Lawmakers seek remedy for GAO pay reform

Members of a House subcommittee on Thursday sought remedies for a 2005 pay restructuring at the Government Accountability Office that adversely affected morale and ultimately led to a unionizing effort at the agency.

At a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee, members discussed various pieces of legislation affecting GAO, including one that would restore pay increases to hundreds of employees wrongfully denied raises in 2006 and 2007.

"Today, GAO has an opportunity," said subcommittee Chairman Danny K. Davis, D-Ill. "It has an opportunity to regain its footing as an agency that not only touts that its employees are the best and the brightest, but treats them as if they are the best and the brightest."

Major pay reforms installed in 2005 by David M. Walker, who recently resigned as comptroller general, resulted in a split of a payband, or salary range. Employees assigned to the lower half of the pay band were denied raises, even though most received ratings of "meets expectations." The changes fueled complaints that led to a congressional hearing and an effort on the part of employees to unionize.

Results of a recent employee survey were released at Thursday's hearing and showed that 81 percent of respondents believed morale is worse at GAO now than before the pay restructuring. Shirley Jones, an attorney's representative for GAO's Employee Advisory Council, which conducted the survey, testified that 58 percent of respondents said the level of transparency in the agency's decision-making process was unreasonable.

Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro expressed support for legislation that would restore back pay for employees adversely affected by the 2005 changes. He noted that the proposed increases also would be included in employees' high-three salaries going forward to avoid affecting their pensions.

Dodaro also touted other proposed changes included in the legislation GAO submitted and introduced by the full committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. The bill (H.R. 3268) would adopt a floor guarantee for future annual pay adjustments to ensure all employees performing at the "meets expectations" level or better would receive an annual pay raise that is at least equal to the increase provided to employees on the General Schedule pay scale.

"The floor guarantee would take care of the issue going forward," Dodaro said. "We're hoping to never have to talk about this issue ever again."

Additionally, the legislation would allow performance-based bonuses to be included in the high-three average salaries for nonsenior level employees at retirement. The bill also would raise the GS-15 statutory pay cap from $149,000 to $158,000.

But Curtis Copeland, a specialist at the Congressional Research Service, testified that the current GS-15 statutory pay cap affects employees in 12 locality pay areas across government and will likely expand to five more pay areas next year. "If GAO receives [a raise in the cap]," he said, "it's likely that other agencies will seek similar types of relief."

Meanwhile, Janet Crenshaw Smith, president of Ivy Planning Group, a management consulting and training firm, testified on the preliminary results of a review solicited by GAO last year that seeks to determine the factors contributing to performance ratings disparities between African-Americans and Caucasians at the agency.

Smith said the review so far has found differences in ratings between African-American and Caucasian analysts, particularly in competency, payband and location, and regardless of the rater's race.

The review discovered some disparities at the time of hire as well, noting that the two analyst groups came from different schools and proportionally did not have the same level of education. For example, having a doctorate had a statistically positive effect for Caucasian analysts in determining ratings, but didn't make a difference for African-American analysts, Smith said.

The final report will be released at the end of April and will outline the factors responsible for ratings differences, Smith said. "If there are differences we can attribute to race," she said, "we'll give recommendations for the agency to address."