Bill Overview
Title: To amend chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify certain due process rights of Federal employees serving in sensitive positions, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill permits the Merit Systems Protection Board to review an agency's determination that an employee (or applicant) is ineligible to hold a sensitive position that does not require a security clearance or access to classified information.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees serving in sensitive positions without security clearance requirements
Estimated Size: 3500000
- The bill addresses federal employees and applicants for federal positions.
- It specifically pertains to those in sensitive positions that do not require security clearances.
- The Merit Systems Protection Board's role suggests the bill impacts those involved in federal employment disputes.
- The bill aims to clarify due process rights, influencing how employees can contest agency decisions.
Reasoning
- The target population is federal employees or applicants for sensitive positions that do not require security clearances, estimated to be around 3.5 million people.
- Since not every federal employee falls under this category, the policy impact is limited to a specific subset.
- The $5,000,000 USD budget for the first year suggests the policy is not intended for a high-volume rollout initially but rather focuses on setting procedures and potential assistance for a limited number of cases.
- Considering these constraints, the interviews will include perspectives from different levels of impact: some directly affected, some with low impact, and others not impacted at all.
Simulated Interviews
Data Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's great that there's someone who can objectively review agency decisions. It should give employees like me more confidence that our issues are heard fairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
IT Specialist (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems promising. If it ensures fairness in the hiring process and vetting by agencies, it could be beneficial for many.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Federal Contract Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't affect me directly, but knowing it's there as a safeguard for others is reassuring. The presence of oversight is a net positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Human Resources Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an HR perspective, this policy may add some workload but ensures due process and fairness, which I support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Junior Policy Analyst (Dallas, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might be helpful when I apply, as it could prevent arbitrary rejection from influencing my career trajectory.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Program Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We will have to streamline processes to accommodate this review, but it aligns with our values of equity and transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Legal Advisor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having an additional review step can only help my clients contest unjust decisions, though it may mean more legal work for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Recruiter (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This doesn't directly impact my current role, though it could change the applicant pool dynamics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Federal Employee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even in retirement, I'm happy to see reforms that could have helped during my career. Inspirational for future workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Agency Risk Assessor (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing this policy adds another layer of protection for employees, which should be the norm in our processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7500000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3100000, High: $7800000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3200000, High: $8100000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $3400000, High: $8700000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $10500000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $18000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of MSPB authority in federal employment disputes will significantly influence implementation costs.
- Potential appeal backlogs may affect processing times and overall administrative expenses.
- Long-term cost implications will depend greatly on actual case volume versus projected estimates.