ML22230A155

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tran-M780601: Discussion of Implementation of Supergrade Audit Report (Open to Public Attendance)
ML22230A155
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/01/1978
From:
NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M780601
Download: ML22230A155 (1)
v • d • e


Text

SECRETARIAT RECORDS

~p.R REG(/<'.

~c,'-

.q>-

l~

0

~) Transcript of Proceedings

\\

,l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

',i,'>

~o Pages 1 -

30 DISCUSSION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPERGRADE AUDIT REPORT (Open to Public Attenda~ce)

June 1, 1978 Prepared by:

C.H. Brown Office of the Secretary

DISCLf\\lMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States*

Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on

JUNE I /t:/JT in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. t,J., Has~rngton, D. C.

The*

meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been rev i e\\*1ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the forma1 or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any stater.1ent or arg~tment contained herein, except as the Comr.iission may authorize.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

DISCUSSION or IMPLEMENTATION OF,SUPERGRADE AUDIT REPORT

. (Op~n to Public Attendance)

Commissioners' Conference Room 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C~

Thursday, June 1, 1978 The Commission met pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m.,

Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford ALSO PRESENT:

s. Chilk L. Gossick D. Donoghue J. Kelley
w. Dircks K. Pederson A. Rosenthal

1 2

3 4

5 6,

7 8

9 Hi 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

.21 22 23 24 25 2

P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Good.morning..

This morning our subject is Discussion of' Implementati n of Supergrade Audit.Report.

Lee, go ahead..

MR. GOSSICK: All right, sir.

In Feb~uary we.sent down.to you the restllts of the supergrade audit that we had been conducting over the past several months.

In the paper we laid out an implementation plan that the staff proposed for implementing the recommend-ations or proceeding with the matter of supergrades and positions addressed by the audit report.

It:was primarily a paper add~essing the procedure.

We were not taking any position on the actual_, final number of supergrade positions that we were saying that we needed,* or for that matter, with regard to any of the positions that the DAMANS people recommended be upgraded or downgraded.

As you recall, there were some of both.

The paper also, we requested approval or your guidance with regard to the mechanism that was bein~ proposed for treating the matter of appeals that might be made with regard to specific positions following the determination by the Division of Organizational Personnel on those positions.

And that would, of course, involve both upward as well as any downwa d issues that were involved with regard to grade.

1 2

3 4

,5 6

7, 8

9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

It was our position that we would not, at this time, nor do we now suggest that we make any additional requests or.

reques~s for any additional supergrade*positions, or for that matter at this point take any action with regaid to the upgradings or the downgradings.

But we w6µ1~, of course, come back to the Commission with reg<;1.rd to whE!re will we come out. on whether~~ need.additional.positions or on issues that involve controversy over whether given positions should be higher or lower trhan it is now established.

That in sum is the na tlire of the paper.

As,.1,'

understood it, there are certain questions with regard to the subject.

Dan can review the audit i tse_lf, if you would like just* to refresh your memory, or however you would like to proceed.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Could we get a brief rundown of the.number of positions at the present time and the number that were recommended by the_ contractor and what we think the right number is, rather, that number being different from the previous two numbers.

MR. GOSSICK~

We are not really at a point to make you a recommendation today, because we need to go through the mechanism of addressing both the downgradings that are involved as well as some of the upgradings which strangely enough there is some disagreement on, on the part of management.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we do have a paper that

1 2

3.

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4

says:

"Implementation of Supergrade Audit Report," and we aie asked to approve or not approve~--

MR. DONOGHUE:

Yes.

It ii pri~arily, though, procedural in nature.

What we are saying is the way we wanted to proceed, was that the: cont'ractor' s. report,,which we*

view as a contractor's report and not havip.g any w~ight*with respect to what the agency final determination ought to be,

.would be reviewed by the Division of Organization and Personnel and it would be determined whether they agree or disagree with the coI:J.clusions and recommendations in the contractor's report.

Then, in those cases where there is disagreement, that is*between the office director and the person involved as to the proper grading, we propose setting up a performance.

review -- position evaluation revie*w committee wii.ose function would be then to hear the dispute, say between Personnel and the DkMANS study and the position of the office director or the person involved.

This would give a maµagement perspe,ctive to the study as it presently exists and to the personnel eval0,ation which is more of a personnel mechanical evaluation as opposed to a management input that this. committee would give.

The committee would then make recommendations under the proposal to the Executive Director, who would then make a final decision on what the proper grade of that position is.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5

COMM.ISSIONER GILINSKY:

Could I just stop you there.

That has not yet been done?

MR. DONOGHUE:

None of that has been done.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, what is it that the Commissioner would be approving if he checked the "concurred" box here?

MR. DONOGHUE:

He would be approvin:_g.the establish-ment of the position evaluation review committee which would hear the disputes between management and say the Office of Organization and Personnel.

And he would be approving the fact that the Executive Director would make the final decision based upon the recommendations of this review committee, the input from the contractor and from the Division of O£P.

And that's -- presently,.:that's the way most ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But we would not, then, have an opportunity to review the staff recommendations there, because you are saying here ---

MR. DONOGHUE:

Well, I think the Commission could say, before the EDO makes a final determination that you would like to have a review by the Commission.

There is a dispute between which an issue has been raised in terms of who should make the final decision on these grades, particularly offices reporting to the Commission and specifically, Mr. Rosenthal on behalf of~the Adjudicatory Boards and Pan~ls, feels like those positions should be determined, the final determination

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12

. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6

should be made by the *commission as opposed to the EDO.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, there is that issue, but an earlier question here concerning the recommendations, it seemed to me we were signing a blank check because the recommendation was the Commission approve the requesting of additional supergrade positions from bMB after the aud;i.t

  • report has been analyzed.

MR. DONOGHUE:

Well, that's after*the complete analysis, which I'm talking about.

MR. GOSSICK:

We.would come back to you, *as we have always done.

We would come to the Commission with the staff recommendation that, okay, we think we can now justify. "X" number of,a'dditional positions and. go back to 0MB for it.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well then, what is the point of approving that at this point?

MR. GOSSICK:

Well, there were some arguments within the staff that we ought to go directly now, right now, on the basis of the audit report recommendations and request 25 new positions, because that is in effect where they came out.

Our view is, "no, we think that's premature.

We need to treat the rest of this and then go back after we deci~ed what we really can justify with Commission concurrence and our approval and see how we can make out with OMB."

MR. DONOGHUE:

In some respects we could be overtaken by events if the President's Civil Service Reform Bill goes into

1.

2 3

'I.

4 5

6 7

8

  • 9 10 11 12 1,3 14

. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7

or is f)assed'which-would est~blish a senior executive service.

That *would automatica:.lly mc;1.ke, the creation of a:1-1 new-, what*.

we would call supergrades now but which :would be the SES would be. under the* c<?gnizance of the Office of Perso_nnel Management which_ would be establis'hed separately i17- -thi:s reorga:nizat1.on So we, to some *extent, would lose.control over 'the numbers, the. evaluation of the position and the qualifications*

  • of people that we would.want to put in-those posi_tions.

It is probably likeiy that if we went to 0MB right now with

_any number, because of the pendency of this bill, the:y would proba_bly just tell us to hold off i because :t don It think they wo~ld be in any mood to:c~eate* any additional super~rade jobs which would in effect grandfather them in, because under the bill E';Xisting supergrades can elect to go into* the senior executive service or not.

If they do not, they retain their supergrade status.

So for**a period of"time there*will be a two-track system operating, be.cause a,11 new supergrade or executive level positions will have. to be into the SES and:,:*over a period of time there won't. be*.:-:-- the supergrade system will just wash away by the passage of time.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, just glancing over your recommendations here it seemed to me' that 4 thru 7 tracks your remarks about setting up a position evaluation review committee and approving of the evaluation system and a training

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8

seminar and so on.

But L.thru 3 seemed to me to ---

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Require at least number 4 tq be done first.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I* would think so, yes.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And might better hav,e been phrased number 1, might better.have been phrased then the Commission approved preparation by the staff for Commission review, perhaps of an appropriate request for additional supergrade positions before they-had been analyzed.

And similarly perh~ps for 2 and 3.

Because, if inde~~ it is contemplated to come bac~ -- if the Commission is to look again at the results of the. committee's thrushing out the disputes, why MR. GOSSICK:

Well, there are a number that are not really in dispute, and _I guess the question here is:

do*es the Commission want to become involved in -- like, we have got some vacant positions that we could downgrade and we really are saying that based on the review byi.the staff that we would I

propose to go ahead and downgrade those.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Downgrading vacant positions may be one of the relatively few easy steps that can be taken.

MR. GOSSICK:

That's right.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But it.may.not necessarily be al that easy step.

It may be easy to do,it may not be easy to recover from.

Having done it, you have done it and that does

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9

not mean that you have made.available that downgraded -- that recovered supe~grade fo~,another position.

And ~nder the current circumstances, it seems *to ~e much more likely that that would h~ppen thin not.

So it:~eems to me ~ne ought not pr6ceed on on~ piece of the action ~ithout having qonsidered the entire package.

MR. GOSSICK:

One thing that we have to be careful about is keeping the slots,-- the number of total supergrade slots that we are dealing with kin~ of separate from within the,sup'~rgrade range.

There are certain upgradings and downgradings that are involved.

And that would not affect the number of slots.

.In other words, a 17 downgarded to. a 16-because of the review and ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Or a 16 downgraded to a.*15_

MR. GOSSICK:

That's a different matter.

But there are more recommendations CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Is there_notable disadvantage to holding that whole set of actions for final review and decision, that would come'at. the time when there is a recommendation on what to.do about the disputed ups or downs.

If there is not a distinctive disadvantage in doing that, why I would be inclinded to agree with Commissioner Kennedy that it might be better to take all MR. DONOGHUE:

Right, but then you see, the total effect of the action, and like -Commissioner Kennedy points out,

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12

  • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 you haven't done something that you can't recover from.

If you fin~ out in evaluating some other aspects in which we really hadn It done that now..

MR. GOSSICK:

Which really leaves us then with your appro"i.;a.:1' or guidance.with regard to t~e review.* comrai ttee -in getting that p:i;-ocess, sta:r;-ted, and particularly. on how you want to *treat the positions_ at the* Commission office level.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's see,.first of all sort of take things one at a time and perhaps we can move,ahead.

It seems to me that it. is an eminently reasonable propos~tion.

I am looking now at page 8 of the paper which is 78-97, and -looking ther_e at sort df the second half of the recommendation.

It seems to me an eminently reasonable proposition in number 4 that the Commission approve establishing a position evaluation review committee to assist the EDO in decid~ng a request for-review bf dis~uted.downgrading.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I would suggest an amendment there to take care of the que~tion which Mr. Gossick rightly raises, and that is what to do in such-an effort about the Commissio~ staff offices.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I would like to deal with tha next, but what I wbuld like to do ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, is this outfit not to have anything to do with those people, those positions?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That*';s the thing I would like to

1 2

3

4.

5, 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 determine in a minute.

At the moment I would. like to get the Commission to vote approval of that recommendation COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I'm trying to say I can't.

until we dispose of the other matleri becaus~.it,seems to me.

we either have to say 'this outfit is no,t going tO have anything *to do.with it or that it is, and if it is, how,it is.

MR. GOSSICK:

I understood the Chairman to say 'just staff offices.on this one.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I would like to deal with the question of the Commission offices next.

What I'm going to piopose to you is,first of all, for the bulk o.f the offices -- staff offices such a committee is a perfectly reasonable mechanism to help thrush out the differing points of view and bring a.recommendation forth.

After that I am going to recommend t,o you that for the Commissio offices, for the purpose of having a reasonable uniformity across *the th1ng that the same committee look at them.

I'm goihg to ask that the whole.matter come back to the Commission for. final decision.

But it seems to me the concerns of having a representative group hear *the arguments and scratch their heads and decide what they think ought to be done, that there is merit in having.:the same group of people hear disputes across the whole range of the organization.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But you are not including the Boards in that categoryiare tou?

1 2

3,

.4 5

6 7

8, 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I don't see why not.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I guess I wouldn't~

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Do ybu-w~nt to* include *the

'I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

What** s *different, between the Boards and s~y th~ Office of the General Corinsel?

. MR. ROSENTHAL:

May I spea~ fo thaf, becau~e:I feel very strongly that th~re is a considerable difference.

The. B~ards perform adjud:icatOr,y::::,_:functions.

It seems to :me* tbat it is extraordinar.:kly important, and this importance has been recognized over the years, and this Commission and its predecessor.that the wall of separation between the adjudica tory boards and t;he Commission staff, _which.in the final analysis is a litigant before the Boards be maintained ---

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'm sorry, the General Counse*l is not a litigant before the Boards.

What.I'm saying is how do you distinguish yourself from the other Commission offices?

MR. ROSENTHAL:

T distinguish it on the basis of the functions that. are performed by the Boards.

These functions are* adjudicatory functions.

General Counsel is not a lit,igant before the Board, but the: Commission staff is.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:*

.I 'm sorry, I 'm talking about Commission off ices* and I am getting ready to recommend to th_e Commission that whatever Board we establish to help thrush out

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 and bring to the Commission recommendations on up and downgradings for staff offices; also look at similar disputes at the Commission-office level in order-that the. same sort of standards be applicable and there be some reasonable evenness of evaluation ac:i:-oss th.e organization~

'And I don't see what distinguishes your ca~e from say, a dispute.over whether the'Ge~eial Cou~sel should be at this* l~vel o~ 'that level.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, we may not be doing the right thing in the case of the General Counsel either, but that's a separate matter again.

But I think the difference is clear on the case of the Board.

You can't have the staff setting in the extreme case, the sal~iies of the Boards.

MR. ROSENTHAL:

One of the ---

,CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, if the Commission is going

.to make a decision, why theywould be.

MR. ROSENTHAL: But I don't think the staff should be even put in a position of having to make recommendations with respect to what the appropriate grade level -- now, what we are talking about cortc~~tely in this instance, because the only positions on either panel, Licensing Board Panel or Appeal Panel is affected by DAMANS' recommendation is the position of Vice Chairman of the Appeal Panel, which has been recommended for downgrading.

I do noL.think that given the fact that the staff,

1 2

..3 4

5 7

8 9*

10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

14.

and I qon't.know who is goipg to serve on the position, the evaluat,ion review c;::ornrnittee, but these: presumably.are going

'1*'

  • to:be members of tpe NRC*staff which is a litigant before the Appeal Boards., as well as the* Licensi{ig Boards.

And I think Jit puts the*. staff in. an unte.nable position.to be passing judgment, even on a reco~ended basis, everi though* they may not have.the final word, be passing judgment on what is the appropriate grade level for the Vice*chairman of the.Appeal Panel, before whom the staff regularly appears*.

I think this is just th.e same thirig as the Attorney General being called upon to make recommendations as to what appropriate salary levels the Federal Judges should be.

MR. DONOGHUE:

But the Civil. Servic*e Commission makes judgments now as. to. what the salary levels for the administrative law judges CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, I think what you are saying is that the Civil Service Commission would really have no right to set compensation and performance standards for administrative law judges,::Jbecause indeed,, the Civil Service Commission may,* in certain circumstances, be a litigant before one. or another of these judges considering the.wide range of functions that they have~

I must say, you know, you work for the Federal Government, as do the rest of us, Al, and there has to be some reasonable personnel handling of your affairs.

The Boards

1 2

3, 4

5

6.

7 8

I, 9

10 11 12

. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 are not divinely constituted.

I'm sorry.

MR. ROSENTHAL:

No, I*certainly was not suggesting

. divine consti~ution..

I was suggesting that CHAIR..Jl.1AN HENDRIE:

Yo~ know, what you want is a st~ndard which do~sn't apply to any of the 6ther ~50O~odd employees of.the. agenc,:¥ ~

  • MR. ROSENTHAL:

Now, let.me put it concretely*in these.terms.

If I g_o*before a position evaluation review. committee, I will be going before them basically o~ ~ position which they cannot evaluate.

I. think in the final analysis the.Appeal Panel stands in the role of a delegate **of this Commission.

Whether the position of Vice Chairman of this Appeal Panel is worthy of a grade 18 or not depends upon how this Commission looks upon the function that is performed by the Appeal Panel members.

It is -- I would say it is a sui generis function.

It cannot be equated, in my*judgment, to any -- there is no position like this in the Executive Branch of the Government except for the Review Board of the Federal Communications Commission.

Now, we are a peculiar animal, we were set up by the Commission to perform under the Commission delegation certain responsibilities.

I tend to think myself, and my case would be that this position in the totality of circumstances warrants the grade that is presently assigned to it.

1 2

3 4

5 q

7 8

.9 10 11

. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 Now, in the final analysis I don't think -- for me to go before a position evaluati,on review conunittee and to make that pitch, the. committee incidenbil.ly is a litigant or members or litigants before us, is very appropriate.

I can

  • go before _them and they can make a* reco~end,ation*, but in the final analysis, it seems to me the question as it appiies to this particular office is one that this Commission { tsel.f has*

to face.

It has to decide* how it views its* delegate.

We are a creation of this Commission to perform on a delegated basis*,

Commission functions.. And if it decides that that position is not worthy in the to-i:ali ty of circumstances how*ever it may regard the Appeal Panel as being an 18, so be it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Look, this Commission is not free,,

in my.view, to assign grades to you or anybody else in the*

organizati6n, t6t~lly.without regard to the context of the rest of the Federal Government and grade levels and skill.and responsibility levels which establish a scale in all the rest of the Federal ~overnment.

It seems to me that we are required to operate under. a personnel policy, which rim sorry to say include you and the Panels as well as Commissioners, which establish that there are these scales and that when we set a grade level on~ job it has tb have background requirements, responsibility is attached to it and the general aspect which is consi~tent with that sort of grade level in the rest of the Federal Government.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9:

10 11 12*

13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17

.Now, indeed the Commission ought to decide what the grade should be for Board and Panel members and so on.

We can't do it in blind ignorance and just ignoring all of that body of background which the personnel regulations of the Federal Government require us to consider, it seems-to me.

What we are talking.about here then is* a. mechanism by which the Commission will be advised on how to treat the particular case.

The one in your shop as well as the one in other people's shops, both in Commission offices and EDO offices, Al.

And you know, what you are saying is you* refuse to accept.any

.agency that the Commission might establish except the Commissioners themselves.

Now, indeed we could sit down and review all of these up and dowri gradings ourselves, but as in a good many other things we think -- my view is*it is helpful to have a group of people on the staff who are knowledgeable,in this case in personnel matters and in the sort of bench~marking and grading that goes on, to look at it and say, well, this ~rgument of yours is good and we don't think much of this one and there are these other considerations and here's our recommendation.

Then the Commission makes the final decision.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, *but you are assuming that this is kind of a quantitative process and it is done entirely dispationately and so on.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, in principle it is.

In

I l

I 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21*

22 23 24 25 18 practice it suffers from the inevitable difficulties that we are human: beings and, rou know, th.ere all of the snags and. ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It is a matter 'of weighing and I think. we could safely entrust t:.hat.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, if the Commission would

.prefer.that the.*Boards.*be'. set aside arid treated in a different

.. matter, why, if the major.ity of the Coriurii~sion feels that way,,

why we certainly will do that.

  • What do you recommend for the other Commission offices.

MR. ROSENTHAL:

I would l~t.the-other Commission.

offices speak for themselves.

I would have* to say in that regard that I perceive a distinction betweeh'the other Commission offices and the adjudicatory panels.' As I see it there *is clear warrant in the case of the adjudicatory panels for the Commission to.do it itself.

I~hhink with respect to the other staff offices the case is closer and reasonable minds could, as I would.

perceive it,could reasonably differ.

But I speak only for the adjudicatory panels and more particularly,* since the only is immedi~tely involved is the Appeal Panel, I speak for*it.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Now,how are judges salaries established in relation to the Justice Department.

Does Justice make any recommendations and then*send those before the Congress?

.1 2

3'

4.

5

'6 7

8 9

',. 10 11 12 13

,14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19

\\

MR. ROSENTHAL:

As far as I am aware, the answer is "no".

That would be a very sensitive business be.cause the Justice Departrn:entis in the business of appearing befOre th~

courts.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.

Well, I think. there is a more fundamental' se:r;,aration than' that and it' d~ri,ves: f~om th,e 'fa~t that th¢ Constittition establishes thre~ in~~pendent branchis

  • of the* Federal. Government.

The judges, fall in:::to:..:,one:,arid:..:t.he.

Justice** Department in to. another.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

.First of all.there was a reason for that separation and we ought to consider*whether that.reason is valid here, but.on the 6ther~~ide it is also true that the Attorney General has*a substanti~l ~ole in pi.eking judges.

S6 whether or hot he then helps to decide how much they are pad:d, the Justice Department does have*some role in at least the initi~l ---

MR. ROSENTHAL:

They have lifetime appointments.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Once they are there it is a very different matter.

MR~ KELLEY:

There is a provision.of the Constitution that says you.can't cut their salaries while they are in office.

They have really got it m*ade, *except for inflation.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

  • Would that 'the. Founding Fathers hade thought so well of us.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

The Founding Fathers never thought of us at all.

20 1

CHAIRMAN,HENDRIE:

Let me see if I.*can direct the 2

discµssion.back where* I was going which.was fir~t of all 3

to say* that I,believe the position ev:aluation committee, -as 4

recommended' by the staff is an eminently s.ensible thing to 5*.

  • , do and I suggest that we approve th~t~

I' 6

COMMIS.SIONER KENNEDY: I have serious re.9ervations 7

9 1.0 11 14 15 16

17.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about that until I know the composition.

I first agree with Allen that* the Boc:1rds and Panels should.be kept separately, and I do not think and certainly from my own part, an impossible

  • burden,*oni which I coftld not bear, I feel I can't,* bear

.the responsibility for making a decisi6n with respect to the one inatant matter for Boards and Panels.

I think I can weigh that one through on the basis of *.all the information available to me *and not suffer *.too greatly in the process.

I would be glad to do it this a,fternoon, as a matter,,cof fact.

_As to the other Commissions staff, :*,off ices, I. assume

.we. are going to discuss that.. and I would 'like to hear from them, at some point.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Could I return to the point at issue,* Dick, which is for the E0O offices, the staff offices COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The EDO offices, that is th.e Commission staff~--

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All of the staff of the NRC*.*:,;:

except those offices attached directly to the Commission level.

The motion before the house is approval of the

1 2,

'J,'

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 recommendation -- to have a*policy recommendation.

COMMISSIONEE KENNEDY:

Yes~

CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:

May I have a vote on that.

(A,unanimous vote of ";¥es~,' C by the Commissioners.)

CHA:!RW\\N HENDRIE:

Good~. so ordered..

Now, let us-discuss. the question of,w:hether said'

  • Committee should review or not review any Commission offices..
  • And Al, since you ar*e at.the. table, let's see what the Com:missio

. division is on the: Boards* and* Panels, *although I guess. ther~

is a'$ingle action of fact at issue there.

The Boards arid Panels?

.-say no.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Boards and Panels,. I would COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No.

COMMISSIONER, BRADFORD:

No

  • CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I would say y~s, but 3-1, you are in the clear~

Sam,. are you keeping track?

MR. CHIL.K: * *. I am keeping track.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I hope someone is totaling up the score.

MR. <:!HILK:

Yes,.. we are keeping* track.

We are keeping track all the time.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Good.

Other Commission offices?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I would like to hear the other

1

2.

3 4

5.'

6 7

8 9

10..

  • 11
  • 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commission.offices on th.e subject.

Mr. Pedersbn,,yciu are heie.

MR. PEDERSON:

Yes.

,22

  • COMMISSIONER KE.NNEDY:

Mr~.Kelley, you are here.

Ma:y: we hear. from them?

CHi\\IRMAN HENDRIE~

Of course.

MR. PEDERSON:..

'I preceive the pboblen;i. with, the Boards and.P.anels.

  • I mu.st confes*.s
  • that I. came today failfng to* preceive this,wdu1d be raised as an issue.

I conctit'~ed in the paper.

I guess -- personally.

speakincj", I have n9 cl.ifficulty., philosophically or otherwise having the DAMANS recommendatic;ms with regard t*o OPE reviewed by thi.s committee on grounds of consistency., :i.f :}L:have,?the full assurance that the final decision will be made by the Commission; that I have an opportunity to state my case to the*commission.if I have difficulty*with the recommendation.

I would argue, however, for some degree of equal treatment.

If the decision is -- if my colleague from OGC and my colleague from* SECY argue.that they should not go before the board ~nd win, I would hate to have the fact that I didn't object~ he is agains~*me and have OPE appear.

I just cannot philosophically argue that I'm opposed to having a ::review~:by.:c~*the board.

CHAIRMAN }IENDRIE*:.. Tha f.'s--the d-tsadvan_fa:ge : of:: <ioing * *

    • -. --~.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 first.

MR. PEDERSON.:

I unde'rstand that, and* that is. why I was sort of looking at the ceilin~ when you~--

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

On the other, hapd, you have

    • set a very hi~h.~tandard for t&e others.

MR. PEDERSON:

Thcit,has never intimidated then in the past, Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

Jim.

MR. KEL_LEY:

I have no objection to being reviewed by the board.

MR. CHILK:

I guess. I do.

I feel kind of strongly as Allen does about the fact that the Co:m:rnision staff is an entity, works for the Commission, that our resources, our grades, our duties are Commission responsibilities;* that we have the right to present our cases*to you.

That we have-t:he privilege of hearing your decisions.

You may go to EDO and ask for his advice in making that deteiminati6n or you may go to 7 other places and asking for advice in making that determination.

~ut I think it is a Commission responsibility to take care of the Commission staff and I feel rather strongly that that responsibility should not be delegated to EDO.

COI"'lMISSIONER KENNEDY:

But isn't the entire staff the Commission staff?

MR. CHILK: The entire staff is the Commission staff,

1

2.

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13

  • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 but there is an intermediate sup~rvisor.

We work directly for five bosses and it is my b~lief that the staff ought to be able to present_ its case to the five bosses and ~eceive decisions with regard to resources and'.including grade levels, may ask for advice' from others* in helping' reac;::h that decision.

.rt is the procedure we. followed in. the* past, the.

budget and other places., I would like to see it continued.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

What is different here than the budget.procedure?

MR. CHILK; In the past, we have considered, I don't know if the question really came up this past year, but

.in the past we have considered the Commission.offices -- the Commission offices' resources have been discussed by the Commission.

They were not passed on by EDO.

MR. PEDERSON: Yes, but I believe the EDO and the Budget Review Committee in the past have made recommendations.

I know last year there.was a recommendation made with regard to OPE's budget level by the EDO, the Budget Review Committee.

Those were recognized as being somewhat different,.but nonethe-less, a recommendation was made.

MR. CHILK:

The Commission. has asked EDO from time-to-time to make recommendations on a number of matters, but the basic handling of the matter has been between the staff and the Commission.

And two years ago there was kind of an argument about that.

l 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12

.,13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

,25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Is there*any re.ason why this review. gr,oup sh~ouldn' t inc:lude someone from Cq,mmission-

,level off ices?

MR. DONOGHUE:

They should.

Jf ' :ae Commission:

level officer.-:_:_,:i~,!Je:j.:~9":crev.iewed, they. sti,ould inc'iude Gommission level.

.MR. PEDERSON:

I would *second that.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That woulq be a useful amendment the.n,

  • to.. the recommendations.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think that is a very good idea.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

In such a case, I could then support the recommendation,if it were so amended~

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And do 'we have -- let's see.

The eongressional Affairs Office probably didn't anticipate a need to come and defend themselves.

Do we have a member here ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think they ought.to be reviewed.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And I take it the Inspector, and Audi tor didn't feel. any need to send anyone either, so we don't have them represented.

Gentlemen, I will recommend to you that --

I think it is appropriate that there be someone from the Commission offices on the review committee.

And since the recommendations

1 2

3 4

5 6

I 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

  • 26 o.f this review committee with appropriate commentary and.

calling by EDO are. going to come to the Commission for d,ecision on it al-:J_across the board, *I will then recommend to you that the Commission offices, with the excep,tio:r;i'if you like of,the Boards. and Panels, be called by this *co:mmi ttee and r_ecormnendations be present~d to us.

the ACRS?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I "*vote 'yes.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What about the ACRS?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: *yes, where does that leave CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I assume the ACRS' falls in with the Commission offices.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would agree.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Because what we are talking about

  • is not the members of the ACRS, but the members of the NRC staff that are provided by the Commission in full time support of the Committee activities.

Again, I note with the recommendation to come to the Commission for final action it seems useful to me to have some advice on *these.matters as we sit down and look at it and if that advice can be across-the-board, I think it is helpful.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Have we heard from the ACRS on this point at all?

MR. CHILK:

I think they raised the same objection

1 2

3 4-5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12,,

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 that others are raising about direct appeal to the Commission, I believe.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The did, but it seems to me that is provided for.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, their *recommenda.tion to come to the.Commission and the people who objec~ *to 'the recommendations, I assume can come and complaint.

God, they can come *and complain under an open-door policy quite apart

. from any agreement specific here to this matter that we might make tod,ay.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, they haven't raised the point and I don't know whether they were as.alert~-* to *it, perhaps as the Appeal Board was or not, but again, it does seem to me that we expect a somewhat independent function from them.

If they themselves aren't concerned that that would_

be compromised by this type of review, then obviously there is no reason for us to purs~e it a lot further.

But I guess I'm a little surprised that it isn't a point that they felt some, concerh on as well.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, I would think no more so than whatever concern they might have had that, the DAMANS study itself included Commission level offices as well as staff level offices. -

MR. DONOGHUE:

The staff we are talking about would be really no different than Sam Chilk, you know, providing the

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 same staff service to the Commission.

The people who would be reviewed would be just staff membership to the Chairman and the *members, and the Cha.irman and the members** are not subject to this review.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, now may I call you;r-* attention

  • J

/.

to re'commenda tions 5, 6, and 7 and see if T_,could encourage us to approve them en blanc.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What does that mean to,

approve the supergrade evaluation system.

This is our MR. DONOGHUE:

Our system.

We have only*got about 13 bench-mark jobs now. What we are saying is we*need more bench~mark jobs, we need.some of the ones bette~ defined.

In other words, this is an improvement of the evaluation system.

This was one of the recommendations that feel out of the DAMANS study.* They saw some weaknesses in the system and.they recommended that we.ought to correct those.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: To narrow the range of judgmenta problems.

MR. DONOGHUE:

Exactly, right.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Now, 7 would not apply yet?

MR. DONOGHUE:

No. - We would tell the employees that the Commission has approved the performance evaluation review board and set up the mechanism for:them to appear.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Seven is pretty hard to qualify.

r I

1 2

3 4

5

.6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 CHAIRMAN "HENDRIE:

Well, considering the communication networks, formal and informal within the group, why it is i'n~vitable but it is a help to have *things come down the official communication channel and* try to present*

a complete picture.*

Would people then be willing to vote appr~)Val of those three?.

I think (A unanimous vote by the Commissioners.)

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, so ordered.

Now, with reg~rd to the first three recommendations, it seems to cie the sense of the discussion this morning is that as a consequence of the review of the the Committee* that we have approved there will be recommendations for Commission well, there will be recommendations for*ups and downs and total numbers and so on, and it is clear that the Commission would like to see all of these things in due time So I believe it is implicit in our previous approvals of 4 thru 7, particularly the discussion of recommendation 4, there is an implicit agreement that one should move forward and prepare recommendations on these things, but clearly we are not at the stage where we want to say, go to 0MB or ---

MR. GOSSICK:

On, no.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It seems to me that puts us now on the matter of the supergrade in the position where you can now take the next steps.. forward.

1 2

I MR. GOSSICK:

.Right.

\\

, CHAIRMAN *HENDRIE:

And Allen,, with regard to.the J

3

,, position in your shop,I'm g(?ing to leave it to*my colleagues 4

o:ri the majority side to decide that decision precisely.how 5

they will form up their recommendation and get it going.

6' So if, you want to help them on that _; __

7 8

9 10 11 12*

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ROSENTHAL:

Well, *.we will, of course, submit our position paper that.

you.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I thought I already had one from MR. ROSENTHAL:

On the merits of the position.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I:=:see.

Do we need more discussion of this matter?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Good, let us them turn without breaking stride to the next item.

(Whereupon the Commission concluded their d1scussion of th~~above entitled matter at 10:10 a.m. and moved on to other business.)

J

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML22230A155&oldid=3791946"