OPM considers new structure, but faces internal opposition

The Office of Personnel Management would shift its employees into new offices aimed at improving service to other federal agencies, under a restructuring proposal being considered by agency officials. The proposal has angered an OPM union, igniting a plan to stage a protest at the agency's headquarters. Under the proposal, which is circulating among OPM employees and stakeholders, the agency would do away with its current structure, which has eight functional divisions: retirement and insurance; employment; merit system oversight and effectiveness; workforce relations; workforce compensation and performance; investigations; executive and management development; and executive resources management. Instead, most of the agency's employees would work in one of three divisions: agency human resources programs; human resources program development; and human resources products and services. The agency human resources programs division, with about 350 employees, would be structured along the same lines as the Office of Management and Budget's budgetary oversight offices: a natural resources division, a human resources division, a general government division and a national security division. Employees would work with agencies that fall under the purview of each division to improve HR accountability, test management innovations, solve HR problems and develop initiatives that respond to the unique needs of agencies. "OPM will organize itself around the needs of agencies through the agency HR programs organization," the restructuring proposal says. The human resources program development division, with about 150 employees, would focus on governmentwide policies, such as staffing and recruiting; classification; professional development; compensation and benefits; labor relations; and payroll policy. The human resources products and services division, with about 1,900 employees, would mostly do work that OPM charges other agencies for or that could be performed by private contractors. The division would provide applicant testing and assessment services; investigative services; retirement and insurance services; executive and management training and development; employment information; and workforce statistics. The agency would also create ad-hoc and temporary "matrix teams" made up of staffers from throughout the agency. OPM could then send matrix teams to help other agencies with specific short-term problems, such as the Transportation Department's need to build the Transportation Security Administration from scratch. It could also form teams to work on issue areas, such as crafting a plan for federal pay reform. OPM Director Kay Coles James formed the restructuring team that came up with the proposed changes. Ten executives and four union representatives worked on the plan. "President Bush has called for a government that is citizen-centered, results-oriented and market-based," James said in a message to employees earlier this month. "Our restructuring team has responded to that call by developing a plan to streamline the existing organization and take advantage of opportunities to refocus the agency's work. They have created a design for an organizational structure that clearly focuses on customers, emphasizes outcomes over process and fosters the integration of human resources management and accountability across government." But Michelle Tolson, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 32, which represents OPM employees in Washington, said the plan leaves too many unanswered questions. "It leaves you speechless," Tolson said. Tolson said employees have not been involved in the plan enough and that James has not communicated sufficiently with employees. Tolson criticized James for sending a deputy to meetings with employees about the restructuring proposal, rather than appearing herself. Tolson said the union is concerned about how the plan would affect employees' rights during potential layoffs and how the plan might affect potential plans to outsource the jobs of OPM employees to contractors. Employees are also not sure how they would be affected-they're not sure even which division they might find themselves in, she said. Local 32 is planning a protest of potential outsourcing plans at the agency's headquarters in Washington at the beginning of March, when other American Federation of Government Employees representatives will be in Washington for meetings. Earlier this month, Local 32 leaders and James exchanged widely circulated e-mails. Local 32 leaders accused James of limiting union involvement in the restructuring process. James defended herself. "We have been working, from the start of this project, in a spirit of full discussion and disclosure," James wrote in a Feb. 7 e-mail. "AFGE Local 32 has been fully involved, and that involvement reflects my firm belief that by working together-from the mailroom to the executive office-we can accomplish more than by working apart." Tolson said: "She feels we're on board. …[but] Local 32 is not endorsing the plan."