ML20148G886
| ML20148G886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/02/1978 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811130290 | |
| Download: ML20148G886 (37) | |
Text
m i,
- 6 9.
s
' h.
N'U CL E A R JLATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OR F
COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSION REVIEW OF SUPERGRADE AUDIT REPOR"?
L i
.j~
\\
Place - Washington, D.
C.
Date - Thursday, 2 November 1978 Peges 1-36 4
Te4eenotto:
("02) M7 37C0 ACI-TEDE2.11 RE?ORTERS,INC.
O ffL= ri 3 - p. ~
~
' A44 Norm Cecifcl Street Washingen O.C. 2CCol.
""'""i'*
7 811 113.0 A"Jo'.
..c lill
1
)
I.
UNITED STATF" OF AMERICA 1188' j
EJ all l
NUCLEAR REGUL COMMISSION 2
t i
3 l
4 COMMISSION MEETING 5
6 COMMISSION REVIEW OF SUPERGRAJE AUDIT REPORT 7
l 8
Room 1130 9
1717 H Street, N. W.
10 Washington, D.
C.
I l
11 Thursday, November 2, 1978 12 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m.!
BEFORE:
13 ja JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman
)
)
l 15 JOHN'AHEARNE, Commissioner RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 i
PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner j7 f
ALSO PRESENT:
18 19 L. GOSSICK f
D. DONOGHUE l
20 I
R. MINOGUE 21 C.
STOIBER 22 9
23 24
,.wford Rewrters, lrw.
25 I
I f
i
e i
I 1188 EJ all 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commission meets this 3
afternoon first, to hear a report on, and discuss the super-4 grade audit.
5 Lee, why don't you go ahead.
6 MR. GOSSICK:
Mr. Chairman, I think it might be 7
well to just very briefly give a little background on this on 8
how we got to where we are.
As you probably are aware, back 9
in the spring of 1976, in our budget review sections with the i
10 OMB, there were many questions about the size of the additional 11 supergrade positions that NRC had requested.
OMB decided i
12 there was a need for a task force that would review both NRC and i
13 ERDA, who was.tn a similar situation at the time with regard to 14 supergrade positions.
15 As a result, the joint study was formed up under i
16 the leadership of OMB, but participated in by both NRC and ERDA, 17 to look at the need for executive personnel, and at organiza-18 tional practices and more on the question of supergrades.
f i
19 The study was performed during the late summer of t
20
'76, and the report was transmitted by the director of OMB i
l 21 to NRC for our comments on November 8, 1976.
3 l
22 One of the recommendations that came out of the study i
23-was that there should be a review of each and every individual l
i 24 supergrade position in both agencies, and through the recommendaL
, w.c ni neoon m,inc.
25 tion in a SECY paper to the Commission, there was approval l
i
s 3
)
givento the use of an outside' contractor in the case of NRC l
2 to perform the audits; one, because of the size of the work loaq, j
l 3
and also because objectivity.and other considerations spoke f
4 more for an outside contractor to do the work.
5 They started work in July of '77, and finished it 6
up in December of '77, as scheduled.
In January this year,
)
7 each office director was provided a copy of the audit report 8
covering each existing or proposed supergrade position within 9
his organization.
Organization personnel reviewed all the 10 Damon's recommendations, and also made their recommendations 11 to me in February of 1978, and, of course, the office directors 12 were all informed of the recommendations.
l 13 In a' paper, SECY 78-97, earlier this year, we i
14 discussed.various ways of implementing the audit recommenda-IS' tions; suggested the establishment of a position evaluation i
16 review committee to hear appeals on any contested positions; I
i 17 addressed whether or not we should speak to OMB with regard to l
l 18 additional ceilings which seems to be the net result of the audit, i
19 and the need for such things as training seminars on personnel 20 management, which, as you know, we have recently conducted for I
21 all the ads and up, out at Harpers Ferry.
l 22 In June, the Commission approved the establishment j
i l
23 of the Program Evaluation Review Committee, or PERC, I'll call l
I l
24 it for short, and that operation was undertaken ender the
,ueJe nal Reporters, inc, j
25 chairmanship of Bob Minogue.
{
l 4
i i
.i
~
1 1...
r 4
2'M 1
Other members'on the PERC were Tom Engelhardt,
- 2 Norm'Haller, and Harry Thornburg, and Pat Pinella was very 3
helpful in her' assistance to the' Committee in carrying out
~!
4 its work.
5 The PERC listened to all of the people who wanted 6
to appeal the contested positions coming out of this audit, 7
except for the-appeals board, as the Commission directed, we 8
would not.take that one on.
The incumbents and their super-9 visors were invited by PERC to appear before them, and of course!
~10 the organization and personnel people were also interviewed 1
11 by the PERC concerning their recommendations and views en the 12 individual positions.
13 SECY 78-97A which you have before you today summarizes l
14 the overall results of the PERC proceedings which I have reviewed, 15 and have-recommended to you their acceptance.
16 I also have furnished to the Commission the full 17 PERC report, which includes a position by positions disucssion 18 and finding as prepared by the Committee.
l 19 I think before addressing the individual positions 20 and issues related to those positions, I would like to mention I
I 21
- two or three'other things that we should be mindful of of 22 having to address.here in the near future.
One'directly related
- 23 to it,:of course, is the matter of downgraded positions, red a
..24 circling, or not effective in two years, you know, as is perhaps
. ;u,.r.c nei s.coreers, inc.
25.I' gather thernew Personnel l Reform Act would call for, although d
j i
?
,. ~.
s 5
~~
1 I gather from the legal discussion here, we have authority l
i 2
to keep' people in a downgraded. position, red circled until their
]
'3 departure, and then fill the job at the higher grade.
h 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is in fact established 5
that we can do that?'
6 MR. GOSSICK:
I am told that we do have that L
7 authority.
This~is important too, from another standpoint.
8 This is just step one, and big enough as it is, on taking on 9
all our supergrade audits, we have got another audit job to 10 take on and that is the 7 throug 15.
There is a need to get Il that underway.
Again, I think the only feasible way to do l
l 12 it is by the use of a contractor, but, again, out of that audit, 13 if we end up with a number of downgraded positions, the pre-14 cedent that is set here obviously is important to treat all 15 of those positions in similar fashion, if there are any sizeable' 16 number.
17
.Another point that, of course, we need to consider 18 is if the Commission agrees with the recommendations, and we end!
19 up with recognizing more than the 210 positions that we now have 20 as a ceiling, to the extent that total number is 238, I believe, l
21 if all the recommendations are accepted, one would normally j
i 22 if we wanted to get relieved from hat ceiling, under the current 23 set, we would go to the OMB.
Even though we recognize they l
24 l
probably won't do anything about our request in that they are
.,4eFec nol Recorrets, inc.
25 about to go out of this business, and that will be. picked up l
.b
a I
1 e
6 1
under the: senior executive service by OPM, we are still obli-2 gated to give them a report on the results of the entire audit 3
and examination.of our supergrades, as we are also in the 4
oversight committees.
But I think the determination by the Com9 j
5 mission of the number of positions which it considers to be in 6
the executive category, is an important point that we are, 77 obviously, we are going to have to have in hand when we do.
a start under the senior executive service, because the nubmer of 9
positions they will allocate to us will depend on a process, 10 apparently, very much like we have been through, that fortunately, 11 we have done, and other agencies have yet to do.
So, I don't 12 think we can take the view that we can wait and see what the 13 executive service is going to give us.
I think we ought to 14 establish the position as to what we really need, and use that 15 as a going in position with them to get the number.of senior 16 executive service positions that are required.
17 I have with me, of course, Mr. Minogue, who chaired l
18 the PERC, and you might wish to ask him questions about how the 19 procedure was carried out, and also the specifics on individual 20 positions, also Mr. Donoghue, ofcourse,whoseorganizationandl l
21 personnel people have been very much involved with the entire i
22 operation.
I think that I suggest, however you wish to procee.,
23 the' summary, just in terms of the numbers and titles of positions, 24 the current grade, the recommendations of the audit contractor, Am4m pal Reporwrs, lN.
I 25 the O and P. recommendations, and the position and level being l
, (
6' 7
1
' recommended by me to you, is included in this paper.
2 I would point out two errors, or small glitches 3
in the paper: in two cases we have shown the encumbent's grade
- 4 rather than the established position level; in the case of 5
Ms. Norry, we show her current grade as GS-16, which, indeed, 6
she is, but the position which was evaluated was established
)
7 and had been occupied by at least two prior incumbent'< at the a
17 level.
9 The same is true is true with Mr. Fouchard, shown 10 ai the 17 level.
Actually it was a GS-18 position.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And those amended grades should 12 show because what we are trying to deal with here is the position.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You say it is also true --
14 MR. GOSSICK:
That's right, his grade is 17, which l
15 is his current grade.
The position that was being reviewed 16 was a GS-18 position.
17 MR. DONOGHUE:
Hoyle's position was never allocated 18 at 16, Sam.
19 MR. CHILK:
We loaned it kind of back to the system,t i
20 you know, itwasneverfilled,well,wouldyoumindcheckingit?l I
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's swnmarize the overall i
22 results, and then come back to the appeals.
23 MR. GOSSICK:
From an overall standpoint, with 24 regard to upgrading of positions,.there is one position at
,.m Fac not Reoorters,~ Inc.
25 the GS-17 level that is recommended for GS-18, two at the GS-16 l
i
(
m 8
~
1 1-are recommended at the 17' level.
j 2
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which one is'is the 17 to 1
l 3
.187 4
MR. GOSSICK:
That'sethe controller.
'S COMMISSIONER. KENNEDY:
I thought you just told me --
6 MR. GOSSICK:
He currently is a 17.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The individual.
.I
.8 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
The job is an 18.
1 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Just to make sure we under-1 10 stand correctly, the format you have is where a job is being 11 downgraded, you are proposing red circling the individual?
12
~ MR. GOSSICK:
That's correct.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Where a job is being'up-14 graded, you,are proposing upgrading the individual?
15 MR. GOSSICK:
Promote.the individual to the level.
16 as. determined by this process, that's correct.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There's a certain lack of l
'18 symmetry in that.
t 19 CEAIRMAN.HENDRIE: So we could blue line jobs?
l 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are making two decis' ions
- 21 not necessarily equated.
First, we are deciding en the grade 22 level which'should'be assigned the job, and secondly, but not 23 necessarily. in the same breath,-we.are deciding whether X should l-i
- '2d be1 promoted, or demoted, to the grade that we have.now establised
.o.
~
A* Fee ttsi Reporters, Inc.
4!S the job:should have?
Those are two separable actions.
{.'
jf _ '
n.' )
W
.i,
,c-a l
9 j
l MR. GOSSICK:
Certainly, they are two' separate i
I 2
actions, yes.
3 In addition, we had 23 GS-15 level positions that I
i 4
were recommended to be at the GS-16 level; and there were
)
5 two positions that were recommended to be changed from the supar 6
grade to the STS system.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me, let's see.
That ona 8
17 recommended for an 18 is a situation in which the previous 9
occupants of the job, in fact, had an 18, and on the table i
10 or organization such as it is, it would have shown nominally i
11 as an 18, I guess, so this, the thrust fo the Damon recommenda-12 tion is to end to end, and your own PERC, and your own recom-13 mendation is to l
14 MR. MINOGUE:
That was one of the benchmark l
15 positions.
Damon's felt it was more appropriate to be classified d
16 at 17.
.l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But at any rate, the PERC and 18 only EDO are confirming the 18 grade.
Okay, now, what I 19 wanted was to get down to the 15s.
These I would guess for the i 20 most part are positions where the encumbents, past and present,j 21 have been at grade 15, I assume.
And it is a little bit 22 different situation than, for instance the controller's slot.
23 MR. GOSSICK:
Most of them are branch chief level l
24 positions, where we have simply not had the position to alloc.atei j
o..w Fe nal neoo, ten, Inc.
I 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or maybe, in times past, the 1
L l.
i i
h L
-l
7-i 10 1
1 1'
branch was smaller or something, but at any rate, at the 2
present time, it is evaluated at 16, 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In those cases, it is all 4
Damons' evaluation?
5 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
None of those positions were 6
appealed.
l 7
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Nobody wanted a lower grade?
8 MR. MINOGUE:
The supervisors also had the option 9
to appeal.
We had two positions where the supervisors appealed l l
i 10 against the Damon's recommended upgrading.
i 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Really?
12 MR. MINOGUE:
No supervisor appealed the recom-13 mended upgrade of the 15s.
14 MR. GOSSICK:
There were, however, some additional 15 GS-15 positions not upgraded by Damons recommendations who 16 appealed to the Committee, and they are included in ti.e 17 total report.
I 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, now, where should we go?
{
3 i
19 MR. GOSSICK:
We are prepared to proceed however i
i 20 you like.
I think that is sort of the summary, and do you l
21 want to go position by position, or however?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Any thoughts?
John, you have, l
i 23 I must say, a background more filled with experience in this line 24 than I:do, at any rate.
Why don't you go ahead, and start on
,..w Fec tral Reporters, Inc.
i 25 your questions, or suggestions as how best to attack the things l
f
-11 i
i 1
that lie before us here.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, first, could you 3
iXplain a bit more completely, to the best of your understanding 4
at the present time, when the SES comes into being, what will i
5 that do to the supergrades by themselves, 16, 17 and 18, will 6
they disappear, and there would be a senior executive service.
7 Now, are all our GS supergrades going to that senior execu-8 tive service?
9 MR. DONOGHUE:
First of all, the 16, 17 and 18 will 10 not disappear, because the SES is an optional service.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's really what I'm asking.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How optinal and for how long?
13 MR. DONOGHUE:
It's a free and complete option, and 14 it is theoretically, for as long as your are an employee.
But 15 you cannot be promoted.
Once you opt to get out of the SES 16 whatever grade you are, that's where you'll stay, in that grade, 17 although you could be reassigned in a job of comparable i
18 responsibility.
I 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But not higher?
l i
20 MR. DONOGHUE:
Not higher.
l L
21 MR. GOSSICK:
Unless you were accepted in the SES.
l I
22 MR. DONOGHUE:
Then you would be converted, you would 23 go into the SES.
l 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So, the answer to Mr. Ahearne!'s l
,.a.Fm was Rumnm, inc.
25 question is, for practical purposes, all of these positions l
I I
L i,
s l
a'
y 12 1
I are covered by the SES, whether or not they are included in 2
it is another. question?
l 3
MR. DONOGHUE: Not necessarily.
The SES criteria 4
provides that only managers and supervisors will be positions 1
5 in the Senior Executive Service.
We do have some positions 6
at supergrade that may be not necessarily meet the criteria, 7
which they haven't framed yet.
It may be that if you are l
8 only supervising three or four people, that would r.ot qualify 9
you for the SES.
The Office of Personnel Managemen: will make 10 the final determination.
11 We can recommend to them what positions we believe 12 belong in there under the criteria; they will make the 13 determination whether it is an SES position or not, and the
'14 factor that will weigh the heaviestis to what extent do they 15 have management and supervisory responsibilities.
j 16 One of the questions that they have been concerned l
17 with is an individual who may have only one person working l
18 for him and a secretary, but is a project manager of a lot of l
l 19 work being handled through contractors, is he an executive, 20 or a manager within the meaning of that.
At the meeting last j
i 21 week,.they just don't know the answer yet.
So, conceivably, I
l 22 some of the research people, which have a very small number 23 of people working for them, but are managing fairly large I
t 24 numbers of people in a contract or through a contracting organi ;
j
,.m rm y i nemems, ine.
j 25 sation may not be in this.
l l
l i
+,
?
- h
't 13 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But on the'other hand, they
. 2 may be.-
3.
MR. DONOGHUE:
They may be, yes.
~ 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it correct then,-that-the first decision.then is by the outside agency, as to which S
6 ought to be eligible for SES.
Having made that determination 7
that this is a position that can come under SES, at that 8
stage the offer is made to be in that position whether or 9
not they wish to be.
10 MR. DONOGHUE:
Right.
By January lith, when 11
'the Act comes.into effect, we will be asked to submit the names 12 of the positions that we believe are SES positions.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There are actually two steps, 14
'aren't'there, John, first of all, we have to decide which i
15 positions ought to be in SES, and those will have to be filed l
l-16 with the Office' of Personnel Management to get a --
17 MR. DONOGHUE:
They' decide whether or not they i
18 agree, then --
i 19
' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Will they review other 20
' positions.as well, those that we did not include?
They only l
l 21 concern themselves with_ones that we propose?
' 22 MR. DONOGHUE:
Right.
Because the assumption that 23 we are the best judges of whether or'not these are management 24
, posit' ions.
-l,.eFec erel Reporten, Inc.
' 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Also that this approach I
i t
I s3
l b
14 i
1 is of advantage to senior management..The theory is that we 2
would propose as many as we possibly could.
3 MR. DONOGHUE:
Right.
Then, by around April they 4
estimate,'they will come back to the incumbents in the position,.
5 that have been accepted into SES, and say, you have the option 6
now, you have 90 days to make up your mind as to whether or 7
not you want to-become a senior executive in the. government.
8 If you do not, you remain in your present grade at your h
1 9
present rate of pay.
j l
10 1 In effect, what the government will have going, is 11 a two-track system in the executive ranks; 'here will still 12 be the 16, 17 and 18, and there will be either at those grades 13 or the equivalent of STS or PL-313, which because of the nature 14 of the jobs, they are not executive-type jobs, and then you 15 will have the Senior Executive Service.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How about the STS?
17 MR. DONOGHUE:
the STSs would not be included.
l i
I 18 That's sort of like the 313 situation; there will be another j
l 19 category of senior level people who are not executives, though. j 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, in the information i
'21 that you will be preparing to send over to meet this January l
22 deadline, that I imagine will include position descriptions 23 for those that we assume --
24 MR. DONOGHUE:
They just haven't decided what it is i
i.ca-Fe wat Resmrten, Inc.
l
'25 they will need by way of documentation to verify the nature I
i
4 15 1
.of the position.
That would be very likely, that would be one 2
of the things they'would require.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is there any intention of
.4 rewriting the current position descriptions?
5 MR. DONOGHUE:
Not unless they did not accurately 6
' reflect the job that the individual was doing at the time we 7
.would propose to submit them; if they were obsolete', or if 8
duties had changed, we would certainly rewrite them to correctly 9
reflect the status of the position.
10 1 MR. GOSSICK:
We have currently accomplished a l
11 review of all job positions.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When were these positions 13 descriptions -- did they just recently do that?
14 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes, we just went through that.
15 MR. DONOGHUE:
Yearly you are required to submit
{
i 16 a certification that the position descriptions are accurate, 17 valid and up to date, or are in the process of being brought t
i i
18 up.to date.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I know that, but would they ;
20 actually be redone?
l i
21 MR. DONOGHUE:
In a number of cases, position 1
i 22 descriptions have been redone, ad many places are constantly 23. going through an updating process.
i
'24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:-
So to the extent that we anFm wal Reporters, Jnc.
E 25 inherited any position descriptions from the AEC, you would I
d
i-16 1
say that that is basically --
2 MR. DONOGHUE:.That was all practically redone, at 3
least in connection with this study, so I would say that any 4
obsolescence, it would date from this time, and there would be 5
no just pure AEC positions.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It was done, then, before 7
the positions were evaluated for this study?
8 MR. DONOGHUE:
Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEr The benchmarks that were 10 used, are those benchmark positions -- as I understand it, the 11 system itself was inherited from the AEC, is that correct?
12 MR. DONOGHUE:
Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Were these the AEC benchmark 14 positions?
15 MR. DONOGHUE:
We established, because of the fact 16 that the AEC benchmark positions, as they existed at the ime 17 we became a separate agency failed to reflect the kind of work 18 that was being done in the regulatory framework, we established 19 as a 13-benchmark positions which we felt would cover the range l
20 of positions that NRC has, and would provide a legitimate i
21 yardstick against which to measure the other positions.
22 So these were established by NRC, validated by an outside con-23 sultant, and approved by the EDO to use for the purposes of 24 this audit.
l
.Acu-Fec nal Recorters, Inc.
25 MR. GOSSICK:
That was a direct result of the'OMB l
i i
l 17 3.
study where I mentioned, they, in recognizing the need for 1
2 the audit, they said, the first thing to be done was the estab-q lishment of some current and accurate --
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You say they were validated 4
y an outside consultant?
5 6
MR. DONOGHUE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have confidence in j
7 that evaluation?
8 MR. DONOGHUE:
Yes, sir, I think so, to the extent ;
9 10 you can have confidence.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My understanding is that i
12 this particular study, however, disagreed with a couple of thosel 13 benchmark evaluations. Which outside contractor should I have ja more confidence in, then?.
1 Well, viewed from the agency's stand-j 15 MR. DONOGHUE:
l 16 point, the Office of Personnel felt that the 13 benchmarks in j7 their review of the contractors, because they looked into them 1
18 in greater depth than they did say, at each individual job j
i 19 as part of this review, felt that the jobs as benchmarks were l
l 20 accurate, now whether or not in fact the job was being performed 21 in the manner is really a separate question.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes,.but I thought this is --
23 I thought we were addressing an evaluation of jobs, not how 24 they were being performed.-
p Aco4w ra Remnen. ine.
I 25 MR.'DONOG. HUE:
I don't mean how they were being l
l
.I i
f I
l 18
- l
- l E-1
' performed,lbut'whether the functions as described in the 2:
positions were in' fact.being-performed.
I didn't mean the indi-H 3
vidual's performance.
In'our view-the jobs as benchmarks, 4
- whatever : grade level, ' that benchmark job, whether it was a 5
' valid benchmark position -- the point I'm trying to make is 6
that applied to'real world, the person who was the incumbent 7
of that. job, it-is conceivable.that that is not all of the 8
functions that were the responsibilities, and decisions that 9
were attributed to the job in the benchmark description, may 10 in' fact, may not be being done by the person in the job.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But that would then go
'12 back to'the original evaluation of the benchmark, and say that 13 that was invalid.
14 MR. DONOGHUE:
I think you could have a benchmark 15 that has no relationship'to'a real life job.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: -That's true, except when 17 you said you had a contractor validate those benchmarks, and realjob.!
18 I assume that that validation was a connection to a
[
i 19 MR. DONOGHUE:
It was not validated in terms of 20 an audit of:the position, I mean a desk audit of the position I
21-
'such.as Damons undertook; it was a validation based on a paper
'22 review ofLthe position 23 MR. MINOGUE:
The one I disagreed with that I think 4
24
~is.particularly'important is the controller positions..And Acu.Fec trol Reporters, Inc.
' 25 iPERC1 focused'very specificallyJon that. 'The problem I. thought t
iv
.. a
~
n.
19 1
was that the Damons people, because of their background, didn't 2
fully understand some of the elements of that position, and 3
therefore didn't accept the characterization of that job as 4'
a GS-18, because they.didn't understand the job.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would have thought if you 6
had said the Damons people didn't fully understand a regulatory 7
agency, I would have understood that, but a controller is a 8
typical job in every federal agency.
9 MR. MINOGUE:
Be that as it may, we reviewed lo l veyr carefully what they did on that as against the position, 11 and the impression we had was that they didn't fully understand 12 the nature of the controller's duties in relations, hip to 13 interface with OMB, and with the Congress.
Particularly with 14 an agency with so many oversight committees involving the
)
I 15 budget process.
They didn't seem to have any background in l
l 16 that area, and when they took the wording and the job descrip-17 tion and gave it meaning, they didn't really understand the 18 exact nature of the job.
They came in, as we saw it, somewhat i
19 too' low in the point score, and when we corrected the point 20 scroe to take these factors into account, we ended up where
-21 the job had been benchmarked at GS-18.
22 That was very important to our consideration because 23 that job became quite central, a key benchmark in evaluating 1
24 other positions.
We worked eff that quite a bit.
./.cu.Feceret Reporters, Inc, 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that was a key benchmark L
t
[
20 l
l 1
for you.
f 2
MR. MINOGUE:
In our work it became more important 3
than many ther benchmarks, yes, sir.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, if I disagree with that 5
benchmark of yours, then --
6 MR. MINOGUE:
That would be quite significant.
We 7
gave a lot of weight to that in the high end of the 17 and a
low end of the 18 range.
i 9
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When you are speaking of 10 high end and low end you are talking about point scores?
11 MR '. MINOGUE:
Yes, sir.
It was all done in terms 12 of point scores against the four factors.
the PERC also 13 used the same benchmark positions.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Getting to the point score i
15 issue, as I understand, you have got four factors, and in those j
16 factors you have a distribution of points.
Also, my impres-l 17 sion was, was that the allocation of at least the specifics l
18 that describe how you allocate those points aren't very detailed, i
19 and there is the possibility of fuzziness, so that the dif-20 ference of what would lead to a point of 25, or a point of 40, i
I 21 is not all that clear.
22 MR. MIN 0GUE:
I think that's correct.
'23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would expect it to be true 24 if the differences were 25 to 30.
I guess I'm not quite as
' Ao#4c ad Rooorars,8nc.
l 25 clear on the amount of fuzziness it takes to make a difference j l
I L
i l
l 1
21 i
1 between 25 and 30, which is a factor of 50 percent.
-2 MR. MINOGUE:
.I'm not an expert in position clas-3 sifications, by any means, but I feel that our Committee was 4
able to see a sharp difference between 25 and 40, but as 5
Commissioner Kennedy says, we had a hell of a time differentiating-6 between 30 and 35.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sure, especially with the 8
Damons people would indicate that --
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Now, wait.
Damons wasn't 10 doing it; you were.
And you had no difficulty in your view 11 distinguishing between 15 and 40.
Now, what was it that Damons 12 said --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Damons did do that, and 14 that is what this book is, it is a sum of their allocation of 15 those points.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But he did it, too.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
These vero the guys who were 18 experts in personnel management.
19 MR. MINOGUE:
We didn't claim to be experts in j
20 personnel classification.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm trying to get clear in 22 my mind-just what it is we are now saying.
If two people 23' used point scores to arrive at a conclusion, you say that in 24 consultation with the Damons people, they said they couldn't
/.os F:c stal Reporners, Inc.
25 distinguish _between --
.l 1
1
.22 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't say that.
I said 2
that there are the specifications of the distribution of the 3
' points in the factors, are sufficiently fuzzy that in some 4
cases it is difficult to tell between 25 and 40.
There is 5
a spread.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When you went through it, 7
independently, you did not have that difficulty?
8 MR. MINOGUE:
We looked at a carefully selected 9
group of managers, so we represented a number of different 10 points of view within the agency, and looking at it in a 11 relative sense, we were working against benchmarks, we could 12 see differences sufficiently clearly to see a difference 13 between 25 and 40.
14' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But I think, as you had 15 already points out in your discussion of the controller, that 16 you are bringing with it an understanding of what the job 17 actually is, based on your understanding of the agency.
18 MR. MINOGUE:
Oh, yes, sir.
Very much so.
I think j 19 the group was carefully selected to provide just that kind of 20 base.
We are certainly not position classifiers.
This is 21 the first, and I hope the last experience I will have in 22 position classification.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did the contractor attempt 24 in the validation of the benchmarks, to go beyond that and do
- i. mJec s,ol Reporte,s, Inc.
25 work on 'how yor allocate the points, and arrived at an explanation?
i i
23 1
MR. DONOGHUE:
No, I don't think so, I think it 2
was' strictly selection of positions.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This wasn't Damons.
4 MR. DONOGHUE:
No, that's right, this was Lloyd 5
Knighton. All he did was look at positions lists.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I notice in te charge to the 7
clerk, that in the standards and criteria, that evaluations and 8
recommendations should be made in accordance with the evaluation 9
systems supplemented by the supergrade benchmark positions.
10 Committee members are expected to familiarize themselves with 11 technicques of the NRC evaluation system.
It wasn't clear to 12 me in what way the management perspective was to be folded 13 into that, and it doesn't come through in the charter.
14 I wonder, Bob, if you could talk a little bit 15 about that.
You say it was a selected group of senior managers.
16 Tell us, from management perspective, how that --
l'7 Mr. Minogue:
We began by familiarizing ourselves 18 with the benchmark positions, and with the manual that spoke 19 to position evaluation.
We didn't really give much attention 20 te the old AEC benchmarks.
They are basically not very usable 21 in this context.
I don't think Damons used them much either.
22 The perspective as managers really came more in 23
' the context of the specific meetings we had.
We met first with 24
.the person's supervisor, with the persent present, and then AwFoc aret Reporters, Inc.
25 with O and P to discuss some of the classification elements, and I
l.
f
i 24:
then we talked to th'e person at length, dealing primarily in I
2 the areas he had identified in his appeal, and we provided 3
them a system to give them some expert help in developing their 4
appeal.
So, we really focused on the matters they identified 5
in their appeal, where they felt that either some key element 6
in their job had not been properly considered or evaluated, 7
or had not been properly identified, and in that discussion, 8
we relied very heavily on our perspective as managers.
In 9
terms of trying to assess what that job really consisted of; 10 what' level of responsibility, what level of commitment authority 11 what kind of knowledge and information base is required, the 12 four factors that are identified.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did you discuss it with 14 the Damons people?
15 MR. MINOGUE:
No, we had no discussions with the 16 Damons people in the context of the meetings of PERC.
We did 17 have available to us out of Mr. Donoghue's group, as a con-18 sultant, Joe Burke, who used to be a deputy director there.
19 There were just a few questions we consulted with him on; one l
20 that comes to mind immediately was the signficance of an STS 21 position in terms of what kind of weight you gave to advisory 22 type' commitment authority, where somebody's opinion on something 23 is~given very heavy weight without much cross checking, did 24 that' count as a-management factor.
i Am Feeseat Reporters, Inc, 1
25 A.few elements like that we discussed with Burke,
25-1 but.wecdidn't'really use.him extensively, I would say.
2 In each of these hearings, we worked-with Mr. Black, and he
. 3 gave us'a' lot of very useful-input.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
For instance, you.didn't 5
talk to the particular Damons guy who did the evaluations?
6 MR. MINOGUE:
We did not, that's correct.
We went 7
.just:en the1 record of what they had done.
They developed a
]
8 fairly complete record.. We did, of course, use their written 9
material.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On.what basis did you con-1 11 clude they didn't understand the controllers job?
12 MR. MINOGUE:
Because there was no recognition of 13 the factor; as they wrote up the job and talked about it, there 14 were no points assigned to it.
It wasn't mentioned.
Here are 15 factors we could see'in the position, and you could find the 16 wording in the position description that did not seem to be 17 recognized in their evaluation, at all.
- 18 COMMISSIONER.AHEARNE:
Did you ask them --
19 MR.~MINOGUE:
No, we didn't talk to them at all.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You took their allocations 21 of points, reviewedLit against the job description as it 22
-is written, A, and B, your own understanding of the job and
- 23
~~found~ gaps.
i 24 MR.-MINOGUE:
We use the point score in a relative-4 '. Nec wd Reconers. lac, 25
-sense.
We didn't really'try.to assign absolute points in
)y i
1 J
t 0
y
+
26.
1 case.
We really were looking in terms of a little more than, 2
a little less than, a lot less, or a lot more.
That way.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You didn't really do a point 4
evaluation of an individual.
5 MR. MINOGUE:
No, sir.
We were working on a relative 6
basis,.because the proceeding was keyed to the specific points 7
the appellants had identified.
It was relatively easy to do 8
it on a relative basis.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It might be one of the 10 reasons why you didn't find it difficult.,
11 When 0 and P did their review, I notice that there 12 is a -- and I've got a Damons material, I've got the PERC 13 material -- what did o and P do in their review?
14 MR. DONOGHUE:
They reviewed the Damons report.
15 That was the first review, and they made a judgment based on 16 the analysis.that was provided by the contractor whether or not 17 that was a reasonable result from a classification standpoint, 18 and then made a judgment that they agreed with the conclusion 19 of the contractor with respect to the -- they did not do a 20 complete factor by factor, but on a total review of the job, 21 and concluded whether they agreed or disagreed with the con-l 22 tractor, and in those cases where they disagreed, they provided 23 a statement for their reason for the difference for themselves 24 and the contractors.
- f.s.Feo erd Recorters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Were they in any way involved
i sr r! l h '1
' 4 F-27.
g 1
.in.*thejappeals' process?
2 "MR.1DONOGHUE:
Yes.
And I think Bob ought to speak 3
to that.
4.
MR.1MINOGUE:
In each of the meetings we had with 5
the people, there.was a segment set aside where the O and P -
6 representative, usually Jerry Black, was available to answer 7
. questions from the Committee, or make a statement as to
~
8 specific' points or factors they had identified on that par-9 ticular job, and then he was present during the discussion 10 with the encumbent, and was allowed to participate in that dis-
'll cussion.
12 He was typically not present whent we talked to 13 the persons supervisor, though,.because we wanted that dis-14 cussion -- that'was just the appellant, supervisor and the 15 Committee'-- we wanted it to be more closed.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But O and P for example, 17
.did~not'haveLany written material on the appealed positions.
n_:
18 There is no' material on the controller position.
l I9 MR. MINOGUE:
Well there was, but we went on the l
20 record of what they had already done.
The O and P recommenda-21 tions were the only written material from them.
22 MR. DONOGHUE ':
That was provided prior to the PERC.
23 MR. MINOGUE:
That predated us.
I specifically 24 said I did not want them doing an after the fact evaluation, i
i At:s Fecerst Reconers, Inc.
25
' 'because theLappeals were'on what they had recommended earlier.
' I If1
- id
I s
28 1
In_ fairness, ic.would call for that to be the basis for our 2
review.
And that would give them a chance to work it again.
3 So, I actually would not accept from them, would not 4
have accepted from thsm any further write up or anything beyond I
5 what they had already done.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I recognize this question 7
is more of a history question, but for my understanding, could 8
you explain why you didn't have Damons first evaluate the'
)
position, and then after having done that, did they --
10 MR. DONOGHUE:
We felt that the benchmark position 11 that had been develcped were adequate, and, in discussions 12 with Damons prior to the initiation of the study, they thought
~
13 they were adequate in terms of what they had in terms of work 14 that was required of them under the contract.
It would have 15 been preferable, if, given the time element, to have gone i
16 through a complete spectrum of benchmarks, covering what we 17 think would have been a usable number, probably somewhere 18 around 30 we feel is the number, maybe a little more, that 19 we ought to be using in the supergrade area.
l 20 Given the fact that we were under some pressure to 21 commence the study, the fact that we had requirements for addi-22 tional positions which we felt were in the supergrade range 23 and OMB made it clear that they would not proceed until the 24 study was'done, that this was, as long as there was confidence i
,-oe.FCI WC4 Reco,ters, Inc.
25 and Damons felt that they had a reasonable basis to proceed l
I l
29.
?
I to do the audit, so we proceeded.
2 Idealistically, as Mr. Gossick mentioned, talking 3
about grades 7 to 15, that we are considering, and we have 4
developed a full range of benchmarks which at the present time i
5 are being commented on by the various offices.
So, at the time 6
we commence that, we feel we will have a much better spectrum
]
7 of benchmarks in which to gauge these jobs we will be locking 8
at.
But, I think, essentially, we felt we had an adequate 9
base for the contractor to work on, and he did not express any 10 reservations that he could not do it within that context.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But wasn't the original 12 RFP, wasn't it based on using the existing benchmarks?
13 MR. DONOGHUE.
Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, actually, at that stage 15 the contractor would have, in bidding on the contract with 16 that established ground rule already.
17 MR. DONOGHUE:
Yes, but I think they wouldn't have l
18 performed the service if they thought --
t 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That it was impossible, sure,!
l 20 I understand that.
I was just trying to understand why it wasn't 21 a two-step contract.
i 22 A last detail. question, could you explain to me, 23 I'm not that familiar with STS, so 1c". me take an example of 24 a pos ition that I would have thought would have been in STS,
' m FC:: prol Reporte,s, Inc.
25 and you can explain why it isn't.
l i
30~
1
-1 The Commissioners technical assitants.
Why aren't 2
those STS?
3 ER. JONES:
I think.some of it is history, and it 4
' sia very good question, but it's a growth pattern I think i
.5 from AEC, where they have called a technicel assistance, or 6
legal assistance, and for us to take the grade away from them, 7
I think we would have had a morale factor, but it is a question 8
that I have,.and we haven't completely resolved all this.
I think' 9
they could be put in the'STS.
We have not done it, but I think 10 inta sense, there is a gray area.there.
II All the Commissioners, whether these present Com-l s
12 l
missioners, or others before them, I don't think they have used 13 them all the same way, either.
I 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If that is supposed to help 15 me understand what an STS is -- the only people that I deal with 16
.on any regular basis, for.STS are the Commissioners' technical 17 assistants, and so I was trying to understand what an STS is.
18 MR. JONES:
By definition, STS is a scientific I
T 19 and technical personnel, who has no line responsibility or program responsibility or. authority, as such, and serves in a I
20 21 high level. technical manner to an office director or a Com-22 ~missioner, or someone of equal weight.
23 MR.:DONOGHUE:
I-guess it is akin to the Public l
24 Law 313 positions.
i va F3 Fal Reporters, lm.
25
-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
That is what I thought.
I l-I l......,...--_,-
7 4
31 1
1 I was just puzzled.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is the potential of 3
A, SES, and B, the hiring freeze on any effort to increase the
~l 4
number of supergrades?
l 5
MR. GOSSICK:
Well, of course, the hiring freeze 6
prevents us from. hiring any additional people from outside 7
into empty positions, except on a one-for-two basis, until at 8
least we find out whether or not we are going to get some 9
sort of favored. treatment from OMB, which, one can always live 10 in hopes, but I thirk the --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You can classify yourself 12 as an environmental agency, you've got it made.
13 MR. GOSSICK:
I think that, in those cases where there 14 are incumbents in the positions, that whare they have been 15 serving satisfactorily at this level of perforaance, we would 16 go ahead and promote those people into the grades.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In order to do this, we have 18 got to have some more supergrades allocated.
19 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes, to go up to the full 238, 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is that increased 21 allocation.
22 MR. GOSSICK:
That's right.
Okay, I guess, very 23 frankly, I think the chances are very poor of getting any more 24' supergrade. positions out of OMB.
I think we should ask, however, s.oFeceral Reporters, Inc.
'25 I think we ought to be on record for having asked them.
I
32 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess my next question,
)
2 then, is if we believe, and I share your general thought that 3
at least certainly it is not of the highest o'rder of likeli-(-
4 hood that we will get a favorable response promptly from 5
OMB to a request for additional supergrade allocations, if that 6
is true, and we have a number of positions which are being 7
proposed, new ones, wouldn't it make sense, or would it, to 8
wait and find out what the answer to that is, or, alternatively, 9
prioritize all those supergrade positions, so that if we have 10 to live with that number we now have authorized, we promote 11 or fill the highest priority positions.
12 or are they all of equal priority?
In such case, 13 how do you determine who doesn" t get it?
14 MR. GOSSICK:
This is a very difficult thing.
15 We have people who have been in GS-16 branch chief positions, 16 that are, we had considered were at that level, and the Damons 17 exercise validated it.
They have been in there for a year and 18 a half to two years, and they feel like they have been done i
19 an injustice.
The problem of promoting people is right now 20 purely a matter of nonavailability of free spaces.
21 To the extent we can, whenever a space frees up 22 from a branch chief who is over here performing at the 16 level, 23 and-he leaves the organization, or goes on somewhere else in 24 the organization, our practice has been to reestablish that
,.m Fectral Reporters, Inc.
25 at the 15 level.
At least hire'a guy in with the understanding l
33 1
that he is going to serve in that job as a GS-15.
Let him 2
wait now for a while, and if'possible, we'll take that position 3
and try to promote one of these people over here.
That isn't
~
p.
4 a very sensible priority kind of thing, but we are trying to be 1
5
_as equitable as we possibly can in this use of spaces that' 6
we have.
7 On the matter of waiting to see where we stand, if 8
I understood you correctly, Commissioner, with regard to the 9
SES, I guess if the Commission really believes in what we have 10 done here, and is willing to accept the overall level of positi ns, 11 I guess, I would recommend that we go ahead and verify that or 12 take that position publicly, so we can then set about the job l
13 of dealing with the OPM there, and get, from what we understand 14 and this is no commitment, obviously, the feeling is that they 15 will give us the positions that we need based on a good audit 16 that we can claim is a good audit, I hope, and that they will 17 give us what we need.
So, I would urge that we go ahead.
18 MR. DONOGHUE:
I think also, the best shot we i
19 are going to get on supergrade ceilings is this initial going f
20 in when the climate is such that they are interested in fostering 21 the development of the SES.
They have been given a ceiling 22 allocation by Congress, but the ceiling is large enough to 23
- accommodate those positions which probably should have been included under SES under a supergrade allocation, but because i
- e-PCDeral R eporters, i.,
25 of the quota system that exists-in other agencies, and the
o 34 quota system here, for that matter, he.s not been classifiable 2
as a:16, so that every agency is going to be going in with 3
.their best wish list, and I think after the SES gets settled
()
down, it is going to be pretty tough to get positions out of 4
.them; they are going to be very~ difficult to deal with.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll tell you, for myself, 6
I would propose..to approve the recommendations in the 97A 7
E*E*#'
8 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I didn't know that that 9
10 was what we were going to be doing at the meeting today, so I'm 11 not prepared to vote.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Neither am I.
I appreciate 13 this chance to get the background, the understanding on what i4 was done, but now I'd like to think about this a little bit.
15 I do have some problems with the recommendations.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How sure are you that where we are now is responsive to the concerns that OMB j7 18 originally raised?
Do you propose further studies, I gather l
19 some of these are the types of positions OMB was concerned about' a couple' years ago.- Why aren't they going to'ask the same i
20 21 questions?
MR. GOSSICK:
I think there are two aspects to your 22 23 question..One is the total number of supergrades that we have 24 and the second was-the overall grade average of the organization, ac:tMCD eral Reporters, Inc.
25 and.they1 felt, as was indicated, our number of supergrades is I
1
t 35 I
,~
1 high,_and we are not prepared to accept it at face value without 2
some effort to' demonstrate that that is actually needed.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But, I gathered from your j
(~'.
- u. '
a paper that they focused specifically on deputy and assistant 1
5 positions, AD positions, only'a few branches reporting to them, 6
and we are.just now proposing to start to study that.
Why 7
aren't they just going to say why haven't you studied it?
8 MR. GOSSICK:
They may.
And I would have to say 9
that we have made very small progress in there.
10 l MR. DONOGHUE:
But it was also viewed as a look 11 at the jobs to see how if the jobs were really worth it, and 12 as a follow on, we are initiating a look at the way the structure 13 gets to the question, the job may be worth a grade 16, but 14 do you really need the job, I mean like the deputies and.
15 technical assistant type of thing.
16 So that is a follow on effort.
I don't think they 17 know what we have been doing.
If they were still in the business i
18 of approving supergrades, I think that they might have said 19 in the audit, go back and finish this organizational review l
20 that you haven't done thus far in any real depth, but the 21 audit itself indicated a number of areas where we have seen 22 the problems in terms of the kinds of jobs, and the kinds 23 of responsibilities, how they interfac.
It would be almost e
24 necessary as a base for proceeding in a logical manner to et Fea wal Reporters, Inc, 25 look ' at the total structure in terms of deputies and assistant l
l i
he
' o 36 1
directors, and that kind of people.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Joe, what I would propose 3
at least two of us ure not prepared to vote, and I know we have
(
4 got another. session coming up.
We can thank these gentlemen 5
and go on to the next.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess that is what we will have 7
to do.
I'd also point out to you that the 97A paper came up 8
on the 22nd of September, and I hope you will take a look at 9
it and move on it.
We have spent a very long time in the process 10' of this audit, and I think it is highly desirable that the 11 Commission conclude this phase, and move on, so I recommend the 12 paper to you.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I appreciate having this 14 briefing, which I recommended we have on the 5th of October.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 'Thank you, gentlemen.
16 (Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.)
17 18 l
l 19 20 21 22 23 t
24
,*.:o FCn eral Reporters, Inc.
25