Question: What do federal lawmakers (members of the House and Senate) sometimes have in common with the mating habits of male giraffes, elephants or walruses?
Answer: They think something is a good idea and do it. Then they walk away to let others sort things out. (Eliminating poverty got top priority decades ago, but it is still a work in progress).
Here’s another stumper.
Question: What do civil service rule-writers have in common with female whales, manatees and velvet worms?
Answer: Given the situations lawmakers regularly put them in, it can take a long time (sometimes a gestation period of a couple of years) before they can deliver.
All of the above explains, at least in part, why the White House-congressional phased retirement plan, which was signed into law in July 2012, still hasn’t phased out a single fed. The Office of Personnel Management released draft rules in June 2013.
Now it is March 2014 and inquiring wannabe retirees would like to know what’s up? As in, how difficult can it be to set up a program whereby people would work part- time, for a while, mentoring their replacements and dipping their toes into retirement without going cold turkey. Turns out the devil really is in the details.
Congress and the White House said this is great, do it! But do what?
It’s up to OPM staffers (who will be keel-hauled by Congress if the program has any glitches) to make phased retirement work. The pending law raises more questions than it answers. Such as:
Benefits: People approved for phased retirement would be eligible for the federal health insurance program. But what about other things like life insurance, the dental-vision insurance program, long-term care and flexible-spending accounts?
TSP contributions: What about TSP accounts? Will part-time phased retirees continue to get matching agency contributions to their accounts?
Mentor who and for how long? The law requires phased retirees to spend 20 percent of their time mentoring newer, younger workers. But what does that mean? What if there is no pending successor to mentor?
Phase me up, Scotty! The proposed rules say people under the CSRS program eligible for immediate retirement (age 55 with 30 years service or 60 with 20 years) would be eligible. But what about someone 62 or older with five or more years?
FERS Social Security Supplement: For FERS phased retirees, would the proposed rules eliminate the Social Security supplement they get if they are under age 62? Should it?
Those are just some of the issues regulation-writers are wrestling with.
Scooby Doo’s distinctive speech disorder has been diagnosed as “rhotic replacement,” which refers to the hungry canine’s propensity to add the letter “R” to words (“ruh-roh” for “uh-oh,” for example). He is the only known sufferer of the phonological disorder.
Updating GS pay system key to attracting new talent Steve Condrey, chairman of the Federal Salary Council, tells In Depth with Francis Rose that the key to bringing in new talent — and making sure they stay — is modernizing the aging General Schedule system. While nearly 30 percent of the federal workforce is under the age of 40, the infrequently updated GS pay system is old enough to collect Social Security.
Report calls for continuous evaluation of security clearance holders Six months after 34-year-old IT contractor Aaron Alexis opened fire at the Washington Navy Yard killing 12 people, concerns about missed red flags in his background and gaps in the security clearance process are now turning into action. The Obama administration released the findings of a interagency review of the federal security clearance process Tuesday. Among the 13 recommendations for shoring up the system are continuously evaluating clearance holders rather than relying on infrequent check-ups and improving investigators’ access to state and local police records.
Pentagon reviews find Navy Yard shootings were preventable Newly-released results of three parallel investigations into last September’s Washington Navy Yard shootings point to serious gaps in the government’s own security process. But the Navy’s review finds the killings could have been prevented if the shooter’s employer had disclosed troubling details about his recent behavior.