11 votes
The idea is simple and the results will be effective, allowing the government to become more efficient.
Have a neutral 3rd-party that is rotated at least every two years for auditing, accounting, and internal review purposes. Policy's and procedure's should be adhered to, appropriately documented, and consequences should be enforced when applicable.
4 votes
When customers/clients provide feedback, make it a priority in every government agency to respond to and act on that feedback promptly. Hold agencies accountable for improvements in customer service responsiveness.
4 votes
Government agencies that are supposed to protect us often fail. While they may do good things (and I won't argue that they do), where's the accountability for the things they completely screw up on? There are many examples of negligence and abuse on the part of the FDA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, etc. And in other cases, industry and products are ridiculously OVER-regulated. Why don't we have a web page ...more »
Government agencies that are supposed to protect us often fail. While they may do good things (and I won't argue that they do), where's the accountability for the things they completely screw up on?
There are many examples of negligence and abuse on the part of the FDA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, etc. And in other cases, industry and products are ridiculously OVER-regulated. Why don't we have a web page for each agency that lists their mistakes, background on how it happened, and how we're working to prevent it in the future?
Yeah, its embarrassing to the government, but it's not going to harm our reputation more than hiding or ignoring our failures. Besides, individuals have the right to have their mistakes forgotten. Government does NOT.
(I'm looking at you Federal Trade commission for how you completely fail to inform people of how they can all but eliminate the ID theft threat by simply freezing their credit reports).
« less full details »
5 votes
Obama wiping the slate clean for Bush seems noble, but wasn't. While I believe the IC community isn't trying to abuse the system and isn't going to track US citizens and abuse their privacy and liberty, how is anyone supposed to believe us when in the instances where it's shown that the system WAS abused or even suspected of abuse, we sweep it under the rug? When Obama's nationality was challenged, he showed the birth ...more »
Obama wiping the slate clean for Bush seems noble, but wasn't. While I believe the IC community isn't trying to abuse the system and isn't going to track US citizens and abuse their privacy and liberty, how is anyone supposed to believe us when in the instances where it's shown that the system WAS abused or even suspected of abuse, we sweep it under the rug?
When Obama's nationality was challenged, he showed the birth certificate and records and said "See? Here. Poke it, prod it, do whatever since it's legit so neener neener" and good for him.
When we in the gov do something wrong recently, it's been "Uh, we abused the law?... Look! Something shiney!! *flee*
We are crippling ourselves and our important missions to protect the citizens by not doing even the most basic things to protect our reputation in their eyes by fessing up and holding the very few abusers invovled responsible (instead of shuffling them to other jobs or commuting their sentances etc).
« less full details »
20 votes
There needs to be some sort of checks and balances in the House, Senate, and Congress so that when budgetary issues arise, and there is sabre rattling and feet dragging, there are penalties, such as reduction in pay based on days over budget, as they are not doing the job they were elected for. A sliding scale needs to be developed that effects these members, across the board, so they "must," work together, or they will ...more »
There needs to be some sort of checks and balances in the House, Senate, and Congress so that when budgetary issues arise, and there is sabre rattling and feet dragging, there are penalties, such as reduction in pay based on days over budget, as they are not doing the job they were elected for. A sliding scale needs to be developed that effects these members, across the board, so they "must," work together, or they will forego pay. The workers should not have to suffer because the elected representatives cannot, or will not, do the job they are paid to do.
« less full details »
18 votes
Some contracting/consulting companies enter into contracts which they cannot complete, and yet are not held accountable for the losses encountered. In many cases, I've seen software consulting companies bid on projects for which the do not have the necessary personnel/experience to complete the task(s). Millions of dollars are awarded to these companies, and yet no product is ever produced. Such companies need to be ...more »
Some contracting/consulting companies enter into contracts which they cannot complete, and yet are not held accountable for the losses encountered. In many cases, I've seen software consulting companies bid on projects for which the do not have the necessary personnel/experience to complete the task(s). Millions of dollars are awarded to these companies, and yet no product is ever produced. Such companies need to be bound to their contract, forced to return a substantial portion of the contract funds to the government, and restricted from bidding on any further contracts with the associated agency for a period of no less than 3 years. The amount repaid should be the full amount received, minus the amount paid in wages, taxes, and benefits for the consultants. The restriction period should be sufficient to allow for the contracting company to review their operating model and make the necessary changes to meet future contractual obligations. In a short time, we will weed out a good number of those companies which are draining our resources, recoup a portion of the losses sustained, and see more quality-focused companies rise to the top of the pool no matter their size. Consider an existing situation: A company bids $50 million on a 5-year project for which they claim to have the resources to fulfill the task. They are awarded the contract, yet they actually do not have the necessary experience or personnel. A mad dash is made to enter into subcontracts with other software firms to obtain personnel. Although the contractors inform all parties that the task cannot be accomplished with the given toolsets, they are ignored. The contracted company reports that they are out of money before the end of the fourth year, and the project is finally cancelled. The company is not required to repay any portion of the $50 million. Furthermore, they remain on location charges excessive hourly rates, paying their consultants far less than their previously established income levels, and are working on projects which have not gone through the proper bidding and awarding process. When they fail on this project as well, who will hold them accountable? Where does the waste stop, and accountability come into play?
« less full details »
21 votes
Create a method of oversight that holds Federal politicians, employees and contractors accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Whether it is filing a lawsuit, choosing not to take on an issue or dodging responsibility, most people in the Federal Government can avoid accountability until they reach their retirement. This current atmosphere of 'avoid-ability' is entirely the fault of the government leadership who ...more »
Create a method of oversight that holds Federal politicians, employees and contractors accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Whether it is filing a lawsuit, choosing not to take on an issue or dodging responsibility, most people in the Federal Government can avoid accountability until they reach their retirement. This current atmosphere of 'avoid-ability' is entirely the fault of the government leadership who choose to pander to cry babies rather than stand up for the taxpaying citizens of the US.
This system is unacceptable and any talk of creating a more efficient government needs to start there.
« less full details »
13 votes
With all this talk about curbing waste and saving money, I cannot help but wonder why our lawmakers always go after the little guy instead of addressing real waste and abuse. As most if not all federal employee are aware of, at least in the DoD, reemployed annuitants (RA) have a really good thing going. They retire and then return to work, keeping the full retirement while receiving full regular pay; basically double ...more »
With all this talk about curbing waste and saving money, I cannot help but wonder why our lawmakers always go after the little guy instead of addressing real waste and abuse.
As most if not all federal employee are aware of, at least in the DoD, reemployed annuitants (RA) have a really good thing going. They retire and then return to work, keeping the full retirement while receiving full regular pay; basically double dipping!
Supporters will argue that we need their expertise but I say hogwash! The majority of these appointments are best described as drug deals and not only creates a huge financial burden on the government, it also creates a lot of anamosity in an organization. Leaders are basically sending the message that no one on staff is competent enough to do the job.
How about tightening up the rules. I have a grand idea, how about making it IMPOSSIBLE to hire a RA when non-RA are available.....? How about requiring solid justification AND enforceing it for non-selection from the other 100 people on the referral list? Wait a minute...that would mean accountability and just might solve some of our problems....we don't want that....we prefer to "govern!"
« less full details »
11 votes
The Federal government, from the White House down is way behind on records management. How about each Deptartment being required to put electronic records management into place. The application should be the same across the board and it should be DOD 5015.2 V. 3 compatible. This management of ERM could give the government a huge tool to look across the board at Department level activities to weed out duplication and inefficiency. ...more »
The Federal government, from the White House down is way behind on records management. How about each Deptartment being required to put electronic records management into place. The application should be the same across the board and it should be DOD 5015.2 V. 3 compatible. This management of ERM could give the government a huge tool to look across the board at Department level activities to weed out duplication and inefficiency. However; even putting that aside, efficiency in records management will have a huge return dollar wise and it will restore the accountability of the Federal government in the eyes of the American people as well as show the accomplishments, direction taken and accountability of each Department and Bureau. A really open and transparent government would be possible.
« less full details »
42 votes
Many are clamouring for pay for performance for federal employees. How about the 641 members of the house and senate who make an average of $174,000 per year while being out of Washington for 15 weeks a year. I propose that their pay be reduced to $65,000 per annum until the deficit is under $50,000,000 and the debt is less than $2B. If they are late with a budget, i.e. it is not passed by October 1st, then they don't ...more »
Many are clamouring for pay for performance for federal employees. How about the 641 members of the house and senate who make an average of $174,000 per year while being out of Washington for 15 weeks a year.
I propose that their pay be reduced to $65,000 per annum until the deficit is under $50,000,000 and the debt is less than $2B.
If they are late with a budget, i.e. it is not passed by October 1st, then they don't leave Washington until they've done their job and passed one that reduces the deficit by at lease 30% each year.
« less full details »
27 votes
Next year, we would like to see how all of these ideas make a difference, otherwise it is a waste of time and government resources. At least provide a "Top 20" examples on how the ideas on improving operations, saving resources, or of the reports on fraud waste and abuse, addressed or helped improve government.
10 votes
In my office there are several employees over the age of 70 who are no longer pulling their weight in the office. They do not turn in projects/work in a timely manner, are unaccountable almost all the time and feel entitled to their position in government. They are the best examples used by those who believe government workers are lazy and over paid. No one wants to hold them accountable and they are a drag on the ...more »
In my office there are several employees over the age of 70 who are no longer pulling their weight in the office. They do not turn in projects/work in a timely manner, are unaccountable almost all the time and feel entitled to their position in government. They are the best examples used by those who believe government workers are lazy and over paid. No one wants to hold them accountable and they are a drag on the productivity and morale of the office. They are also hanging on to a position they no longer are capable of performing and taking a position from someone who really wants to work. They are also blocking good workers from being able to get that promotion. Something should be done about that. Who's watching the watcher.
« less full details »
17 votes
This stops federal employee's from "retiring" on the job. There is a high level of inefficiency in the federal government and it is the worst kept secret. We are all given a yearly review and given some sort of rating score that reflects on our job performance. We need to have minimum standards and accountability. For those employee;'s who can not maintain the minimum standards, they are terminated! IF that is too ...more »
This stops federal employee's from "retiring" on the job. There is a high level of inefficiency in the federal government and it is the worst kept secret. We are all given a yearly review and given some sort of rating score that reflects on our job performance. We need to have minimum standards and accountability. For those employee;'s who can not maintain the minimum standards, they are terminated! IF that is too harsh, then put on probation for a year, and if their act doesn't improve then they are terminated! Private sector jobs don't stand for inefficiency, why should we? It is pretty sad when you can be rewarded for just doing your job!
« less full details »
6 votes
1st, a different mindset needs to be encouraged for a competitiveness spirit. Although government agencies are viewed as public service in nature, a different approach needs to be frostered: Public service with a "Spirit of Excellence" for empowering employees and meeting the needs of our customers from within and outside the government for improving moral and how business is conducted. 2nd, what I am proposing will ...more »
1st, a different mindset needs to be encouraged for a competitiveness spirit. Although government agencies are viewed as public service in nature, a different approach needs to be frostered: Public service with a "Spirit of Excellence" for empowering employees and meeting the needs of our customers from within and outside the government for improving moral and how business is conducted.
2nd, what I am proposing will take a lot of manpower hours; however, you could utilize students needing career credits/hrs for school studies to assist with a government wide audit. Review all agencies/divisions to cross-reference mission, goals, objectives.
3rd, the audit could show an overlap of divisions working towards the same goal. Merge these divisions or have them work closely together to streamline processes. [Some agencies are too top heavy! Responsibility and accountability issues exist throughout the government.]
4th, look at a way to cross-train employees for multitasking efficiency. Not to overwork the employee, but to broaden the employee's outlook as to best work with one another to accomplish the same goal for a more unified government.
[Why cross-train? A. Continue flow of business operations with no gap or lapse in carrying out a desired task/objective/goal. B. Enables agencies to meet the contractual completion target date with little to no excessive (overage) cost. C. Cuts down on the use of outsourcing. Many fees for contract employees exceed the salary of federal employees who would be capable and available to perform the expected task needed. D. There is a very noticeable problem and need for cross-training federal employees when a person retires from an office was considered to be the only knowledgeable person within his/her division for filling a position for continuity.]
5th, look at the processes to see if steps could be shortened or redefined for greater maximizing of time [time management] and efforts.
Last: A. Much money is spent on program/project management, but it does not seem to be utilized as it was intended or prescribed. [Review the current operation of a particular thing/task, evaluate time and cost from start to finish, determine processes to streamline/shorten/lenghten for less waste of time, manpower and cost to implement change for a desired outcome. That change should not add an hardship or increase in any area of operations.]
B. Understanding the need to outline a person's duties within a job description shows structure and organization; however, it also seems to be used by individuals to say what they are not willing to do or won't do outside of that job description. There should be a sense of protection for each employee in the way of guidelines and not violating one's human rights [employment law, labor relations, unions], but each and every job description needs to be reviewed and rewritten in accordance with the mission, goals and objectives of an individual office or agency. Thus keeping in mind the department's overall operational budget, number of employees based on responsibilities and duties for meeting the mission, resources, etc. Most times, not all is taken into consideration in the order of processes from start to finish which creates an exorbitant budget issue that many people (upper management, leadership) scrample to fix or address after the fact.
C. Those in management or areas of leadership roles should possess a knowledge of how or what it takes for each of their employees to successfully carry-out his/her task. Should a problem develops, the employee should be able to count on his/her management for guidance. Meaning managers should be hired based on what they know and not who they know in filling a position.
« less full details »
21 votes
Everybody knows them: -Never can be found at their desk or in the office -Takes 2 hour coffee breaks -Just doesn't respond to emails or vmails -Spends his/her days making personal phone calls -Always busy, despite producing nothing "It's not my responsibility" -Or just complete incompetence as to how to perform their job Essentially they're the dead weights in the office that people have to work around or beg/bribe them ...more »
Everybody knows them:
-Never can be found at their desk or in the office
-Takes 2 hour coffee breaks
-Just doesn't respond to emails or vmails
-Spends his/her days making personal phone calls
-Always busy, despite producing nothing
"It's not my responsibility"
-Or just complete incompetence as to how to perform their job
Essentially they're the dead weights in the office that people have to work around or beg/bribe them to do their jobs. Ours jobs take longer and their work is never done. Everybody knows who they are, but no one gets fired in the Fed Gov't. They're here to collect a paycheck - and how selfish are we to demand their time!?
In short, the gov't lacks accountability. Performance reviews must be tied to promotions, and bad performance must be equally emphasized and addressed. The Civil Service annual evaluation and promotion system needs a revision.
The gov't isn't broken and many of our performance/efficiency/cost problems can be reduced by eliminating the negative moral and subpar or nonexistent work product generated by these weights. Take a page from the private sector, and institute a real system of performance review and accountability at the Fed Gov't.
Our programs and benefits don't need to be cut; the dead weights do.
« less full details »
24 votes
The automatic every year/two years step increase pays employees more for doing the same amount of work. Additionally, even poor performers get them (except in very rare occasions). Step increases should not be a given, but instead tied to performance. Employees who received low evaluations from their supervisors should not receive step increases. Perhaps a step performance review to be held a month or so before an ...more »
The automatic every year/two years step increase pays employees more for doing the same amount of work. Additionally, even poor performers get them (except in very rare occasions).
Step increases should not be a given, but instead tied to performance. Employees who received low evaluations from their supervisors should not receive step increases.
Perhaps a step performance review to be held a month or so before an impending step increase would be a good idea. A positive review means you get your step, a negative (or, yes, even a neutral) means you don't.
Let's earn these pay raises just like the private sector does.
« less full details »
7 votes
Cameras in the offices of all manager, or higher positions. If these folks are good enough for management positions, why shouldn't we do what we can to make sure we're getting our moneys worth? Camera's are being used everywhere else, including police cars. This would increase productivity, reduce workplace violence, intimidation, sexual harrassment, discrimination, etc. Our salaries, promotions, and demotions are ...more »
Cameras in the offices of all manager, or higher positions. If these folks are good enough for management positions, why shouldn't we do what we can to make sure we're getting our moneys worth? Camera's are being used everywhere else, including police cars. This would increase productivity, reduce workplace violence, intimidation, sexual harrassment, discrimination, etc. Our salaries, promotions, and demotions are based on their recommendations, why should that be left to chance?
« less full details »
50 votes
OPM defines the Senior Executive Service (SES) as "...comprised of the men and women charged with leading the continuing transformation of our government. This dedicated corps of executives shares a commitment to public service and a set of democratic values grounded in the fundamental ideals of the Constitution...Senior Executives strive each day to create a more citizen centered, result oriented Federal Government." ...more »
OPM defines the Senior Executive Service (SES) as
"...comprised of the men and women charged with leading the continuing transformation of our government. This dedicated corps of executives shares a commitment to public service and a set of democratic values grounded in the fundamental ideals of the Constitution...Senior Executives strive each day to create a more citizen centered, result oriented Federal Government."
Couldn't be further from the truth: SES is comprised of highly paid Federal employees who resist change, serve their fellow SES'ers, promote marginal players to their ranks, and are dedicated to preserving their positions and bonuses while managing in an autocratic manner not at all accountable to a citizen-centered, results-oriented Federal Government.
With pay at the level of a Navy admiral, and base pay over four times the median income of the American worker, we could and should expect all of the above under the OPM description. Rather, the SES is at the heart of blocking transformation that would create an effective Federal workforce, because inherent in the problem is their very existence as a class of protected government employees.
Created over 30 years ago, the SES was intended to bring high expertise into government, and maybe at one time it did. But over the years of its existence pay has increased beyond the growth of competencies, leadership or technical or otherwise, as some of the least competent in the particular agency are promoted and protected without regard to performance of their own or the agency.
Reduce, restructure, reform, or eliminate the SES or the opportunity for transformation we seek will be lost for yet another decade.
« less full details »
4 votes
We have a great accountable system for Contractor Performance which fosters an environment of accountable business and environmental practices through Award Fees and other contractural incentives, however what we lack in all of Federal Government is a close loop accountable system for Civil Servant Performance, where contractors, in a non confrontational platform, have the ability to provide input on their teammates and ...more »
We have a great accountable system for Contractor Performance which fosters an environment of accountable business and environmental practices through Award Fees and other contractural incentives, however what we lack in all of Federal Government is a close loop accountable system for Civil Servant Performance, where contractors, in a non confrontational platform, have the ability to provide input on their teammates and counterparts whom are often vital to the program/ mission. By not having this close loop system, vital members of the team have no incentive to ensure projects are implemented in the most safest, reliable, and cost efficient manner. This system can compromise of a simple survey, maybe a 360 degree review, of employees performance which will include contractor input, and will be relied upon when determining raises, promotions, or the identificaiton of weakness/ strengths in programs. Without accountability, a certain segment of our workforce becomes very sluggish and unwilling to put the oversight or insight work forward to accomplish mission/ program goals. Having a close loop system can promote a "Value Added" type of culture.
« less full details »
8 votes
Federal laws are put in place because of a need however though external application of these laws is regulated scrupulously by the Government, internally it is a different story. When these laws relate to important priorities such as safety of employees in the workplace, violating agencies should be held accountable. All agencies are not guilty of this lapse hence there should be a penalty set for the violating agencies ...more »
Federal laws are put in place because of a need however though external application of these laws is regulated scrupulously by the Government, internally it is a different story. When these laws relate to important priorities such as safety of employees in the workplace, violating agencies should be held accountable. All agencies are not guilty of this lapse hence there should be a penalty set for the violating agencies as there is in the private sector. Federal agencies are not regulated for violation and not placed on a Corrective Action Plan as a preventive measure. The end result is the unnecessary and continued waste of valuable taxpayer time and dollars. What’s good for the goose should also be good for the gander; if we as part of the Government enforce Federal safety laws in the private sector, shouldn’t we be enforcing it in the Federal workplace? When agencies blatantly violate workplace safety laws and labor laws, efficiency and productivity are directly impacted. Simple actions for accountability will result in a more productive and efficient workforce.
« less full details »
140 votes
Too many supervisors in the Federal government lack the skills and training to lead an organization of any size. This said, they still have the ability to evaluate/rate individual staff performance. A 360 review process (which is common in the private sector) would allow staff to provide input into the overall performance appriasal of their supervisor(s). While supervisors are evaluated by their superior, staffers do ...more »
Too many supervisors in the Federal government lack the skills and training to lead an organization of any size. This said, they still have the ability to evaluate/rate individual staff performance. A 360 review process (which is common in the private sector) would allow staff to provide input into the overall performance appriasal of their supervisor(s). While supervisors are evaluated by their superior, staffers do not get the opportunity to rate their supervisor or any other manager above them. This should be changed so that supervisors at all levels are accountable to the staff that they supervise.
« less full details »
