Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Politics and pay

DAILY BRIEFING

Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Politics and pay

Here are the responses we have received to the April 24 Ned on Feds column, "Politics and pay."

"I agree with much of the executive pay suggestion. Our elected and highest level executive officials have significant and sometimes monumental, occasionally world shaking responsibilities. The same type of policy should also be applied to our state and local officials, on perhaps a lower scale.

"There should be one additional provision however. The government salary that is received is the ONLY remuneration of any kind that the officials may accept. No dinners or trips or gifts or legal fees stock options or any form of reward can be accepted from ANY source. I believe that adequately paying the people who make the decisions that affect every aspect of our lives is essential to attracting and retaining quality people.

"We need to make the pay attractive but not excessive. It is equally imperative to restrict the pressures placed on them by special interests, lobbyists and the like. I totally believe that we would be most well served if we fully pay or even overpay someone who is supposed to be looking out for the common good rather than allow them to be vulnerable to wealthy entities which have only their individual interests in mind. If our officials can in an unfettered manner I think that we will all be better served."

-C.G.Amsler, Jr.
Assistant Director for Civilian Records
NARA, NPRC

"Through the entire column, Ned doesn't address the issue of Congress being the only people in the U.S. able to decide if they get a raise."

-Name withheld

"Bravo!! After 20 years as a Fed and now 10 years in senior corporate management, I agree. Set a 'reasonable' range, set a budget, and let the senior manager negotiate within it. But, like you, I am not so naive that I have much hope for the type of change you propose."

-Name withheld

"It would be interesting to let federal employees have input to Presidential, Senior Exec. and Congressional Pay Raises. After all, they probably know the most about whether these folks know what they're doing. As regarding increases, these folks are constantly making the Federal employee pay and benefits a campaign and political issue-so why shouldn't their own pay and benefits also be exposed to the campaign and political considerations."

-Name withheld

"The president should get 1 million. Yes, a cool million, plus expenses. End of issue."

-Name withheld

"Instead of automatic COLAs, Congress should have its pay based on the Employment Cost Index, like other Fed employees. This would be the ultimate pay-for-performance that Congress keeps talking about for us. If the average American gets a pay raise, then so should Congress. If the average wage in the private sector lags the CPI, then likewise should Congressional pay. Let 'em put their money where their mouth is. It may make some Congressmen reconsider their policies and attitudes if the the welfare of the average working American was tied to their own."

-Name withheld

"I don't agree with a salary raise up to $300,000 for Congress. They already have too much time off and make things look bad for federal employees/civil servants."

-Name withheld

"I fully agree with Ned Lynch's assertion that Congressional salaries need to be raised. Caps on Congressional salaries have a negative, ripple effect throughout Executive Schedule and even the General Schedule.

"The problem is that the general populace is not educated as to the realities of executive pay, and I'm certain that if polled, a majority of citizens would say that Congressional salaries are already too high. At the same time, I have recently read many articles detailing the $300,000+ compensation packages for large-county public school superintendents. The salaries of members of Congress, heads of Federal agencies, and a majority of SES-level political and career employees is paltry, given their respective levels of responsibility.

"Private sector positions of similar responsibility or impact are vastly higher, to say nothing of lucrative stock options and perks. Granted, few private sector jobs can match the occupational prestige of being an agency head or deputy agency head, but the widening pay gap is making it harder and harder for highly qualified executives to consider or stay in high-level government positions. The raise of the President's salary is indeed a step in the right direction-unfortunately, a raise in Congressional salary is what is truly necessary to effect an overhaul of executive-level compensation in the Federal government."

-Name withheld

"Ned Lynch's proposals in his excellent article 'Politics and Pay' are not new, they have been proposed many times before by various writers in Gov't Exec and elsewhere. What is needed at this point is not a re-statement of the need, but a strategy for getting it implemented. Any reliable strategy must take into account real world constraints, such as politics and economics. So how do we get Ned's excellent ideas enacted into law? I would propose that such changes can only happen if they are recommend and supported by a non-governmental committee with credibility among voters.

"They should come in the form of an overall approach to 'reforming government.' Perhaps that sounds a bit trite, but the general public still believes there is need for further reformation in government at all levels. The public also believes public servants should be held more accountable. If a Blue Ribbon panel of business experts recommended a package of government reforms that included an overhaul of the federal compensation system, including incentives and benefits-along with accountability and productivity increases-it would have a far better chance of congressional approval than if it comes from within government.

"Included in this government reform package there must be a genuine strategy for rewarding top performers. The current system tends to lump all performers together and rewards everyone equally. The results of the recent survey of SES members is disturbing, but not surprising. Only 47 percent of career SES members believe SES bonuses are based on merit, and only 18 percent believe poor performers are removed from their positions. The price we pay for individual job security is a compensation package based on average performance. This system is so entrenched in the Federal government that we are incapable of extracting ourselves without outside help.

"OPM and the Senior Executive Association (SEA) should lobby congress and the administration to appoint a Blue Ribbon panel to study the problem, including Congressional pay, and report back to Congress. The Congress and the President should commit in advance to dramatic change, and a willingness to give bipartisan support. The President (any President) and members of Congress will only support it if they sense there is strong public support. OPM and SEA should hire a public relations firm to assist with the project. Without a strategy, Ned's ideas will simply be repeated year after year with no action taken."

-David Young
Office of Navy Budget

"I would agree that Congress should raise their salary, but only if they do their job to work for all the American citizens. But so much of their work is political and they take handouts from anybody to vote what they want, they should not. Many are already making more than they earn. They are in Congress to do what is best for everybody in the U.S., not for their party. Why not let us vote for what they deserve each year?"

-Name withheld

"While I agree with the premise that government pay, particularly executive pay has not kept pace with the private sector, I question whether the private sector is to be emulated in this regard.

"While private sector pay is set by the market, I question the value recieved in exchange for compensation packages exceeding the single digit millions. Compensation packages for publicly traded company executives such as Disney's CEO that reach into the hundreds of millions are obscene! It's so disproportionate to the incomes of average folk earning between $18K and $78K a year as to suggest a new feudalism.

"Don't even get me started about professional ball players and other entertainers. Michael Jackson may be a talented fellow, but America's values are contorted when we'll pay him $5M to walk backwards on stage for a couple of hours (that figure is almost a decade old), but pay a fireman who risks his life to protect people and property $35K per year. The future of our children is partially placed in the hands of teachers who are paid even less on average.

"There is an argument for offering commensurate pay in order to attract and retain talented individuals. There is also the issue of beggering the office holder to such an extent as to push him into compromising his office for perks. But are Congressmen really struggling to make ends meet with triple digit incomes (not to mention a retirement annuity of $90,000 a year after serving only four terms)? If we appeal to greed, won't we largely attract the greedy? What ever happened to the service in public service? I sometimes think we were better off when only the wealthy could afford to hold public office-at least they could'nt be bought!

"I, of course, resent Congress raising their and the Chief Executive's salary to such levels. My resentment is even greater as a Fed since a law to keep the Federal workforce's salary from, falling further behind the private sector has not been enforced during most if not all of President Clinton's tenure. The last I heard, perhaps 4 or 5 years ago, OPM calculated that Federal pay was as much as 27% behind the private sector. I wonder how much we have slipped since then. Of course it is cheap to raise pay for the elite few. It would cost the taxpayer a fortune to raise Federal pay to private sector levels.

"May I suggest an alternative that I've circulated throughout several parts of the DOE for years-shorten the Federal work week to four days (32 hours). Feds would go for it given their response to the Alternate Work Schedule. This could effectively raise our hourly rate to private sector levels without a commensurate loss in productivity. The Federal workforce has learned to be efficient during all the downsizings and cutbacks. With the aid of technology and acquisition of new skills, Feds are effectively doing the same job with less Feds and contractors. It would also boost morale which is waning at many agencies (certainly mine).

"Heresy you say? I thought the point of technological advances was to create more leisure time. What's the point if all of our increased productivity is used to purchase things for families we seldom see? When was the last time that the work week was decreased, 1942? What has the increase in productivity been over that same period, 230%? The Federal Government has claimed it sets the pace when it comes to workforce policies. May it do so again."

-Name withheld