Employee Committee Calls for Ombudsman

Mike Nartker
WC Monitor
2/21/2014

In another sign of apparent management turmoil within the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a group of Board employees tasked with examining morale concerns has found what appears to be a significant divide between staff and senior management. “Overall, the staff feels they no longer have the trust, confidence, and support of senior management, particularly management at the level of the Office Director and above. As a consequence, the staff no longer feels trust, confidence, and support for senior management,” says a redacted version of the executive summary of the employee committee’s findings, made public late this week.

The DNFSB is so far refusing, though, to publicly release the full report prepared by the employee committee, which has been provided to the Congressional committees that perform oversight of the Board. Explaining why the full report has been marked ‘Official Use Only,’ DNFSB Chairman Peter Winokur told WC Monitor, “The reason we did that is because we wanted to ensure our employees that the report will be kept confidential.” He went on to say, “We did provide the information to Congress because they’re responsible for the oversight of the Board. We felt that was appropriate,” adding, “I feel when I share these things with Capitol Hill and those committees, I’m going a long way towards moving this thing in the direction where there’s full accountability for the actions of the Board and what we’re doing and how we’re addressing things.”

Concerns Over Performance Mgmt., Leadership

The Board convened the employee committee—made up of two co-chairs selected by the DNFSB Chair and eight volunteers—in response to the results of a survey of Board employees conducted last spring by the Office of Personnel Management (WC Monitor, Vol. 25 No. 4). The survey found a significant drop in positive responses in a variety of categories compared to previous years, highlighting apparent concerns among Board employees with job satisfaction and the agency’s leadership. The employee committee developed and administered a follow-on questionnaire to “delve more deeply into particular questions” from the survey, to which 42 replies were received that “reflect continuing significant concerns in the topical areas of performance management, awards and recognition, and agency policies and leadership,” according to the executive summary.

In the area of performance management, the concerns expressed include “unclear performance expectations, insufficient performance feedback from supervisors, and inconsistent application of the performance standards across groups or even within groups,” the executive summary says. The employee committee also found concerns that “include a lack of understanding of how awards are determined, a perception there is inconsistent recognition through awards, and a feeling that staff input and opinions are dismissed and not valued by the Office Directors,” according to the executive summary. Other concerns “from across the agency,” the executive summary says, “include unexplained and unpopular management changes, unclear and inconsistent direction from senior management, and poor communications across offices and groups.”

Board Moving to Take ‘Very Definite Action’

Among the recommendations the employee committee put forth to address staff concerns is the creation of an ombudsman position “who would hear staff complaints and relay them to the Board; the Board should be compelled to take action, or at a minimum, provide a formal response”; and for the Board to bring in an “an outside expert to assist with improving the current strained relationships, to help create a culture of mutual respect, and to reinstitute a team approach to Board activities,” according to the executive summary. The employee committee also recommended the Board “employ training, coaching or other means” to make improvements, along with encouraging the Board to “foster an environment where employees feel empowered to share concerns to achieve resolution (e.g., by going to the Equal Employment Opportunity counselor or to the Inspector General),” the executive summary says.

Winokur said he is working to develop a set of responses to the employee committee’s recommendations “so that my staff knows what actions I and the Board intend to take to address their concerns and to raise the level of morale at the Board,” noting that he plans to hold an all-hands meet-ing with Board staff by early March. “So we are taking very definite action on the information that I’ve received,” Winokur said.