bonuses for judges is 21 a pretty tricky one.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Somebody has to establish I
i 23 a rating scale and that itself, you knew, these things can f
I 24 lean one way or another.
Somebody has to make recommendations.'
a-F e e s a me m n.tx.,
25 l Somebody has to make a final decision.
i l
i a
36 RMG 10 1
Interesting proposition.
I don't know that it applies 2
to our folk at all, except a single Administrative Law Judge 3
not, and none of the chiefs of this thing hold office, 4
hold that of fice.
5 Their proposition is that they are not used to being 6
under the Civil Service Act, about Administrative Law Judges, 7
that you couldn't judge their performance or there was language 8
which prevented the performance evaluation.
9 And I noticed they preserved or fought very jealously l
10 I to protect. I noticed efforts, a suggestion made around here l
11 that we look and see how the board members are performing.
l 12 That *.here is a substantial complaint that comes downwind from 13 the:lr offices saying, "You can't do that.
It's improper."
14 And now, was that -- there was such a provision, 15 right.
Is that wiped out by the Reform Act, or what is the I
l 16 situation?
t 17 MS. GREENBURG:
No.
The Reform Act does not repeal :
1 that at all.
There is, however, a bill before the Congress.
18 19 I don't think it has been introduced yet, but there will be l
20 a bill introduced by Ribicoff, which I have not yet read.
I I
21 I have it in my briefcase to read, which would, j
22 I understand, give a lot of the Administrative Law Judge 23 authority to the Administrative Conference.
24 And I gather that there is something about evaluation co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 in there.
l 1
37 RMG 11 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This is the, what, his regulatory 2
reform, the current verrion of his regulatory reform effort 3
with Mr. Percy and Mr. Glad?
4 MS. GREENBURG:
That's my impression.
5 MR. STOIBER:
It has been introduced last week.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Until that or some version of it is 7
signed into law, if ever, we stand with the -- with the 8
historic provisions that you can't evaluate, must not avaluate --
9 how was that phrased, by the way?
Do you know?
I i
10 I MS. GREENBURG:
No, I don't.
I am sure there are l
11 mar.y people who are more' familiar with it than I am.
The Administrative Law Judge you t ve does come under my jurisdictioln.
12 13 But, just for two weeks.
And I really haven't given it that 14 much attention yet.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.
Anybody know how that phrasing l
l 16 goes?
Seems to be a considerable void here.
l l
17 MS. GREENBURG:
I don't know.
I I
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I guess it does not apply i
l 19 formally to our panel members, except for the single panel l
l 20 member who is designated.
Inadditiontobeingapanelmember,f I
i 21 is the Administrative Law Judge for the Agency.
l 22 But the principle, certain the members of the panel 23 and the chiefs of the panel feel that it applies to them in 24 principle.
If that stands in the law, what are you going to a-Fund Rwornn, tm.
l 25 do with Chief Administrative Law Judges who do have supervisory l--
4 1
38 RMG 12 1
either who feel they exercise supervisory responsibilities or 2
who are felt to do so by the Agency head and then that division 3
is designated for SES?
l 4
What are you going to do with the apparently con-S flictling statutory requirements?
6 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
Well 7
CHAIRMAN HENDL'E:
For evaluation?
8 MS. GREENBURG:
If they are in SES, they are not 9
legally Administrative Law Judges.
Because by definition, i
1 10 1 they are not legally there.
r i
l 11 CHAIR *UW HENDRIE:
I see.
12 MS. GREENBURG:
There was a sLmilar kind of 13 guardian, not in respect to examining for attorneys and the 14 decision was made and accepted by the Hill that we would not i
15 be in these cases examin2ag for attorneys.
We would be 16 examining for managers who were also attorneys.
i 17 So, if we had to use that logic, we probably could l
l 18 say "We are evaluating them as managers or superviors and 19 not as Administrative Law Judges."
f i
201 But because of the fact that by definition an I
i 21 Administrative Law Judge cannot be a member of the senior j
22 executive service, we don' t really run into that.
j i
I 23i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
At least there is a formal I
i 24 l avoidance of the semantic difficulties.
There may be some co-Federst Recorren, Inc.,
1 25 ;
practical cases, and in any case, in this Agency, because of i
i l
I
39 RMG 13 1
the chiefs of our panels who have been designated for SES are 2
not ALJs in any case, why, the legal aspects don't arise.
3.
Correct?
Fascinating.
I 4
Are there comments?
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I got a few questions.
6 Sally, in the bonuses, what kind of guidelines do 7
you intend to put out on it?
8 MS. GREENBURG:
My impression, and we haven't taken 9
this to the highest leveh in our agency for a definitive 10 '
opinion, but my impression is that they feel they want to go l
11 along the lines that they have been saying all along.
12 They want to deregulate and to give agencies the 13 freest possible hand.
The probability is, therefore, that in 14 terms of guidance, we will be giving you a guidance on budgeting 15 only.
We will say -- and I am making up numbers -- in the I
16 event they may change something like 5 to 8 percent of your l
i 17 base executive salary should be budgeted for the payment of I
18 bonuses.
I 19 I would like to use a $50,000 average salary times 20 l 100 people.
Because I can do the arithmetic in my head.
l 21 So, that would be a base of $5 million.
And you would take j
22 7 percent of that.
So, you would have S5,350,000 would be your 23 executive salary budget t.or that year.
24 It would be budgeted regularly and you can distribute
..sen i nc=nm. ire.
i, 25 it according to the guidance I'm getting now anc it might change i
I l
40 RMG 14 1
in any manner that you wish within the law, which says that you 2
can only distribute them to 50 percent of your SES positions.
3 That's more than people.
But positions.
4 The fact is that you are g6ing to be under a GAO 5
scrutiny and you are going to be under OMB scrutiny.
So, if 6
you administer it in ways that we would? consider managerially 7
unsound, like giving everybody an equal bonus, regardless of 8
what their performance is, or giving everybody 20 percent 9
bonuses, or giving everybody a 2 percent bonus, somebody is 10 1 going to bring it up and discuss it with you.
l 11 And so, there will be that kind of control.
- But, 12 we are not going to give you, as far as I can see now, a 13 distribution that you have got to say 2 percent of them will 14 get 20 percent, and 5 percent of them will get 5 percent, or 15 anything like that.
i 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I.'m not -- parden me for i
i l'7 not being as f amiliar with the law as I should be.
Is there 18 a specific time at which that bonus is given?
19 MS. GREENBURG:
It can only be given once in a fiscal 20 year.
You can do it in any way that seems managerially i
21 practicable, except that you-do have these overall limits.
22 So, it would be perhaps inadvisable to give all the 23 bonuses out, spaced out.
l 24 For example, if my performance were rated in April l
I a Fewal Rumrwrs, lme.
25 and scmeone gave me my bonus, then possibly by the end of t
41 RMG 15 1
September, if this were the routine thing, the people who were 2
recommended for bonuses there, the money would be gone.
3l So sometime or other, the Agency has got to get the 4
recommendations for bonuses to be sure they fit into the 5
statutory limits.
6 I just want to make one other point.
I don't see 7
anything, however, anything tha*- would preclude you from taking 8
who has done an outstanding. piece of work and if you want to 9
give them a bonus on the spot, instant reward, 1 or 2 or 3 or 10 1 4 like that wouldn't be disturbing.
It would be disturbing if i 11 you did it throughout the whole thing.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you see any mechanism by 13 which funds would be made available in the current fiscal year 14 to do that?
15 MS. GREENBURG:
We don't really think in those j
i 16 cases, it would practicable to do it in the current fiscal i
1 17 year.
The funds theoretically could be made available.
But 1
18 most agencies are not going to have their performance evaluation 19 systems in place with enough time to observe performance before 20 September 30th.
i 21 So it might marginally be possible, but we don't 22 recommend it.
We don't preclude it.
It against the law if 23 somebody wants to pay some bonuses this year.
It just seems l
1 24 improbable that you could get these goals set and see measure-l m-Fewal Reorwn, lm, 25 ments of them.
I I
a
42 RMG 16 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you think that OMB is 2
going along with the idea of roughly 7 percent?
3 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
They are so far.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you say a few words 5
about the performance appraisal system you believe should be 6
in place before this could operate?
7 MS. GREENBURG:
I don't think most agencies are 8
going to be far enough ahead to have anything but the system 9
in place.
That is, they should know how they are going to l
1 1
10 I set goals and should know how they are going to set up these l
11 panels that rate performance.
And they ought to have the 12 procedures in place.
(
13 I think very few agencies are going to be in the 14 position that each member of the senior executive service 15 will have his goals set out and ready to go on July 13th.
l I
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
These goals, the setting l
17 of the goals, is this a cycle that has v.o be -- that individuals 18 get a chance to participate in that discussion?
1 19 MS. GREEN 3nRG:
Yes.
That is according to law.
20 It is a collaborative effort.
But it does have to be emphasized l
21 that it is in the final analysis, the management that has to 22 say, if we do have a dispute, as to what my goals are.
You 23 do have the authority to say, "I'm sorry, those are the goals.",
I 24 But, it is a collaborative effort.
co Federal Reporters, leec.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The panel that you spoke of.
i i
43 RMG 17 1
is that also a statutory requirement?
2 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
The panel is a statutory 3
requirement.
It is not an appealed body.
I use the analogy 4
that it is like a jury in a sense.
The supervisor with 5
evidence.
The person who is being rated can give evidence 6
if he chooses to.
7 For example, the person who is evaluated, not having 8
met many of his goals and he wishes to say, "I did not meet 9
them because $10 million was taken from my budget and I was I
10 1 given this competing responsibility in the middle of the 11 year," and so on, l
12 So,'the person has an input, and in some cases you 13 might want to get input from clientele.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is this panel, though, only i
15 for an appeal?
l l
l 16 MR. GREENBURG:
No, it is not an appeal.
It makes 17 the final rating.
l 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It makes the rating?
8 l
19 MS. GREENBURG:
The supervisor, of course, makes I
i 20 the rating.
It is just ev;).ence to the jury and so are any l
I 21 other pisces of information you add.
The final rating is made 22 by the head of the agency.
I would say in mcat cases, it 23 would be desirable that vou don't override the board too
^
l 24 often.
I a-Feud Racemos, Inc g 25 '
The final rating has to be signed by the head of the i
i i
44 RMG 18 1
agency.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is there a criterion on how 3
this panel should be constructed?
4 MS. GREENBURG:
The legal and the statutory require-5 ment is that majority career membership must be on the panel 6
if a career executive is being evaluated.
Other than that there 7
is nothing about numbers that implies a membership of about 8
three or more.
I don't know.
Just for convenience.
I 9
consider three a good number.
l 10 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you were answering one l
a 11 of the previous questions, you made mention that that panel'need 12 not be from within the agency or within the fcderal government.
13 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But a majority would obviouslyl.
15 have to be.
i 16 MS. GREENBURG:
Two of them would have to be from I
i 17 the federal government.
But you could get someone from the l
l 18 Bar Association.
If you wanted five members,.you could get t
19 three from the governmant and two from outside.
If you wanted i l
20 to.
l 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Does the law require that.thel l
22 panels be set up by some specific date?
23 MS. GREEIIBURG:
No, it does not.
Though the panels, 24 as soon as the first rating is made, the panel must be in place'.
wFMw.e Roornn, tw 25 j But I see then. as a standing bcdy.
I see then as ad hoc bodies; I
i I
45 RMG 19 1
that are assembled for the purpose of rating maybe one individual 2
or a group of individuals.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it required that in order 4
to get the bonuses, must the panel have been in place and made 5
a rating?
6 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The bonuses really have to 8
be following a reting?
9 MS. GREENBURG:
The bonuses have to follow a rating.,
l 10 i That's why I think there is not quite enough time to get them l
11 in this fiscal year.
l 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is obviously desired, but 13 is it required that the bonuses be given to the people who get 14 the high ratings and not to the people that get the low ratings?
15 MS. GREENBURG:
You can say by inference there are I
16 three ratings levels required by law.
One of which the top l
i 17 one to be subdivided and most agencies are subdividing in, j
l 18 saying fully satisfactory, and going up above that.
The law I
19 1 says you cannot give bonuses to the two lower ratings.
You cant 20 only give it to the person who is fully satisfactory or above..'
I I
21 The law also does say that bonuses will be related i
f I
22 to performance.
It does not specify any more than that.
i 23' But the" intent, I think, is clear.
That if vou 24 l were really eccentric about that and did reverse it and gave m.remi amomn. im-25 all the people with the lowest ratings fully satisfactory l
l I
46 RMG 20 1
ratings, someone wouldi have to mention that.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Somewhat related question i
3 I still on the issue of pay.
The law sets out a number of pay I
4 levels will be established.
Doesn't seem to go much beyond that.
5 Could you say a few words about that?
6 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
Pay is very interesting.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I always found it so.
8 MS. GREENBURG:
In every way.
It says that you will 9
set five or more.
We are going for six.
And everything I say }
l 10 1 here is contingent on Carter agreeing with us.
So, don't say l
l 11 that Sally Greenburg said it and now it isn't true.
Because 12 if I happen to have a disagreement with the President, he has
(
13 the authority to override what I am saying.
14 But, we are going to set six rates, because we were !
15 finding that people were saying, "Okay, there are five ratings:;
i 16 GS-16 GS-17, GS-18, level 5 and level 4.
17 We didn't want that kind of classification straight-;
18 jacket.
You want to be able to da the kind of thing you said i
19 to make up for lack of bonuses by pay flexibility.
We wanted f
i 20 for you to be able to meet an offer.
l 21 One of your key people offered something by MIT.
i 22 We wanted to at least give you a crack a me.; ting this.
So, 23 we want that flexibility.
24 So, we essentially put in a sixth rate, just to a Fmeal Reorms, lm:.
I 25 break up think kind of ccmpartimentalized thinking that they l
l I
I
47 RMG 21 1
have got.
2 So, we are going to have six rates.
The statute 3l says that the first rate, the lowest rate has to be eque.1 to 4
the first rate of Grade 16, which is $44,756.
Top rate is 5
equal to the rate for Executive Level 4, which is on paper 6
$52,800.
But if the fourth rate were peaking at $50,100 for 7
the reason which I will explain in a moment.
The fifth rate 8
we are splitting the difference between $50,100 and 452,800.
9 And I think it comes out $51,450.
l 10 l And the second and third rates are equal percentage '
I 11 increments between the lowest rate and the fourth rate, the l
12
$50,100.
They run about $56,- something and $58,- something.
13 COMMISSIONbR AHEARNE:
Ycu mean S46?
14 MS. GREENBURG:
They run S46,8-or something like I
i 15 that, and $48,2-or something like that.
i 16 But it is easy enough to calculate.
Just equal l
17 percentage increments.
I l
18 But, the fact is we are not labelling under a double!
I I
???
19 asterisk.
There is an executive pay adjustment which i
l 20 annually takes effect and which seys that the pay rates for I
i 21 Executive Level 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 will be raised by the same j
i 22 percentage as the average comparability increase for Grades i
23 1 through 18.
24 And it was allowed to take effect last week at aboutl l
co-Focerat Recorters, Inc.
???
25 j 5.5 percent, which was the average pay increase low.
l l
i l
i l
J 48 R!1G 22 1
So, the paper rates all went up, but the Congressmen 2
passed an appropriations rider which says none of these new 3
rates could be paid to people; $47.5-is it.
4 The significance of that $50,100 is that is the 5
new ceiling.
6 We are essentially under a double asterisk.
We are 7
under the $50,100, which is asterisked in itself, and then we 8
are under another asterisk because of the Appropriations Act.
9 Now, that Appropriations Act expires on September 30, i
10 1979.
However, the SES goes into effect on July 13, which meanb 11 that on July 13, practically no one can take a penny home.
12 I mean, the difference is they are stuck at $47,500 by that 13 rider, the Appropriations Act ceiling.
14 But, as I say, it expires on September 30.
So 15 a.utomatically --
l i
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Unless it is replaced.
UnlessthereisanotherCongressionak MS. GREENBURG:
1 18 action, automatically our salaries will float up on that $50,100 1
19 piece, which I said we are setting at the executive salary 20 rate Four in the scale.
We don't know what they are going to do.
I i
21 There are very intelligent, knowledgeable people 22 who say it is 50-50 whether another bit of Congressional i
23 action will take place.
I think it is a little better than 24 that, that it won't, and that is probably because I am trying l
m-FMwal Ruorurs, tm:.
{
25 to put some order in the universe where there isn't any.
l l
49 RMG 23 1
But, I think that the Congress could have simply 2
said we are not permitting that Act to take effect.
They 3
could have done it that way instead of passing an appropriations 4
rider.
5 And I'm saying why did they do it the way they did 6
it?
It is not an election year.
It will go into effect 7
automatically.
It affects Congressional salaries as well, you 8
understand.
And I think they did it the ny they did it, 9
because it will, in fact, go in automatically and there will l
10 1 be no splash, no question of raising salaries, no action need l
l 11 be taken.
l 12 I could be wrong, But that's why I think it is a 13 little better than 50-50.
It not being an election year.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But at least between mid-July and 15 the 30th of September we are going to have a presumably salary,
i 16 motivated set of managers, all anchored solidly at -- right l
17 lt l
i where they have always been.
And if the Congress carries that ;
I i
18 rider forward, it could go on that way for years in the great i
l f
19 tradition of senior government service.
20 MS. GREENBURG:
That's right.
That's frankly why I
I 21 we provided for the conus to begin with.
We have seen it when 1
I 22 the $36,000 went on for seven years.
We locked at the past i
23 history and we said we have got to some way break that cap.
24 Because we cannet i :pect rational, nonpolitically l
a Fene e..u..... < s motivatedjudgmentsfremtheCongresswithrespecttoexecutivel 25 l
i i
50 RMG 24 1
pay.
And that is why we provided for a bonus procedure above 2
the bonuses, independent of that ceiling.
3 So, if we get stuck, we have got to fall back on end #2 4
the bonus.
5 6
7 l
8 9
l 10 l
11 12 13 14 15 i
16 17 18 i
19 j
20 21 22 23 1
I 24 t
c-F.e.,.4n. corms,ine.;
l 25 l
CR 2638 LEONF't3 51 jlkl 1
COMMISSIONER _ AHEARNE :
So, you would then, given the 2
current status, and if it stays there, you will really only 3
.have three levcis -- your level 1 at 44,756; then, level 2, 4
which you said was about 46.5 -- and everything else would be 5
at the 47.5?
6 MS. GREENBURG:
No, it isn't cuite true.
They'll 7
have to do something more than just repeat the rider, because 8
the salary ceiling on SES is always one :.otch above that of GS.
9 So, they have to write a fairly complicated law to stop SES 10 from being affected at 50,000, which is the shadow figure for 11 the 52.8.
12 I'm sorry.
I told you this was complicated, but SES 13 does have a ceiling of 50,000 whereas the GS will have a ceiling 14 of 47.5.
Because of the way the appropriation rider is written, l
15 you can use the 50,000 until the beginning of next year,~but l
16 they'd have to write a fairly complicated piece of legislation 17 to prevent the 50,000 from being used in the SES.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEAENE:
Somewhat slightly related --
I 19 in the current system where you have 16, 17, 18, that disappears 20 when you go to the SES.
Will OMB be interested in providing 21 the guidelines on -- or neutral on where people end up, once 22 they're in the SES?
23 MS. GREENBURG:
In salary?
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
I
.a-Fede,al Reporten, Inc.
25 MS. GREENBURG:
Essentially neutral.
This is a l
l
ji 2 52 I
management decision.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Will OMB be placing, since 3
that is no longer as tightly pegged and calculable for an 4
agency's budgrc, will they be then giving more an envelope of 5
dollars; do you know?
6 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes, and they might, for example, if 7
you decided to, in terms of salary, move all their people to 8
the very, very top -- I'm not talking now about conversion; 9
conversion is a different matter.
We do have some interest l
10 in conversion, and there will be specific guidance on that.
11 I'm talking about after the system is operating --
12 OMB might rely;and see that we have authorized you a hundred 13 positions, and that you are asking for $55 million, which would 14 roughly calculate to mean you were giving everybody the maximum.
15 They might come back and they might say --
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That hasn't been worked out j
17 in time?
18 MS. GREENBURG:
No.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Last question:
As I understand 1
20 it from the Act, once a person is in SES and in one of these l
i 21 senicr positions, you can reduce the salaries, as well as raise 22 it?
23 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes, you can.
You have mor
- o your 24 c'astion?
a-Federal Reg,ortgrg, law;,
l 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
The question is -- oh, l
13 53 1
and can you reduce the salary -- can a salary reduction only 2
be done as a performance appraisal panel rating; and, if no, 3
can you keep the person in the same position and reduce the 4
salary?
5 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
I'd better not say yes to 6
both -- the performance, the reduction in salary can be 7
independent of the performance evaluation.
It can take place 8
only once a year.
You can only reduce salary once.
You can 9
only --
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Excuse me, Sally.
Are you 11 talking about individual or position?
12 MS. GREENBURG:
It's individual.
Everything is 13 individual.
We are talking now about not reducing dollars.
14
.We are talking about reducing rates.
15 Now, if six rates -- if someone is pegged at 16 Executive Servica 4, you can reduce him do Executive Service 3 I
i 17 only.
We're putting in +he regulation --
j 18 COMMISSIONEP AEEARNE:
Just one step at a time?
I 19 MS GREENBURG:
If you warted to raise somebody, you 20 can raise them any number of steps.
You can raise or lower oniz 21 once a year, but you can raise 5, or 4, or 3.
You can raise as 22 many or as few as you want.
23 But, we're saying you can only lower once a year.
24 Now, you could --
Am FCessa Rooorters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMA?! HENDRIE:
At one step?
ji 4 54 1
MS. GREEMBURG:
That's one rate, yes.
You could go 2
You can't go from ES-4 to ES-1.
3.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why?
I' 4
MS. GREENBURG:
Because we feel that kind of punitive 5
salary decrease is not what we want.
We don't want salaries 6
to be used in quite so punitive a way.
7 We've checked with our industry consultants, and they 8
say they never do that.
So you ought to be able to get the 9
message across to the person.
It's only a couple thousand l
10 dollars we're talking about.
That means a lot if a person has 11 kids in college.
And we don't really want to do that.
12 If you remove them one rate this year, and say you're 13 going to do it again next year, they'll get the idea you're not 14 terribly pleased.
The message ought to be conveyed to them.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In this SES system, you have i
~
16 the flexibility of moving individuals frot. a pvsition to a i
17 position; is that correct?
i 18 MS. GREENBURG:
That is correct.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is there any requirement that l
2^ i there be ecuivalence in the positions?
21 MS. GREENBURG:
No, but they must be qual'.fied for l
22 the positions.
You can't move them -- one of the questions that 23 people -- people are using is:
Suppose they put the chief o#
24 an air traffic contrcl center and make him Chief of Service in -
WFederal Recorms, Inc.
25 Veterans Administration?
1:1at's totally illegal.
1
ji 5 55 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's dangerous.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Take the chairman of air 3
traffic control and make him the chief clerk in a mail room?
4 MS. GREENBURG:
No, you can't take him out of the 5
SES.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If the chief clerk happened 7
to be a management position in the SES?
8 MS. GREENBURG:
Well, I hardly --
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And was only one grade down.
10 1 MS. GREENBURG:
Well, it.wouldn't be a grade.
II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The grades don't go to 12 positions.
They're pay scales.
13 MS. GREENBURG:
Well, you know, putting it in realis-14 tic terms, you can't move to the head of the mail room, but 15 you can, indeed, if he's cualified to, let's say, be chiel 16 of administration, you could make him chief of personnel, which l
17 would be subordinate to the former position, or inversely --
l 1,
18 there are no -- it's a grading system.
19 Pay is personal, so you can move them.
l 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Does it also mean that you l
l l
21 can, as you said, you can make a person subordinate?
Then, you 22 can, I guess, similarlv, either jump over someone or submerge 23 someone; is that correct?
24 MS. GREENBURG :
Yes.
You can indeed.
You can move i
I afewW Rmo,u,s. lec.
25 people'around where you think they can do the best job for you.
ji 6 56 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What protection do the people 2
have?
3 MS. GREENBURG:
They have no real protection against 4
reassignment.
They are entitled to 15 days' notice of a 5
reassignment if they allege that the reassignment was because 6
of discrimination -- because I am a woman, I have an appeal 7
to the EEOC.
8 If I say you did it because you found out I was a 9
registered Republican, then I have an appeal.
If I say you l
10 did it because I told the newspapers that you were overspending 11 the agency's money, then I have an appeal.
12 But, with -- that's the end of it.
I can't appeal 13 against a decision.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If I didn't like the way you 15 were doing your job --
l l
16 MS. GREENBURG:
Right.
I can't appeal that.
I can 17 say you put me in a job I'm not qualified for.
That's a given. l:
I 18 You have to be sure I'm qualified.
I I
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you can't say that I put l
20 you in a job that you're overaualified for?
21 MS. GREENBURG:
No, no.
I have to meet the 22 qualifications.
But you can't say that I'm better than that, 23 no, because all jobs in the SES are considered together.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Thank you.
i wJWeai Ruovun, lmL 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
We've maybe run a little l
ji 7.
57 1
long, but it's been very useful and very interesting, and has 2
helped on a couple of difficult points.
3 I'd like to say I'm glad you were able to stay.
4 COMI ISSIONER KENNEDY:
I do have one more question 5
that I meant to ask much earlier.
6 You mentioned the grade 15 growth positions.
Can you 7
say something more about that?
What's expected of that -- what 8
we ought to do about them?
9 MS. OREENBURG:
I haven' t checked to see how many 10 l you asked for, but you are going to get -- if you did ask for 11 some, you know you are going to get a certain number of those, 12 and I can't now predict exactly how many any one agency will 13 get.
14 What you've got to do then is pick your targets of I
i 15 opportunity.
i 16 MR. GOSSICK:
23.
l i
17 MS. GREENBURG:
Okay.
Let's assume, for just l
18 argument, that you get about half of them, which is what the I
19 average would be.
So, if you wanted 23, and you only get 12 -- I i
I 20 so you've got to decide which 12.
21 Now, we may helped you in that by saying, "These 11 22 we don't think are supergrades," and then that comes into play, 23 '
what I said earlier, that you've got to beef them up a little 24 if you want to say, "I want to use my new 12 for those wrems nwomn. sn 25 positions."
i
j l, t * '
58 1
Then, you've got to be sure that you feel you've got 2
a good classification case for making them supergrade.
3 Essentially, we've said, in our view, you haven't 4
made the case in what you've submitted.
And then, the individ-ual who is in those positions, you have several choices.
You 6
can reassign them if you think that the individual in that 7
position is not up to it.
You can reassign them to another 8
grade 15 position.
9 You do not hrve to offer it in a supergrade slot 10 automatically.
But, if you do decide that's the -person. you 11 want, you can offer it to him, and that is the case in which 12 you can make a salary change.
13 That person is being promoted.
The appropriations 14 freeze does not affect that person.
So, you could put them 15 into the appropriate salary slot that would be --
i 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can you make it a direct 17 offer without going through a competitive process?
j l
If the person is in the position!,
18 MS. GREENBURG :
Yes.
19 yes.
I 20 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, if you mel?. the position t
21 with the person, that's all right?
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If it's not the person in the 23 position, you want to give it to somebody else, that now becomes 24 ccmpetitive?
l
&FWwW Rmo,un, lm 25 MS. GREENBURG:
Yes.
And the person who was in that I
I
t ji 7 -
59 1
probably could apply, but that would be all.
But you cannot 2
-- I understand we've checked into this recently -- it would 3
be, again, dangerous if you left the person in the position 4
and then held the competition with him in that.
5 You should reassign him.
Announce the vacancy.
Do 6
it that way.
Reassign him first.
Otherwise, I'm told that the 7
person has an appeal.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
10 l So, we thank you so much for coming and talking to l
I 11 us.
Very helpful.
12 The Commission will move immediately to subject umbez e
t3 13 2 of this morning, legislative proposals.
14 the meeting was adjourned.)
(Whereupon at 11:15 a.:4.
1 15 l
16 I
l l
17 l
l 18 i
l 19 l
l 1
20 i
l
';1 22 23 24 l
%-Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 l
E