What’s Inside:

• Insight by Mike Causey: Dots, and More Dots
• ’Quiet Crisis’ of Recruiting The Right People Continues
• Agencies, DoD Unveil Workplace Health Initiatives
• OIG Says USPS Studies Are Inconsistent
• In Brief: FEHBP Beneficiaries Gain Postponement in New Tax Scheme
• Informed Investor: The Last of the E (‘War’) Bonds Reach Maturity in 2010
• Rulings Roundup: Vet Takes Win in Discrimination Case
• Federal Benefits Q & A

Insight by Mike Causey: Dots, and More Dots

During the British Raj in India, the ruling class—military officers, government officials and plantation owners—played polo. A lot of polo. That’s gone now, but the same sort of thing is still taking place, in the current leader of the free world, the good old U.S. of A.

But we have a different game. Not as strenuous or dangerous, but it can be rough on spectators because we use human heads instead of polo balls. And you—the fed or military servicemember—are the folks who supply the heads!

The U.S. version of polo has been replaced by a game called Connect-the-Dots. We’ve always done it, but since 9/11—and before and after each election—we’ve gone into overdrive.

CTD doesn’t use chess pieces, tokens or checkers. That’s for sissies. Again, we use human heads—preferably those of career (but sometimes political) federal workers or members of the uniformed services.

CTD to us (at least the power players here) is what Scrabble is to folks in Ohio, or blackjack in Las Vegas. Except we play it for bigger stakes. The way we do it, the people who lose (even though they didn’t choose to play) can have a career wrecked, incur crushing debt (in the form of legal fees) or in some cases, go to jail.

Not everybody in D.C. plays CTD. Or if we do, it is at a much lower level, like “who let the dog out?” Or “who sent 506 text messages last month?” For most of us, dot-connecting is figuring out what we or someone else did to mess things up.

The big-time CTD players—like their forebears in Imperial India—don’t plant tea or trade copra (whatever that is). Instead, they are almost exclusively politicians, sometimes military officers, and sometimes members of the media elite.

Unlike Scrabble or even poker, people (sometimes guilty, sometimes innocent) can get hurt while others are playing CTD—losing reputations, jobs or money.

If you get called (hauled) before a congressional committee, those who do the grilling continue to get paid. And their lawyers are paid for by the government. You may have to take time off and pay for your own legal expenses which, in an intensive CTD game, can run into the MILLIONS of dollars.

Usually the folks who are injured by Connect-the-Dots aren’t playing it. Their “sin”—the reason for their pain and punishment—is that they are career feds or military personnel. Sometimes cops and, on rare occasion, politicians.

Spurred by several very different events, I thought of D.C.’s preoccupation with game the other day. One was the widespread speculation that had somebody connected the dots better (or at all), the shootings at Fort Hood would not have taken place. The alleged shooter would himself have been sent to a shrink, or given a different assignment. Or maybe frisked for weapons on his way in.

Then there is the airliner bomb story. Some of the very people who said it was wrong to profile, or act on tips or rumors, are now demanding to know why the State Department, CIA, NSA, and TSA didn’t connect the dots.

Third, there was a report (on NPR I think) that some government officials—American, Haitian or both—also had failed to connect the dots. In this case, the broadcaster said, somebody was given information that Haiti would, could, might be hit by a big quake someday. So why wasn’t more done? Who didn’t connect the dots?

(For the record, I would like to issue a warning right now: Folks in L.A., San Francisco and near the New Madrid fault in the Midwest are overdue for a big one. I hope it doesn’t happen—one of my sons is in L.A. But when/if it does, and you play CTD, nobody can say I didn’t warn them.)

Haiti is a mess, and was one before the earthquake. It has had corrupt governments for most of its existence. It is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and ranks 12th among failed states by a group that makes its living deciding who those losers are, and then gives lectures and interviews and collects money so it can keep on keeping on.

Here’s a CTD 20/20 hindsight exercise: On 9/11, four flights were hijacked. Two crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, and a third crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth airplane—apparently bound for the U.S. Capitol Building—was stopped in its suicide mission. The passengers took over and forced it to crash in Pennsylvania (about 18 air-minutes from the Capitol). But—and here’s the CTD exercise—just suppose....

What if the Air Force had connected the dots and (as it apparently had been ordered to do) shot down the aircraft? Can you imagine the hue and cry over American pilots shooting down Americans? Some would no doubt have argued that the passengers could have gained control, and maybe landed the plane. That debate would rage for years.

What would have been the fate of the American official or officials who ordered the shoot-down? Who would have taken the blame for that? For acting too soon, before all hope was lost?

Obviously there are times when it is important (or at least it would be nice) to know why dots weren’t connected. But when it becomes a political exercise rather than a learning experience, playing CTD can be counterproductive.

Especially if it’s your head, or your career, that is in play.

:: Back to Top ::

 ‘Quiet Crisis’ Of Recruiting The Right People Continues

This week, FEND presents Part 1 of an extended interview with government specialist Paul Light, Goddard Professor of Public Service at New York University. For more than two decades, Light has been a leader in pioneering research and advocacy seeking change that would result in a better, more efficient federal government—with better training and treatment of federal employees.

Q&A With Prof. Paul Light

Prof. Light, you have been on the National Commission on Public Service, helping produce two reform reports—by the original 1988 key blue ribbon panel, and by its successor some 15 years later. In 1988 and 2003, you and the panel decried a “quiet crisis” in the form of a growing inability among federal agencies to attract and keep enough of the best talent. What is the nature of this “quiet crisis”—and, despite the recession and the private- sector slowdown, is it still getting worse?

Light: The crisis—the problem—still is that young people regard the federal government as a destination of last resort. In the 1980s, we saw that the federal hiring process was slow and that most agencies did not aggressively pursue candidates. We also saw growing evidence that the federal government was not a choice employer. Since then, that evidence continues to accumulate. Very recently, of course, we see the federal government is doing better—but, I think, it is doing better largely because it offers secure employment during a very difficult economic moment. Government is one of the few sectors, generally, that is hiring right now. On college campuses, however, when you look at your top students—through surveys of various types—they are generally “underwhelmed” by the federal government as a place to start a career, or as a place to make a long-term social impact. This remains a very tough problem.

So, the quiet crisis of a federal government continues. In fact, you have written in various forums that the “quiet” problem of not attracting enough of the best talent over time has become “deafening.”

Light: Yes, and let me suggest to you that although there are some very talented people lining up for government jobs, the hiring process is still fundamentally broken. The Obama administration has made acceleration of the process [of hiring] a priority, and [Office of Personnel Management Director] John Berry is doing everything he can. But government reviews show that many agencies are not getting on the [acceleration] bandwagon. Moreover, I do not know if even now we are attracting the, quote unquote, “right” people. My view has always been that federal employees should be motivated foremost by the chance to make a difference. If they are just coming into government for security in rough times, and making a difference is a secondary or even a tertiary goal, then we’re not getting the right people.

Can you identify and describe the main problems behind the quiet crisis in hiring, retention and effectiveness you have seen over the years in the federal government?

Light: There are four main problems that I see. No. 1, the presidential appointments process is now fundamentally broken. Agencies are not getting their political leaders in place fast enough. There are lots of acting officials. The Obama administration is having trouble moving its nominees through. Second, you have problems with what I call the “thickening of the hierarchy,” with layer upon layer of managers, both at the senior level and at the middle levels. The Baby Boomers have aged, of course, with the average age of a federal worker at around 50. Many of these layers were created as people aged up the ladder. This creates difficulties. When you look at human capital surveys, over time, federal employees say workplace communication is not effective, and that innovation and risk are not encouraged. This is a risk-averse culture. A third problem is the current civil service system itself. There’s a lack of access to training, and a lack of access to resources. There are persistent complaints about management’s inability to deal with poor performers. There is nothing worse for morale than sitting next to somebody who is not doing their job at all well and who does not have access to training to do better—just operating on autopilot and doing the bare minimum to get by. But I think the civil service system—not the individual civil servant—is what’s fundamentally broken. It has hyper-inflated job evaluations, and a very permissive system of job promotions. Again, in human capital surveys, many federal employees perceive that promotions are not based on merit, and that’s a cancer within any workforce, public or private. Instead, there’s a perception of favoritism—and racism, sexism, and punishment for just raising one’s voice with a new idea. These are just the worst possible conditions for creating a highly motivated workforce, one in which everybody can pull together. In those places where employees believe their boss was promoted due to favoritism, you’ve really got the conditions for poor performance created right there.

And what is the fourth problem? You have indicated that the massive over-reliance on contracting—and how it has ballooned in recent years—is a huge problem.

Light: Yes, and really there are two or three parts of this fourth problem. There is a maximum incentive to use contractors instead of federal employees to do basic tasks: Federal managers who want someone on the job tomorrow, for instance, have very few other options but contractors. They can get a person quickly, and if they don’t like their performance they can get rid of him or her instantly. Some managers say that contractors are just more responsive in getting employees in place. The problem is that such contracts are run out of procurement shops, not HR shops—so we are procuring labor as if it were furniture! And that’s also source of demoralization. In a second part of the problem, there’s a cap on total federal employment at about 2 million. The artificial cap on federal employment leads to more contracting. Third, we’ve had great difficulty finding talent in key areas such as information technology. Talent has emigrated to the private sector, and the federal government wage system is just not market-sensitive, so we end up contracting those areas out. In some ways, we no longer even have the jobs that talented young people would want. Because of this, I’m in favor of the “in-sourcing” initiative going around in the federal government, but I doubt it will get much traction, given the very real notion that hiring more federal employees costs [federal managers] politically.

Given all these problems conspiring against even a committed federal manager’s attempts to hire and keep the best talent, you have long advocated sweeping reforms—most recently in a Jan. 12 Washington Post editorial. Yet, in your writings you warn that a growing trend toward politicization in government threatens any real reform. How would you overcome politicization and other barriers so that reforms might succeed?

Light: First of all, I think federal employee unions are right to resist pay-for-performance system reforms until there is a real commitment to train managers how to use them effectively. The problem is really a function now of just a complete lack of trust between managers and employees. You can well understand why, when you ask the workforce, you find promotions are just not being made on the basis of merit. Under the circumstances, frontline employees question whether their managers can fairly administer a pay-for-performance system. So, I’m not sure that [pay for performance] in the ways that have been tried is the right way to go. I’d like to see how the federal workforce performs, given appropriate resources and leadership and congressional commitment and faithful execution of all the laws, and [how it performs] if poor performance were properly addressed under the current system. I think pay for performance is a non-starter, unless we get hold, especially, of the issue of a bloated hierarchy and get some non-politicized measures of performance that federal employees could actually trust. 

Next week, see the second part this interview, in which Prof. Light discusses possible ways to reform federal hiring and promotion.

:: Back to Top ::

Agencies, DoD Unveil Workplace Health Initiatives

The new administration said it was serious about trying to make the federal workplace a better one for federal employees. To that end, the year opened with two new broad-based employee wellness efforts—one at the Office of Personnel Management and one at DoD.

On Jan. 14, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry opened the doors to the agency’s renovated health unit. The new unit—shared by OPM, the General Services Administration and the Department of the Interior—is part of OPM’s ongoing project to create a model federal “Work-Life” campus.

At the same time, DoD started 2010 by launching an employee wellness education campaign slated to continue throughout the year.

Together, the efforts are intended to encourage the federal workforce to make healthy lifestyle choices, increase physical activity and be more mindful of preventive health care.

Multi-Agency Unit to Serve as Pilot

OPM’s Berry noted that sharing the new health unit among the three agencies is the most efficient approach. “By combining our efforts, we can improve employee wellness and morale better than we could with an agency-by-agency approach, while saving taxpayer money,” he said.

The unit is expected to serve about 5,000 employees, and will provide services such as blood pressure screenings, seasonal flu and H1N1 vaccinations, body mass index measurement, health education and cholesterol screenings. All services are free of charge to federal employees.

The renovated center is the first step that federal agencies are taking to improve the health of federal workers and lower the cost of health care, Berry said.

Other measures include:

• Improving the nutritional content of food served in cafeterias in federal buildings.
• Raising the nutritional awareness of federal workers by requiring food labeling and featuring healthier foods more prominently in cafeterias.
• Improving the nutritional value of food provided in vending machines.
• Promoting improved access to fitness facilities and other health and wellness services at the worksite.

“The renovation of the health unit marks the beginning of an exciting and important initiative on workplace wellness that will start with the (OPM) campus pilot and expand to our field employees and set the foundation for government-wide improvements,” Berry said.

DoD Wellness Campaign

DoD, for its part, will offer new health care-themed focuses every month in 2010, starting with January’s theme, “Setting Realistic Goals for the New Year.” DoD has adopted the theme of “Stay Fit. Stay Smart. Stay Ready,” for the entire 2010 campaign, according to documents posted by the Civilian Personnel Management Service.

DoD also will distribute information sheets on a variety of wellness topics, provide links to Web sites, and conduct periodic events to promote wellness activities, the department said.

To see more, go to: http://tinyurl.com/ycvvayx (OPM health care unit) or http://tinyurl.com/y9yek8y (DoD campaign).

Discuss this news topic at www.FederalSoup.com. Click on the "Inside the News" Forum.

:: Back to Top ::

OIG Says USPS Studies Are Inconsistent

For years, postal employee unions have complained about the fickleness of the Area Mail Processing studies that the U.S. Postal Service used to justify closing and consolidating postal facilities.

Now, a new USPS Office of the Inspector General report appears to add support to those concerns. The OIG study, which looked at five years of initiatives aimed at streamlining the mail-processing network, concluded that the Postal Service has failed to establish criteria for identifying consolidation opportunities.

“If management does not consistently apply established criteria to identify consolidation opportunities, stakeholders may question the credibility of the process,” the report said. “Development of objective criteria and implementation of a top-down approach would provide a more consistent and defensible approach to AMP consolidations that may reduce stakeholder resistance.”

Between Fiscal Years 2005 and 2009, the Postal Service has implemented 13 AMP consolidations. Only two consolidations have resulted in full facility closures—the Marina, Calif., Processing and Distribution Center closed in 2005, and the Kansas City, Kan., P&DC closed in 2009. However, 39 proposed consolidations have been canceled.

Stakeholder opposition and resistance to consolidations with potential service downgrades were the primary factors that delayed or resulted in the disapproval of AMPs, the report said. Resistance to the closures became so pointed that it led to congressional opposition to six AMP consolidations that were eventually canceled. The six cancellations resulted in potential lost savings of approximately $14 million annually, the report said Additionally, the Postal Service has canceled some AMPs without providing any rationale.

“We have questioned the validity of the so-called ‘right-sizing’ programs from Day One,” said American Postal Workers Union President William Burrus. “The plans have had many different names. Now the OIG has found that the latest version, the ‘Rationalization Initiative,’ can’t be rationalized.”

Downsizing Is Necessary Evil

In spite of the OIG’s AMP findings, the report was not overly critical. Although consolidating mail processing operations and closing unneeded plants is controversial, the report said it is a necessary maneuver that was forced on USPS, which is saddled with declining mail volume and growing deficits, the report said.

An increased degree of transparency could help reduce consolidation opposition, the report said, and USPS management agreed to look at ways to make the process more transparent.

The report did underline the immense challenges facing USPS, which saw volume drop by 35 billion pieces between FY 2005 and FY 2009. In response, the Postal Service made progress in its efforts to streamline its mail processing and transportation infrastructure. USPS decreased total workhours by 205.2 million over that period, with the largest reductions taking place in FY 2009. Mail processing had the largest decrease, with an 85 million workhour reduction.

In addition, USPS reduced 37 million highway contract route miles, closed 68 Airport Mail Centers and 12 Remote Encoding Centers and realigned the Bulk Mail Center operations with no BMC closures. Nonetheless, management still has been unable to adjust resources to fully offset mail volume declines, the report says.

To see more, go to: www.apwu.org/news/webart/2010/10-005-oig_network-100119.htm.

:: Back to Top ::

In Brief: FEHBP Beneficiaries Gain Postponement in New Tax Scheme

Feds spoke out loud and strong against a Democratic agreement that would have left beneficiaries of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program subject to a proposed tax on high-cost health insurance plans five years sooner than many other groups with high-cost plans.

Labor’s original deal with Democrats—announced Jan. 14—postponed the tax’s effective date to 2018 only for beneficiaries of state and local employee plans and those in plans that are negotiated through collective bargaining agreements, which the FEHBP is not.

But pressure from federal employee unions and other organizations representing feds last week pushed lawmakers to give rank-and-file federal employees the same deal. Democratic leadership revealed the change on Jan. 20.

Dan Adcock, of the National Association of Active and Retired Federal Employees, credited the turnaround to a swift response from a broad coalition of federal employee groups. Adcock told FEND that NARFE President Margaret Baptiste, for example, began pressing the White House and congressional leadership to give FEHBP beneficiaries parity the same day the deal was announced, and immediately mobilized a grassroots effort to rally members.

The altered tax measure still must be reviewed, and could be changed by lawmakers as Congress continues to work on a final version of the health care bill. In addition—with last week’s Republican gain of a Senate seat in the special Jan. 19 election to fill the vacant seat left by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy—even larger changes could be in store now that Democrats have lost their filibuster-proof majority.

:: Back to Top ::

Informed Investor: The Last of the E (‘War’) Bonds Reach Maturity in 2010

Nearly 60 years ago, in 1941, U.S. government officials urged citizens to help finance the country’s war effort through the purchase of Series E U.S. Savings Bonds. The response was massive—147 million bonds were subsequently issued during 1942.

Each E bond came with an identification stub that was detached from the Series E bond certificate. The stubs were delivered in immense piles to the Bureau of the Public Debt located in Parkersburg, W.V.

The last E bonds were issued in June 1980. They were sold at half their face value and earned interest for the next 30 or 40 years, depending on their issue date. Bonds issued between May 1941 and November 1965 paid interest for 40 years, while those issued between December 1965 and June 1980 paid interest for 30 years. This means that after June 2010, any outstanding E bonds will not pay any interest. Since January 1980, the Treasury Department has been issuing EE bonds in place of E bonds.

Before Aug. 31, 2004, an E bond owner could roll over all accrued interest in an E bond into a HH bond rather than cash out the bond and consequently pay federal income taxes. But effective Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Treasury discontinued issuing HH bonds, meaning that after Aug. 31, 2004, E bond holders had two options regarding what to do with their matured E bonds: (1) cash out the bond and pay federal income taxes, or (2) keep the bond with no additional interest paid.

Currently, there are many E bond owners who have not redeemed their matured bonds. The Bureau of the Public Debt recently reported that E bonds worth an estimated $16.7 billion have matured but have not been redeemed.

During 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that a savings bond is a contract between the United States and the registered owner of the bond; and most importantly, that the United States has a perpetual obligation to honor claims and to pay the owner. In the wake of this ruling, the Treasury Department has been deluged with requests from individuals asking whether they are entitled to repayment from these unredeemed bonds. Tracking down these E bonds may turn out to be profitable for the bond owners. For example, a $100 series E bond issued in April 1960 is currently worth nearly $770.

The challenge is matching the claimants to the missing bonds. The Treasury Department has only 10 to 12 people assigned to investigate claims amid the million of files stored in the Treasury Department’s Parkersburg facility.

Federal employees who think that they or a family member  may be the owner of unclaimed E bonds should access the Web site www.treasuryhunt.gov and enter the Social Security number of the owner or purchaser of the bond. This search procedure covers any bond issued since 1974. The Web site also provides guidance on how to find E bonds purchased between 1941 and 1974. A savings bond calculator is also available on www.treasuryhunt.gov that will allow bond owners to determine the current value of their bonds.

Federal employees can purchase paper EE bonds and/or inflation-indexed (I) savings bonds through payroll deduction from their agencies or in person at a bank, or purchase electronic bonds online at www.treasurydirect.gov.

Electronic EE bonds are sold at face value in denominations of $25 or more up to $10,000. For example, an individual pays $50 for a $50 bond that will be worth at least $50 at its redemption. EE bonds are subject to a maximum $5,000 per calendar year purchase per person and can be redeemed at current value after 60 months of ownership. They are issued electronically to one’s savings bond account and available for set-up at www.savingsbonds.gov.

Paper EE bonds are sold at half their face value. For example, an individual pays $25 for a $50 face value bond, but it is not worth its face value until it has matured. Paper EE bonds are purchased in denominations of $50, $75, $100, $200, $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000. Paper EE bonds also are subject to a $5,000 maximum purchase per person per calendar year and can be redeemed at current value with no penalty after 60 months of ownership.

Inflation-indexed bonds, or I bonds, are a low-risk liquid savings product. I bonds earn inflation-adjusted interest that hopefully protects the I bond owner from inflation risk. I bonds may be purchased either electronically through TreasuryDirect at www.treasurydirect.gov or in paper form either through payroll deductions or at a bank.

I bonds currently look somewhat attractive, especially compared to last year at this time. Any I bond purchased between Nov. 1, 2009, and April 30, 2010, will pay 3.36 percent—consisting of a fixed rate of 0.3 percent (that lasts throughout the life of the bond) plus 3.06 percent, which is the annualized rate of inflation based on the CPI-U inflation rate for the six-month period ended Sept. 30, 2009, and which will be readjusted on May 1, 2010, and every six months thereafter.

:: Back to Top ::

Rulings Roundup: Vet Takes Win in Discrimination Case

Raymond Marshall, a partially disabled veteran, won an appeal in a discrimination claim he began following his 1998 nonselection for a GS-13 Budget Analyst position at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Marshall had applied for the job and the agency had identified him, according to official documents in the case, as a “strong” candidate for the job. In the appellant’s claims that followed, “HHS conceded that it would have selected Mr. Marshall for the position had it not erroneously removed his name from the list of candidates,” the documents note.

The agency has conceded fault, and in its first decision on the matter in May 2006, an administrative judge with the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled for the appellant that HHS must reinstate him to the job. But the agency appealed to the full MSPB and won: the board accepted the agency’s alternative remedy—a purported “reconstruction” of the hiring process and subsequent statement by HHS that officials decided on “not hiring anyone for the position.”

Marshall appealed again, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court, in the latest decision, reversed the board’s ruling and wrote that “MSPB abused its discretion in dismissing Mr. Marshall’s [subsequent] petition for enforcement.”

“When an agency violates a veteran’s preference rights during selection in the competitive service and when it is undisputed that the agency would have selected the veteran for the position sought but for the violation, [the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998] § 3330c requires the agency to offer the same—or, as near as possible, a substantially equivalent—position to the veteran,” the appeals court ruled.

The court ruled that MSPB must order HHS to offer an equivalent position to Marshall, and compensate him for lost wages and benefits over the period.

(Marshall v. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Docket No. 2009-3086, 12/1/09)

Guard Reserves Member Loses Appeal

Reinaldo Loperena, who has served with the National Guard Reserves in New York and performed active duty in multiple deployments, lost a recent discrimination appeal he brought against a county government employer.

Loperena filed the complaint against the Lee County, Fla., Sheriff’s Office. After working as a security officer for the county, he applied and was accepted for a job as a bailiff serving in the local court system.

In May 2007, the appellant reported to the workplace as ordered, to pick up his ID card. But, while on the site, Loperena spoke with a hiring official who later reported the conversation led him to become “concerned about Loperena’s mental status.”

Soon afterward, the county informed Loperena that he would have to submit to an additional psychological test—a test in which the county later charged Loperena belatedly disclosed that he had previously been in counseling due to a mental health issue.

In part because of the allegedly disturbing conversation with the hiring official, and in part because of an alleged failure to disclose part of his medical record, the county reversed itself and informed Loperena that he “would not be hired,” according to the official documents.

Soon afterward, Loperena filed a complaint against the county for violating his rights under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994—along with additional complaints under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. 

He alleged the county discriminated against him due to his “military status” and his earlier partial disability caused by post-traumatic stress disorder. Loperena disputed a county claim that he had failed to disclose some health information in earlier meetings with officials.

Loperena first took his appeals to the federal district court. But that court granted summary judgment to the county against the appellant’s claims.

The court found that the county had “continued the application process” after Loperena had “admitted his PTSD”, and that the appellant had suffered no discrimination. The court wrote that there was no “direct evidence” of discrimination.

Furthermore, the court ruled, Loperena could not substantiate that he suffered a “mental impairment” that “substantially limited any life activity.” Accordingly, the county’s final judgment that Loperena was unfit for hiring, according to the court, did not support his claim of discrimination.

Loperena appealed again, citing the same arguments and evidence, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. That court noted that summary judgment is appropriate when “pleadings, interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” show no genuine issue of disputed fact exists, and therefore that a filing party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” On this key point, the appeals court agreed with the circuit court, and found against Loperena’s claim. His nonselection for the job therefore stands.

(Loperena v. Mike Scott, Sheriff, Lee County, Fla., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Docket No. 09-12839, 12/03/09)

:: Back to Top ::

Federal Benefits Q&A

Question: Does the Office of Personnel Management offer access to any type of short-term disability insurance, or do I need to go directly to a private carrier?

Answer:  The only form of short-term disability income insurance that OPM offers is sick leave. If you want to buy additional disability income insurance—either short-term or long-term—you will need to purchase it from a private insurance company.

Readers are encouraged to ask questions related to general employee benefits—such as CSRS, FERS, the Thrift Savings Plan, tax and estate planning, insurance, Social Security and Medicare—at the “Federal Benefits Q&A” at www.FederalSoup.com.

:: Back to Top ::

Maxine Lunn, General Manager
Phil Piemonte, Managing Editor
Nathan Abse, Staff Writer
Frank Klimko, Contributing Writer
Mike Causey, Columnist
Edward Zurndorfer, Columnist

Published by 1105 Government Information Group; Anne Armstrong, President

1105 Government Information Group is part of 1105 Media, Inc.; Neal Vitale, CEO

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: Newsstand: $5.00
1 year - $97, 2 years - $184, 3 years - $262

For electronic delivery, phone (703) 891-8552 or email sitelicense@FederalDaily.com

Call customer service at 1-800-989-3363, or mail to: Federal Employees News Digest, 3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 777, Falls Church, VA 22042

The Comptroller General has ruled that federal agencies and departments may buy Federal Employees News Digest publications with government funds. This decision is No. B-185591. Federal Tax ID 20-4583700

NOTICE:  WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making, dissemination, and reproduction of any Federal Employees News Digest publication.  Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.  Unlawful dissemination or reproduction of protected information may give 1105 Government Information Group a civil right of action against you and your employer, if applicable. To report copyright violation or unauthorized distribution of this document, please call (703) 891-8552 or email sitelicense@FederalDaily.com

Copyright ^© 2010 by 1105 Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without expressed written permission of 1105 Government Information Group is prohibited. For our private policy, click here. Mail requests to “Permissions Editor,” c/o Federal Employees News Digest, 3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 777, Falls Church, VA 22042 or editor@FederalDaily.com.

The information in this newsletter has not undergone any formal testing by 1105 Media, Inc. and is distributed without any warranty expressed or implied. Implementation or use of any information contained herein is the reader’s sole responsibility. While the information has been reviewed for accuracy, there is no guarantee that the same or similar results may be achieved in all environments. Technical inaccuracies may result from printing errors and/or new developments in the industry.

This publication’s subscriber list, as well as other lists from 1105 Media, Inc., is available for rental. For more information, please contact Edith Roman Associates: Phone: 800-223-2194; E-mail: info@edithroman.com; Web: www.edithroman.com