By Stephen Barr
The Washington Post
Monday, October 9, 2006; Page
D04
As federal employees understand
all too well, it's sometimes hard to sort out myth and
fact in Washington.
Last week, the White House
budget office posted a paper on one of the Bush
administration's Web sites ( http://www.results.gov )
that, from its perspective, tried to set the record
straight on the president's management agenda for the
government.
That agenda has been
controversial since it began five years ago -- in part
because it promotes contracting out federal work and
more rigorous approaches to measuring the performance of
employees and programs. It's safe to predict that a
number of the "facts" in this new paper will be disputed
by federal unions and in some quarters of Congress.
Federal employees also will
bring their workplace experiences to bear when assessing
the Office of Management and Budget's paper, which pulls
together the administration's explanations on
contentious sections of the agenda. Among the paper's
points:
· Changes to the federal
personnel systems are not intended to cut payroll
expenses. "The amount of money spent overall on raises
will not change, and employee benefits will not change,"
according to the paper. "If an employee is a good
performer, he or she will attain higher pay levels
faster."
· Additional money has been
proposed for training and implementation of new
personnel systems. (The paper does not stipulate how
much, but officials said two departments -- Defense and
Homeland Security -- plan to spend several million
dollars.)
· Projected savings from job
competitions between federal employees and contractors,
often in dispute, will be tracked and verified.
"Agencies are establishing internal processes to
independently validate results from completed
competitions," according to the paper.
· Program assessment ratings,
conducted by the OMB, are not used to eliminate federal
programs that are out of favor with the administration.
Ineffective programs, the paper noted, "may well need
more money."
Asked if the paper had been
posted with an eye to the November congressional
elections, Robert Shea at the OMB said no. The paper had
been in the works for some time, said Shea, who serves
as counselor to Clay Johnson III, deputy director for
management at the OMB.
The management agenda was drawn
up shortly after President Bush took office, when
administration officials assumed they could count on
widespread support in Congress. But a series of events,
including questions about the government's sluggish
response to Hurricane Katrina, have slowed the
administration's ability to overhaul key systems.
Federal unions and the OMB have
battled annually over outsourcing, with Congress
sometimes supporting unions. A pending House
appropriations bill would block some funding for the OMB
program assessment ratings. Federal court rulings have
blocked personnel system changes that would sharply
limit union rights.
Johnson and OMB Director Rob
Portman, speaking at a recent luncheon sponsored by the
IBM Center for the Business of Government, said that
they plan to pick up their efforts to sell Congress on
the president's management agenda.
"One of the reasons we are
focused on this, and Clay and I are working a little bit
more deliberately with Congress and trying to
institutionalize more of this, is that we know these
committees, some of the staff, some of the members, are
going to outlive this administration," Portman said.
Buying and Spending
In responding to the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks, the government has increasingly
relied on contractors for support and solutions, the
Government Accountability Office reported Friday.
From 2001 through 2005, federal
acquisition spending increased more than 65 percent, to
$388 billion in 2005, the GAO said.
But the government's
acquisition workforce has remained steady, at about
106,000 employees. "Many have raised concerns that the
increased workload has stretched this workforce to its
limit," the GAO said.
The surge in spending also has
renewed worries about contract abuse and mismanagement,
and Charles Peters, the legendary editor of the
Washington Monthly, has kicked off a debate on
contracting issues at
http://www.understandinggovernment.org
. The Web site provides federal employees with a forum
where they may remain anonymous.
Federal employees interested in
government spending also might want to check out
http://www.fedspending.org
, sponsored by OMB Watch, an advocacy group founded in
1983 to promote increased government accountability.
That site, which will contain data on $12 trillion in
spending from 2000 to 2005, launches tomorrow.
Stephen Barr's e-mail
address is
barrs@washpost.com.