Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)
Click here to watch a video of his first round of questioning. Click here to watch a video of his second round of questioning.
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “Yeah. Mr. Hoyer, you know, look, obviously I don’t I don’t think it’s appropriate me to comment on Mr. Vought’s comments. What I think you’re hearing from me and what I believe strongly in is we need to – in order to attract the best and the brightest, we have to have a system that enables people to do their best work, to learn, to grow, develop, to be recognized for what they’re doing, and by the way, to be held accountable. I do think that’s important. I think, you know, unfortunately, I think the accountability system we have today is lacking. So that’s where I’m trying to focus the OPM efforts.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “I understand the appropriateness, but he is, after all, essentially the Chief Financial Officer of the United States of America. Those are comments he does not deny. He made them. He continues to make similar statements. That is antithetical to getting young people to come into what you say is a priority. Yes, we have a senior workforce. Federal employment has historically been more stable. It is not now. And not being so first of all, we shut down [the] government, which is a stupid policy for us to do across the board, Democrat or Republican. And secondly, we don’t pay people as much as we pay them in the private sector for the same job and probably with more responsibility, but maybe not as much accountability, which is a disconnect. So, I ask you, in terms of sending a message to those young people you want to recruit, what is that positive message we’re going to send them in the context of the environment we see in federal employment today?”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “Yeah, I’ll tell you precisely the message that I’m going to send them, which is to, and many of which I think we agree on. What I would like to see is, I would like to see every young individual in this country come to government for some period of time. And by the way, we designed this Tech Force program for two years, because I don’t think young people actually think about 40 year careers. I think they think about small increments. So, number one, what I want to tell them is, look, come solve the hardest, most complex problems that there is, be in an environment where you can do your best work, an environment where tenure, quite frankly, does not determine your performance, but your actual merit determines your performance. And then when you’ve done your two years, three years, four years, if you want to stay here, God bless you. We’d love to have you. If you want to go to the private sector, that’s great too. I think that’s the message that we got to tell people. I think we have failed in telling that message, quite frankly.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “I think certainly our actions have belied that message, in many instances, both in, shutting down the government and in our lack of compensation match to skills.”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “I would welcome the opportunity to work with you on compensation. I couldn’t agree more that compensation is a real challenge. Now, look, we’re never going to pay – the government is never going to pay what the private sector is, and that’s fine. But look, we would welcome the opportunity. What we are trying to do, just so you know, on our end, we are trying to eliminate things that miss level people in the organization. So, today we have strict degree and tenure requirements in almost every job. We can eliminate those and use actual performance as a way to level people appropriately. And we can eliminate what we call time in grade, which are tenure- based promotions as opposed to performance-based promotions. Those are things that we can do through regulation. We would love to look at the comprehensive GS pay schedule with you and your team and figure out a way that we could address that.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “The tradeoff, of course, was stability and less pay. What we’ve done is, we’ve undermined very, very substantially stability. So, if you’re a young person looking to come into service, you look at an employer that is A., sending a very negative message – not you, but the CFO of our country – sending a very negative message regarding federal employees. And the second thing, we don’t pay competitive wages, and we take too long to hire people or perhaps get. And I agree with you. I’ve told the unions [that] we need to have a system that the American public is confident gets rid of non-performing owners. So, I agree with you on that, and I look forward to working with you on that. My time has expired.”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “Mr. Chairman, may I just respond to one comment from the Ranking Member? You and I may disagree on this. I actually don’t think stability for young people is the most compelling message. Now, there may have been a time when young people thought about that. I’m lucky enough to have kids that are this age. I think people think in two, three, four, –”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “You have three daughters and I have three daughters.”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “I do, yes, sir. So again, we may disagree on this. I think what young people want is, they want to build their careers, they want to learn, they want to be surrounded by smart people. They want to be in an environment where they can actually progress and be recognized for that. And that’s why the early career push is exactly, you know, consistent with our push around performance management culture. I think those teams go hand in hand.”
Second Round of Questioning
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a couple of specific questions, then I have a general comment. The Merit System Protection Board, you indicated that people needed a proper appeal process. Why are we eliminating and consolidating [the] Merit System Protection Board in OPM?”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “So, just to be clear, sir, we’re not consolidating or we’re not eliminating, excuse me, MSPB. So, what we are proposing to do – and by the way, these are in regulatory process, so, obviously, the public will have an opportunity to comment. We’re proposing to consolidate RIF and probation related appeals into OPM, as well as what we call suitability appeals. So, the kind of people who have, you know, the kind of behavior that may no longer make them suitable federal employees. The reason we’re trying to do that is we think we can do it much more efficiently. We think we can do it in a way that actually will protect the rights of individuals, and we think, again, and this is part of us making sure we have an accountable system where it doesn’t take, you know, 12, 24 months of litigation for people to make changes in the organization.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “The problem with that is the Administration has removed many people, including regulatory members of the Regulatory Commission, on the theory that they were inconsistent with the President’s objectives or words to that effect. The problem with that, of course, is the Congress created for a separation and for minority views to be represented, not the Administration’s views. Both parties did that. Three Republicans, two Democrats, or, if we’re in charge, three Democrats and two Republicans. How can you square that lack of separation, lack of independence, if you will, with the agency that makes decisions as opposed to the agency that reviews and appeals.”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “Yeah. So, Mr. –”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Hoyer.”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “Ranking Member, excuse me, I apologize. Sorry. The way it works just to remember is, look, OPM does not and does not have the authority to make, make, changes. So OPM cannot say you need to RIF these individuals for you to terminate these individuals. Those are all done at the agency level. So, I do think there is independence here, which is the agency that’s affecting the change versus the agency adjudicating it are independent agencies. The reason why I believe OPM is the appropriate place for these areas is [that] OPM actually has the policy expertise. So, we are the ones who have designed the rule, designed the regulatory framework for these things, and so it’s a very logical consistency that kind of the designation of the rules and the adjudication. The rules are consistent functions within a single organization.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Well, you can hopefully appreciate the reticence. And, concern, when we have A., multiple agencies run by the same person, clearly the White House [is] making it very clear that they’re in charge of OPM. They are in charge of OPM, you work for the Administration.”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “No question about that, sir.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “And that their personnel policies are such that the President has clearly articulated speculation about appeals and courts so that any time you consolidate under one agency, which is obviously an executive agency, there’s great concern. And let me ask you something. Why did you not have the employee survey this year? Was that your decision?”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “It was a decision that we had jointly with the White House and OMB. Certainly. Yes, sir.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “That’s my point. I didn’t know that was going to be your answer, but that’s my point. The White House, what’s his name? There’s a guy in the White House that – James Sherk. Was he involved in that decision?”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “I don’t know if he was, I know I spoke with OMB about it. I don’t know. James Sherk in the Domestic Policy Council. So, it’s quite possible, though, that he could be part of that.”
RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “And again, centralizing of the appeal process causes great concern.”
DIRECTOR KUPOR: “Yeah. Mr. Hoyer, if I could respond to that just for one minute, Mr. Joyce. So, the reason that ______didn’t happen is, and this is my perspective, and we’re working on it. I don’t think that ____ actually does what we need to do. So, I’m a huge believer in actually measuring employee engagement. In fact, if you’ve seen, we actually in our own department actually do what we call poll surveys, which are much more regular surveys that go out to all our employees. I make them public. They’re on my Twitter feed, you can see them. And this is important, but what I think we need from surveys is you need actionable information. I need to know, in my department, do I have managers that are meeting with my individuals that are providing clear objectives, that are giving feedback to people, and understand how their objectives tie to the overall objective, the organization. That’s what we need. I don’t believe the firm in its current instantiation does what we need to do. So one of the things that we are looking at is, is there a better process by which we can actually get that information to the managers so that they can affect change? So, I 100% agree with the concept that, look, employee feedback is tremendously important. We need to make sure it’s packaged in a way that we can actually make it usable, so that it can affect the changes that we need in the organization.”