2018 Negotiation Responses from Washington, DC.

ITEM 1 –  Staffing/Personnel

Issue:
NASCOE_LogoOne of the tools available to handle peak workload and also to recruit new employees to FSA is the volunteer and intern programs. These individuals would either help out when workload requires more people than are staffed at location or they may want to see how the agency operates and what they can provide as a future employer. The problem is that volunteers and interns are unable to access programs such as CARS or Farm Records because they do not have the right to permissions. Volunteers and interns are not given the same access as FTEs even if requested on a FSA-13A.

NASCOE’s Position:
Volunteers or interns are required to go through the same background checks, take the same security training, and obtain a LincPass card the same as full time employees, yet they are denied access to vital programs. This exhibits their ability to be of assistance in the COF or to gain hands on experience and observe the applications in which they could do potential work as an employee. This leaves a bad impression when they can’t get access. This is a decision that was made at the national level regarding roles and access according to the Access Management staff.

As long as the volunteer or intern completes all required training, such as the annual security training or application training such as is required for MIDAS Access they should have the same permissions as a full time employee.

FSA’s Response:
OCIO: The Access Management staff is the messenger not the decider. It was a business decision (i.e., Farm Programs) to disallow volunteer access. This is actually something that is tracked. These are the ones OCIO has researched so far: https://sharepoint.apps.fsa.usda.net/iso/public/Wiki%20Pages/ISOG_Volunteer%20Information.aspx and we are wrapping up final analysis on all remaining Farm Program systems for Farm Program’s review.

HRD: FSA HRD supports the system access deemed necessary by the hosting office for their volunteers and interns. In order to effectively provide a fulfilling and enriching experience with the agency, volunteers and interns should be able to learn and understand systems used to achieve mission results.

Volunteers and interns are required to go through a background investigation process to receive a favorable approval to work notification that is required prior to any temporary or permanent assignment. FSA HRD defers to EPD concerning additional details concerning the levels of approved background investigations for different sensitivity levels for volunteers, interns, and full-time employees.

After a favorable determination is received by HRD, we instruct the hosting office to fill out the FSA-13A to obtain computer access which is approved or denied by OCIO. The decision of system access for any individual position belongs to the first line supervisor and the direction of the hosting office. There is no regulation within the Pathways Program that encourages offices to withhold system access to interns. Volunteers do have regulations on the duties they may perform per USDA’s Departmental Regulation 4231-001 that do not speak directly to why system access may or may not be provided but may go into the decision making of the host office:

  • Under 7 U.S.C. 2272, volunteer services performed by those not employed by USDA will meet the following criteria:
    • Services will be performed without compensation; and
    •  Volunteers will not be used to displace any employee of the Department of Agriculture including the local, county, and State committees established under 16 U.S.C 590h(b).
  • Volunteers providing services under 7 U.S.C. 2272 are not Federal employees for any purpose except for the purposes identified under:
    • 5 U.S.C. 81, relating to compensation and injury; and
    • 28 U.S.C. 2672 – 2680, relating to tort claims.
  • Volunteer service, in general, may not displace any USDA employee nor may it be used to perform any work which is inherently a government function as defined by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities.

DAFP: ITSD is reviewing all systems to determine if security is in place to allow volunteer access. DAFP is going to provide access as soon as the final analysis is complete on all of the systems.

NASCOE Response: What is the timeline for the final analysis to occur? To take this a step further temps need to have access to SCIMS in order to help us more for the short time they are working in the office.

Response: There is a website that can be shared through Kara. DAPF will respond on this issue as well. The overall goal is to give Temps access to our systems.

DAFP: Once KC completes their review of all our processes the accesses for interns and volunteers will be approved. Temporaries should have access to all systems. Midas is a separate system. AD-2017 is still required for SCIMs access even though it is read only. Within the month the final review of all the systems should be completed and request should start being approved.

Resolution:
DAFO: The request for access was originally being denied because the request was not clear as to the security they have been through. By the end of the month the final review of all requests should be done and access may be granted. Once they pass through security they will be approved. Temporaries are allowed accesses. They should not be disapproved.


ITEM 2 – Staffing/Personnel

Issue:
Where is the National Mentoring Program at? It is my understanding that there was not enough interest in the program at the time and thus it did not move forward.

Across the country, new CEDs are not being supported after the completion of COT training, or upon being hired as a CED after a Hard to Fill position or a PT who was Acting in Charge was selected for the position.

NASCOE’s Position:
The National Mentoring Program has, in the past, been a successful program. Those who have participated feel that it was a very beneficial to their jobs and provided them with an invaluable resource. NASCOE supports the National Mentoring Program and recommends that it be re-advertised. In addition, NASCOE recommends participation in the program be a required element for all new employees.

In an effort to ensure the programs continued success, NASCOE would gladly offer assistance to the National office in identifying trainers as well as providing additional resources as needed.

Please see attached Exhibit 1 in support of the National Mentoring Program.

FSA’s Response:
HRD: On March 2, 2018, FSA/LEDB (Learning and Employee Development Branch) was informed that the Virtual University (VU) team is being defunded at the end of March 2018, as well as 19 positions affiliated with VU, including the Departmental Mentoring Manager. USDA agencies may continue their own mentoring programs; however, it is unclear whether or for how long FSA will be able to continue to use the Mentoring Portal, which matches up mentors/mentees, or matches up a mentor and mentee that have already pre-selected each other. FSA will continue the program using the portal as it is the only way FSA/USDA can manage and report the number of employees participating in the mentoring program. In the event the Mentoring Portal is no longer available, FSA is researching methods to do so independently of the system to continue the mentoring program.

FSA supports NASCOE’s request to re-advertise the National Mentoring Program with both GS and CO employees, to increase participation.

FSA greatly appreciates NASCOE’s offer of “assistance to the National office in identifying trainers/mentors as well as providing additional resources as needed” and would be glad to explore this kind of collaboration with NASCOE.

Concerning adding a performance element for mentoring, FSA can add an element or standard without Departmental permission. HRD recommends adding a standard instead of an element, under Execution of Duties. FSA can bolster mentoring accomplishments through activities like scheduling monthly check-ins/training/tips, and providing suggestions for mentoring activities such as brown bag lunches for mentees and mentors.

NASCOE Response: The intent was not to add another element to the performance plan. This is more of an onboarding element. What would be the method of pairing up the mentor with the mentee without the portal.

Resolution:
HRD is not sure of the answer to the question. HRD will provide an update after they have discussions about this item. HRD has raised the issue at the CHCO level and hopefully they will come up with a constructive response. In the absence of a constructive response HRD will reach out to NASCOE for assistance but will keep NASCOE updated.


ITEM 3 – Benefits

Issue:
USDA does not currently cooperate with the TSA Pre-check travel program.

Participating in the USDA TSA pre-check program should be analyzed for viability. It is possible that USDA and TSA could cooperate on a blanket scale and save both time and money for FSA employees when traveling. It would seem that since USDA has already processed background checks that they may already have all of the elements of information needed to qualify for TSA pre-check.

NASCOE’s Position:
Currently if a USDA employee wanted to opt to be a TSA Pre Check traveler, they would have to submit an online application and then make an appointment to visit an enrollment center in order to process the request and pay the $85 fee.
USDA employees are required to be finger printed and a background check ran as a prerequisite to their employment. Once the screenings are complete, the employee’s credentials are then placed on a LincPass card which is provided to the employee in order to access government buildings and operating systems.

Having these credentials already in place, it makes sense that a partnership would be beneficial to both USDA and TSA alike. USDA employees would be given the added benefit of qualifying for the program using their LincPass credentials allowing USDA to realize time savings while employees are traveling on official duty and saving them the $85 application fee. TSA would be able to realize cost savings by utilizing the background check information and fingerprints already provided by USDA.

In November 2014, TSA and the DOD announced a partnership to expand TSA Pre-Check expedited screening benefits to more than 2.6 million U.S. Armed Forces service members. The service members opt in thru MilConnect (DOD employees website), and use their ID Number when booking their flights. Through negotiations USDA could implement a similar process utilizing existing systems and the employees LincPass cards that would fulfill TSA requirements.
It is very encouraging that TSA has successfully formed a partnership with another government agency. NASCOE would like to request USDA/FSA leadership to pursue partnership negotiations with TSA to save time, money along with adding an additional benefit to its employees.

FSA’s Response:
FMD is in support of forming a partnership with TSA to provide Agency employees expedited screening with the TSA Pre-Check program. This initiative needs to be supported and lead by the Travel Area of the Department OCFO. FMD Travel Section will discuss this effort with the Department OFCO to determine if feasible for USDA/FSA employees.

NASCOE Response:
What is the process and the timeline? Have you initiated contact with the other agency to start the process?

Resolution:
Currently TSA has a different vender than OPM and therefore the finger prints are not transferable. EPD will reach out to TSA to see if they can generate a conversation about sharing fingerprints and developing a process to collaborate on gaining USDA employees Pre-check credentials. Follow-up will be forthcoming.


ITEM 4 – Directives

Issue:
File Maintenance and Disposition Manual (32 AS Transfer Guide) is not amended when changes are made to the manual. This results in employees not being able to properly update the manual when a hard copy manual is used in the COF. There is no way to know what part of the manual was updated, therefore, an entire new manual will need to be printed if hard copy is required.

NASCOE’s Position:
The File Maintenance and Disposition Manual (32-AS Transfer Guide) is not amended when changes are made to the manual. If a County Office uses a hard copy of the manual, the employee is not able to properly update it because there is no way to know what part of the manual was updated. Therefore, an entire new manual must be printed if a hard copy is required.

Handbook 1-AS, Par. 3A (last bullet) states the MSD Records Staff is responsible for “amending periodically the agency’s File Maintenance and Disposition Manual to ensure that filing codes and retention and disposition authority instructions are current and accurate.” NASCOE would like to recommend that the File Maintenance and Disposition Manual (32-AS Transfer Guide) be updated according to handbook 1-AS to include amendments in the same manner as any other handbook.

FSA’s Response:
The File Maintenance and Disposition Manual is a file plan. Because of the fluidity of records and the many changes that will continue to be required, this manual will not be considered as a handbook or directive.

FSA, however, has agreed to post changes to the file plan as an amendment. This amendment will contain each page on which there were changes/corrections since the last manual was updated on the Records Management SharePoint site. This will be added so that when a paper copy of the File Maintenance and Disposition Manual has been printed, only the amendment will need to be printed to replace the pages in the printed file.

NASCOE Response:
Accepts response as submitted with a projected deadline.

Resolution:
August 1 is the proposed date for this to begin. With the transition to Business Center some other things need to be in place first however that is the projected date.


ITEM 5 – Leave policy

Issue:
FSA’s current procedure when interviewing for any USDA agency, restricts county office employees from using administrative leave when interviewing for an out of state vacancy. This leads to inconsistencies and inequality between national office and field level employees.

Par 161 G 17-PM as follows;

161 *–G Interviews
FSA/RMA National Office employees may be granted administrative leave if the interview is for another USDA job.

Permanent full-time or part-time employees may be granted administrative leave if the interview is within FFAS in the same State as their regularly assigned duty station. If the interview is outside of FFAS or out-of-State, the employee must use their own annual leave to cover the time absent from work.
Notes: Permanent employees may be granted a maximum of 4 hours administrative leave.

For permanent part-time employees, the administrative leave must correspond with their tour of duty.–* 5-29-08 17-PM (Rev. 2) Amend. 5 Page 7-3

NASCOE’s Position:
Every permanent, full-time FSA employee should be eligible for a maximum of 4 hours administrative leave to apply for another USDA positions, regardless of geography or agency. This would bring consistency and equality to the process and also potentially increase hiring pools. Allowing existing employees who have been selected to interview for USDA job openings to receive some administrative leave could promote applications and help staff critical and hard to fill positions.

FSA’s Response:
HRD: This policy is one which will be reviewed with the evolution of Farm Production and Conservation.

NASCOE Response:
Where do they see the evolution of FPAC going and where does HRD stand on this issue.

Resolution:
HRD will have to merge their policy with FPAC. We are in the process of working with design of the two working groups. The unique county challenges will be brought to that process. The first look will be an August -September look. HRD will take this to the Business Center through FPAC sometime in August -September and again later in 2019.


ITEM 6 – Staffing and Personnel

Issue:
Staffing in offices is a continuing to become problematic issue. Not only does understaffing affect the service to producers, it also affects employee’s performance and morale as well. NASCOE notes there were 6 items in regards to staffing / personnel submitted as negotiation items by membership. We have combined these into one item to reduce redundancy.

NASCOE’s Position:
NASCOE believes that staffing is a problematic issue, at the same time we recognize the situation the Agency is in right now with the budget and a hiring freeze. In an effort to come to a solution that will alleviate some of the hardship being placed on our workforce, NASCOE proposes the following:

  • Develop an accurate and comprehensive workload and staffing tool:
    Through critical hire requests and the removal of the hiring freeze, staff offices based on actual workload needs. Consider all administrative, program, and applications not counted in the current workload systems. Many Administrative functions, County Committee functions, other miscellaneous required duties and use or lose annual leave could equal a considerable portion of 1 FTE.
  • The county level workload and staffing data should be available for CED’s to evenly distribute workload among employees.
  • Shared Management Training:
    Through the shared management task force, develop a training (face to face preferred) for CED’s who are currently in shared management to utilize.
  • Utilizing OneUSDA:
    Collaborate with sister agencies (NRCS, SWCD) to develop a policy of mutual assistance to the greatest extent practical when staffing situation occurs.

FSA Response:
HRD: HRD is supportive of the above ideas. HRD would defer to DAFO who leads on these issues at this time.

DAFO: County level analytics are available to State Offices. The staffing model will only be used as a tool in developing State ceiling levels.

NASCOE Response: Needs to go to the county level so that managers have that tool to staff their offices and manage their programs. Supervisors are having to deny request of employees who wish to participate in programs such as the fellows because they do not have the tools to manage their staffing. New manages do not have the tools to manage their staff since they don’t have the history or understand the workload of the programs. Not having the workload tools keeps managers from allowing their staff to volunteer to assist other states. We recognize the reports are accessible through OBE however a report with the hours would be most helpful. NASCOE wants transparency to the field.

Resolution:
Workload and Staffing Tool: DAFO is not sure where that is going to end up. FPAC eluded to the fact that the best resources are needed to staff offices accurately. OBF can address the staffing model questions. FPAC’s Optimal Office model came after the FSA staffing model. The report lays out the programs, the metrics, hours spent, and leave records. The optimal office workload tool looks at the same information as MCA but takes out the anomalies.

To attempt to provide county offices with workload data, DAFO requests that NASCOE to provide to them what data elements are needed from the old County Office Workload Measurement System report 14. Those would be items that would helpful for county offices to manage staff and workload.

There is also a 66 page report that should have been shared by STO’s with all county offices. It might have been helpful for COF’s to help manage staffing and workload. DAFO will discuss with the STO offices about sharing that info down to the county office level.

Shared management training: The task force was stopped until we had SED’s on board and the creation of FPAC it has been slowed down however the intent to start the task force back up and continue the process. DAFO agrees to continue with the Shared Management task force. In 60 days DAFP will come up with a timeline for the task force.

Revision of 27-PM revision 2: It is in final review. The changes that were agreed to last year are included in the revision

Utilizing ONE USDA: The local FAC is the vehicle to make those decisions. FSA will entertain asking the National FAC about setting some policy that can be pushed down to the local FAC. Policy would be voluntary practices and suggestions that may be used by service center personnel to assist each other in servicing the customer. The FPAC Optimal Office concept may bleed into this and help resolve some of these issues.


ITEM 7 – Benefits

Issue:
Consistent official benefits/retirement counseling/training are not being provided by State Offices.

Handbook 35-PM Par. 3 C, State AO Responsibilities states that State AO’s shall:

  • provide benefits guidance to all employees
  • counsel all employees in matters about benefits and retirement
  • assist CED’s in providing guidance for newly hired employees for eligible benefits

NASCOE’s Position:
According to 35-PM Amend 2 Par 17 A & C:

A: Agency Responsibilities

The Thrift Savings Plan Open Elections Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-469) requires OPM to develop and implement a retirement financial literacy and education strategy for employees as part of the retirement training offered by OPM under 5 U.S.C. 8350. The implementation of the strategy must:

• educate employees on the need for retirement savings and investment
• provide information on how to:
• plan for retirement
• calculate the retirement investment needed to meet their retirement goals

The programs must target employees at a minimum of 3 career points:
• New employee
• Mid-career
• Pre-retirement

The financial education strategy is designed to:

  • provide employees with a framework for analysis and decision-making so that they can achieve their retirement goals
  • leverage the existing resources of agency benefits officers to broaden their focus in helping employees plan for retirement
  • set forth a model of financial education to improve the financial literacy of employees
  • create a system that allows employees to learn how to plan for retirement and to calculate what their retirement investment should be for the goals the employees have established.–*

B: Retirement Workshops

State Offices shall conduct retirement workshops at least every 2 years on a district, multi-district, or State level for all employees that are age 50 or older.

State Offices may:
• invite outside speakers to participate in the workshop; include a Social
Security representative, if possible
• use available audiovisual aids to explain retirement programs.

If State or County Office employees require retirement training, contact the State Administrative officer.

Currently there is a wide array of options being offered by states, from not providing any assistance to others providing an adequate face to face training for the employees in differing stages of their careers. Obviously the benefits/retirement options are the same across the country and likewise all employees need the same opportunity to understand and be educated on their benefits towards their retirement. Along with the differences among States we are sure that there are differing reasons, ranging from budget to training resources.

NASCOE is requesting to work with leadership to establish a standard and the budgetary requirements and resources so that all employees are afforded an equal opportunity to education and exercising their employee benefits. NASCOE believes the agencies greatest resource is its employees and know that an investment into their future will be, and has been, reciprocated in the agencies mission.

FSA’s Response:
HRD: On July 13, 2017, HRD provided, to the State Offices, through DAFO, two PowerPoint presentations which could be used for retirement training. One of these presentations was for CSRS employees and the other was for FERS employees. In accordance with Handbook 35-PM, paragraph 3B, HRD will continue to lead the efforts of developing training materials for State Offices to use in conducting benefit sessions for employees across the agency.

As an additional comment, Aglearn also contains a wealth of information on benefits/retirement-related issues which employees may use to supplement the information received from their State Office.

NASCOE Response:
How many STO’s have provided the training? Has it been monitored? The PowerPoints are not fulfilling their obligation. Open dialogue to address the disparity. Accountability?

Response: There is not any tracking outside of AgLearn. There are going to be some initiatives coming out of OPM to assist our new employees in understanding the benefits of TSP. As part of the new FPAC organization design there is an initiative to review the training that has been conducted and design the type of trainings we want our employees to have. In terms of the retirement training, we will be looking at retirement training but at this point we are not sure how we will conduct that. The training models that currently exist are being reviewed to see if it meets our needs. HRD is in support of providing personnel at the NASCOE convention to provide training. FSA will also commit to providing some form of retirement training during the SEA rally and possibly other Area Rallies. FSA will conduct a review of what trainings state offices are providing and will make sure they are consistent.


ITEM 8 – Staffing/Personnel

Issue:
We have many excellent employees that work in our County Offices that would like to apply for the COT program/CED positions, but they are tied to the community that they live in. They are unwilling or unable to commit to a training program and being placed “somewhere” within the state.

Current practice has our STC interviewing and selecting COTs. They train for 6 months to a year and then interview for various open CED positions. The positions that are open at the start of the training program are not necessarily the ones that are open at the end of the program, either due to permanent shared management or possibly a permanent hire. The end result is that people end up in locations that they don’t really want to be at, maybe even 5 to 6 hours from home. This practice puts an extra strain on the family members or causes employees to choose between what’s best for their career or what’s best for their family.

NASCOE’s Position:
NASCOE recommends incorporating a Leadership Program for PTs that allows the Agency to identify future leadership candidates and that changes be made in the COT hiring process to reflect the same opportunities that are afforded in FLOT hiring. Doing such will allow added upward mobility opportunity for the incredibly talented cadre of qualified employees that have leadership potential within FSA.

A recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for FSA asked employees “how satisfied are you with opportunities to get a better job in your organization?” Results showed that less than a third of employees offered a positive response. County committees are hiring COT’s that stay in a county office for 2 years and move to another county office that they find more attractive. Many of these county committee’s endure a revolving door of CED’s leading to low morale and lack of direction/continuity for the county office staff.

Management has stated that the COT program is working adequately to fill the need for CED’s and that PT’s can apply for this opportunity and compete. NASCOE sees county offices going too long without a CED and when a COT is hired, county offices must struggle to deliver programs until the COT slot is released to use somewhere else. In addition, many PT’s have expressed they would like to apply for a COT position however can’t because of current situations and the uncertainty of where they may be placed. The door for hiring CED’s-in-training for the county office where stationed has already been opened through Hard-to-Fill provisions in paragraph 458 of 27-PM.
The following recommendations will address the intent of this item and make it even more successful for employees and county committees:

Recommendation #1
NASCOE believes FSA is missing an opportunity to develop leadership/management skills in our Program Technician workforce. Why not create a program that identifies PT’s with management potential and provides a career ladder opportunity to feed the FLOT and COT program rather than waiting until a PT applies and “hope” management skills are present?

NASCOE proposes a two year Aspiring Leadership program be developed that PT’s could apply to participate in that would train and give opportunities to enhance management skills. Through an application process, selected PT’s would take part in leadership development programs taught by FSA as well as other outside organizations. FSA would also have a mentoring element to this program that would assist in oversight of the training. Participants passing this two year program would help FSA identify a cadre of qualified PTs that have COT/FLOT potential. Many universities have similar programs that train potential leaders in agricultural practices through comparable methods and have document great success.

Recommendation #2
NASCOE proposes that the hiring system for COT’s be enhanced to be comparable to the FLM/FLOT system where COT’s can be hired in the county where they will be stationed with an end goal that it will be a long term career decision. This would also provide an opportunity for PT’s to apply for a COT position with the insight of knowing where they will be stationed, avoiding the potential situation of having to uproot their family. This hiring process would not only benefit PT’s in the advertising county, but those in surrounding counties as well as. In recognizing that county committees might be more inclined to hire PT’s that they know rather than the most qualified candidates; certain safeguards would need to be put in place to assure the most qualified and suitable candidates are hired.

NASCOE suggests the following steps to avoid “preselection”:

  1. Smith County advertises both within and outside of FSA for CED’s and COT’s that would ultimately be the CED in Smith County.
  2. All applicants apply through USAjobs.
  3. A panel, similar to the one that does COT interviews currently (AO, FLC, CED, DD, etc.), conducts interviews and submits qualified candidates to the STC.
  4. The STC determines the top 3-5 candidates to submit to the COC for interview.
  5. The COC, with the counsel of the DD, selects a COT that will begin training for the CED position in Smith County.
  6. As training progresses the selected COT will increase the amount of time spent in Smith County as he/she takes the opportunity to put into practice skills that have been developed over the course of training. The COT would progress by conducting staff meetings and COC meetings while working under the direction of a mentor who would be the temporary shared management CED.

Additionally
Why is a policy of hiring FLOT’s to specific counties acceptable on the GS side and not acceptable for COT’s on the CO side? Why are some FLOT’s being hired with the expectation of being placed in a “region” of the state when COT’s do not receive this same opportunity? NASCOE sees Program Technicians leaving their position for FLOT positions when the same career ladder flexibility is not made available for COT position.

In Summary,  NASCOE recommends incorporating a Leadership Program for PTs that allows the Agency to identify future leadership candidates and that changes be made in the COT hiring to reflect the same opportunities that are afforded in FLOT hiring. Doing such will allow added upward mobility opportunity for the incredibly talented cadre of qualified employees that have leadership potential within FSA

FSA’s Response:
HRD: The decision on how to hire and train COTs as well as how to place them upon completion of the training program is an agency choice. There are considerations associated with the current hiring, training, and placement process just as there are considerations with the proposed hiring, training, and placement process. HRD defers to DAFO for their determination on what is best for the State and County Offices on this issue.

DAFO: Not all FLOT positions have a permanent duty location cited in the announcement. We understand the NASCOE position on this issue, but it is very difficult to determine which CED position would be available at the beginning of COT training, and, in fact, openings cannot be predicted with any certainty at all.

NASCOE Response:
Not all COT’S will be hired using this method so is management agreeing with our method.

Resolution:
DAFO’s position has not really changed. There is a process for the hard to fill program and for local PT’s to be able to apply. FLOT’s are under the authority of the SED and can be moved at any time, therefore they are not hired for set areas. DAFO will visit with HR and will revisit this item to see if there are more options for us to open doors for our PT’s.


ITEM 9 – Staffing/Personnel

Issue:
The SWA RSO pilot has become an approved organization and consists of employees in state offices throughout the southwest area. There have been several job opportunities within the RSO, but they only list state offices as potential duty locations.

By limiting duty stations to state offices, numerous highly-qualified candidates do not apply because they don’t want to move across the state. If a job can be carried out across state lines, it doesn’t make sense that the same job couldn’t be carried out remotely in a county office.

RSO positions, as well as many other NOF jobs that allow STO duty stations, should allow the selected employee to work out of a county office.

NASCOE’s Position:
NASCOE presented this item last year (item 4, 2017) and accepted the response. In the final response it was stated that this item would be considered in the future and discussed with RSO management the possibility of doing remote positions. NASCOE feels that in order to achieve the goals of maximum efficiency and effectiveness the ability to pursue the best and the brightest for these positions should not be limited by the physical location of the duty station. The evolution of FPAC gives us the opportunity to mimic successful private business models for our employees. NASCOE would like to know if this discussion has happened if not how soon can it happen.

FSA’s Response:
HRD: HRD defers to DAFO for a response on whether conversations have occurred with the SWA-RSO Leadership team on this issue.

DAFO: The discussion has occurred and RSO leadership maintains that the organization best functions and fulfills its purpose when its employees are co-located and not scattered. Concentrations of employees provide for many benefits including training and enhanced privacy protection because of the nature of the work performed, all of which ultimately provide payback to the end-user/customer in form of available and informed personnel to respond rapidly and efficiently.
Appropriate, available space in county offices remains a concern as well. The (10) SWA States have committed to make space available in any of the respective STOs where RSO employees are hired and duty-stationed. A similar commitment is not in place for duty stationing newly hired RSO employees in any of the (458) Service Centers across the SWA or outside of the SWA.

NASCOE Response: Through FPAC we are trying to create a model that allows our producers to apply through different portals. We should be to allow our own personnel models to follow the same model. The current RSO is spread out all over the SWA.

Resolution: The RSO is going to merge into the FPAC Business Center.


ITEM 10 – CRP 848 Review

Issue:
CRP 848 Review Process has been very grueling. I am the Conservation Technician in our county which has heavy CRP participation in both regular CRP and the SAFE program. The spreadsheet provided for review was overwhelming and a very short deadline was given to complete the process. There was no option for a “register” or any extension that would be granted. The timeframe given was unrealistic and caused a lot of added stress on the county office employees.

We were given a spreadsheet listing CRP 848’s with expired expiration dates to review during the third week of December and given until January 11th to complete the review. In my case I had 719 848’s to review. This process is not a quick and easy process. The majority of the 848’s were set up to expire during the first year of the time span for the two mid contract management practices and are valid 848’s. When software was moved from the SYS36 we had to reissue new referrals for each contract with little guidance. As with most things we deal with, the way they want us to handle setting up these 848’s and the rules to the program have changed numerous times making it impossible to make the revisions it would take to keep them off these lists that they are coming out with now. It is my understanding that now that we have cleaned up this report it does not keep them from appearing on a future report to look at again. Apparently if an 848 has no activity on it for over 12 months, that 848 will reappear on the report to look at to see if it is still valid. We have a hard enough time keeping our heads above water without having to go back over the same issues only to tell them it is still valid.

NASCOE Position:
Now that an initial review of outstanding FSA-848’s has been completed and the county office has identified which 848’s are valid, that information should be carried forward. It should not be necessary to routinely conduct such a time-consuming review of these FSA-848’s which could knowingly continue to appear on the report. Further, automated MCM tracking should be developed to assist county offices and ensure uniformity.

FSA’s Response:
DAFP: FSA is working on several items to try to identify cost share issues prior to their placement on the ULO report. CEPD agrees that County Offices should only have to look at a specific FSA-848 once during a fiscal year. Additional guidance will be issued to State and County Offices providing more flexibility on creating FSA-848’s when the CRP contract is approved.

NASCOE Response:
What solutions and items are PECD working on?

Resolution:
CEPD stated that ULO’s has been a topic of discussion. A letter just went out today to the STO’s from FMD that described the next round of reviews. The items on the list not yet expiring will be taken care of by the NO. The field will be responsible for the items on the report that have expired will need to be reviewed. CEPD would be open to any suggestions on how to handle 848’s and cost share tracking/automation in the future. CEPD recommends that when a practice is completed that it be marked final in the system to clear that item off the list as complete. PECD will check with EDW to see what parts moved to that to see what reports can now be generated to assist us with tracking our practices.


ITEM: 11  Supervisory Standards

Issue:
National Notice PM-2993 contained several changes that are of concern to NASCOE. These include New Supervisory Standards for Managing Employee Performance contained in Exhibit 1, Standards in Exhibit 3: Customer Service, Outreach Education and Engagement and paragraph 3H Employee Performance and PIP.

NASCOE is concerned with the suspension of language in DR 4040-430, Section 9.g.(3)(a) pertaining to the minimum 60 day PIP. The requirement to hold the employee in “unacceptable” performance status for the entire appraisal period, despite an employee’s successful completion of the terms of the PIP, is not a fair and objective directive to allow managers to properly assess performance. Suspension of the 60 day minimum for a PIP, does not allow an employee a fair pathway to correct and meet their performance goals.

Exhibit 3, Page 2 Under Element 815: NASCOE believes that the standard requiring supervisors and managers to ensure receipts for service are issued when required with no more than 1 exception is not realistic or attainable. Additionally, the standard requiring non-supervisory employees to issue receipts for service for customer interactions with no more than 2 exceptions is not realistic or attainable. Furthermore, this standard directly conflicts with guidance provided in Par. 4A of this notice that states “exceptions should be stated within a range…..exceptions should not be stated as an absolute.”

Exhibit 1, Pages 1 and 2 list the 11 the required standards for meeting fully successful and the requirements for exceeding fully successful. Although FSA policy encourages the use of only 5 to 7 standards, PM-2993 requires 11. NASCOE doesn’t want to marginalize performance process but believes the 11 standards are excessive.

NASCOE’s Position:
NASCOE believes a minimum 60 day performance improvement period (PIP) should be used to allow supervisors/managers to fairly access the employees progress in complying with terms of the PIP (Par. 3H);

NASCOE does not agree that an employee should continue to be rated “unacceptable” for the entire rating period if the employee has successfully met the goals and terms of his/her PIP (Par. 3H);

NASCOE believes there are too many standards in Exhibit 1 for meeting fully successful and they should be reduced to FSA’s recommended number.

NASCOE has concerns with the use of absolutes in standards. It is particularly concerning to see absolutes used in Exhibit 3, Pages 2 and 3 under Element 815. Attainable ranges should be used for all standards and measures (Par. 4A).

FSA’s Response:
HRD: The Department (OHRM) mandated the changes regarding the length of the PIP as well as if the duration of the PIP exceeds October 30th, the “unacceptable” rating for the employee will remain the employee’s rating of record for that year.
It is FSA’s policy to encourage the use of only 5 to 7 standards for each element; however, the Department may provide supplemental guidance which will cause these numbers to be exceeded.

Since the above items were mandated by the Department, they were incorporated into FSA Notices and cannot be changed by HRD. However, these issues can be escalated for formal discussion with USDA.

HRD defers to the Outreach Staff regarding the language in the standards required under Element 815, Customer Service WITH Outreach Education and Engagement Outreach Education and Engagement Standards. If the Outreach Staff elects to changes this language, HRD will accommodate this in the next notice.

DAFO Outreach Response:
Outreach will remove absolutes from the exceptions listed in Exhibit 3 pages 1 and 2 and provide changes in the next HRD performance guidance that is issued. Outreach has proposed the removal of absolutes with NRCS and RD regarding the number of exceptions cited in employee performance plans for issuing receipts and will advise of changes also in the next notice.

NASCOE Response:
When will this take effect? We ask that pages 3 and 4 be looked as well. NASCOE would like a formal discuss with USDA regarding the number of standards.

Resolution:
DAFO: A standard can be changed mid-year before a final is issued. DAFO will start the correction now to remove the absolutes from items 1-4 and send forward for review. A notice will be issued and midyears should not be done until then. An email will be sent to STO’s to make them aware of the changes coming.

HRD: They will start the discussions with FPAC regarding the standards. Dennis and Brandon will be updated on the progress.


ITEM 12 – Category: RCO Compliance Reviews

Issue: 
The FSA/RMA reimbursable agreement on RCO compliance reviews performed by FSA only includes mileage and no compensation for supplies and actual time spent performing the RCO compliance reviews. A well thought out reimbursable agreement that includes dollars for time spend performing the reviews would allow FSA the ability to hire good steady field assistants who could perform the RCO compliance reviews, stay on board longer, work multiple counties and obtain specialized knowledge and experience. This would allow USDA to utilize teamwork and expand opportunities for FSA to use its network of offices and staff to help RMA ensure insurance compliance. The end result will be a public that is confident in the vital insurance program that USDA administers.

Position:
FSA and RMA are required to “work together to improve program compliance and integrity of the Federal Crop Insurance Program”. NASCOE believes FSA should continue the current arrangement with RMA, however, through planning associated with the new FPAC mission area, re-negotiate the following:

  • Funding available from RMA for time (hours worked) spent by field assistants and other office staff performing RCO compliance checks.
  • Expand the number of RCO compliance reviews to ensure program integrity
  • Supply each USDA service center with one GPS unit for all agencies present to use
  • Supply each USDA service center with one digital camera for all agencies present to use
  • Arrange for the use of USDA fleet to be available for all agencies present to perform any USDA official duties
  • Hire field assistants that will work multiple counties performing RCO compliance reviews as well as other USDA compliance reviews (CRP, Farm Program, NRCS etc.)

FSA’s Response:
DAFP: The previous Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) only include mileage incurred when completing RMA growing season inspections. We have reached out to RMA to execute a subsequent MOA for these inspections and will broach additional expenses incurred in these compliance efforts when we negotiate.
NASCOE Response: When is the agreement done?
Resolution: The MOU will have to be reviewed to see when it is up for renewal. They do not have expiration dates.


ITEM 13:  1-INFO (Rev. 3)

Issue:
1-INFO (Rev. 3), Amend. 1 was issued 10/24/17. The issuance date of 1-INFO (Rev. 2) was 4/9/85. A lot has changed in communications technology since 1985 and it’s understandable that a revision was certainly needed. However, as much as the methods of communication have evolved, communication at the local level with our customers has not changed; our customers expect to be informed with information specific to their locality and circumstances. One concern with Revision 3 is the content of Paragraph 94C. This new directive requires field offices to consult and receive clearance from the OEA Director and/or the PAB Chief through field PAS, share drafted text of the news release information at least 2 weeks in advance of the proposed announcement for all local issuances of news releases about local programs, issues, and concerns.

CED’s are grade 11 and grade 12 employees that should be held accountable for communication content and success at the local level. This has always been the expectation and responsibility of CED’s and accountability should not be diminished. The fact that communications technology and equipment has changed does not mean that CED roles and duties for direct customer service and outreach have changed. It is simply not feasible or efficient to require such bureaucracy and delays to affect information delivery to our customers at the local level. If there are noted communication deficiencies, this should be addressed by adequate and proper training or, in cases of disregard for procedure, CED’s should be held accountable for performance.

NASCOE’s Position:
Par. 94C should not require consultation, clearance, or 2 week advance submission to the OEA Director and/or PAB Chief through field PAS for field offices to issue news releases about local programs, issues, and concerns. It is reasonable to require CED’s to be accountable for all content released in local issuances and to require local consultation and review of all local releases prior to issuance.

FSA’s Response:
OEA: OEA understand the concerns. The clearance of news releases and other public-facing communications tools is imperative to ensure a consistent FSA, FPAC and OneUSDA message. We, at the national level, are required to have clearance, and the states and counties are held to the same standards. It is extremely important that we ensure that programs and policies have final approval from FPAC and the Department prior to external announcement– especially as we embark on a new farm bill. To date, with the 1-INFO policy in place, we have received few, if any, complaints from the communications coordinators. OEA staff understands the necessity for their responses to the requests for review and approval of locally issued materials to be as timely as possible without getting out ahead of the Administration. OEA staff works closely with states and counties to clear narrative that may be required to meet specific needs outside of strategic department and national office messaging.

Response:
Due to time constraints, DAFO agreed to facilitate a teleconference between NASCOE and appropriate staff at a later date.


Items from 2017 for follow up

ITEM 1 – LOAN APPROVAL AUTHORITY

Issue:
Currently, 1-FLP, Par. 25 outlines that SED’s, in conjunction with FLC, should identify areas of their State that could justify and benefit from CED having loan approval and servicing authority.

The office or area where CED would be designated by SED to obtain loan making and servicing approval authority must meet both of the following conditions.
– Direct and/or guaranteed caseload in the office or area is high, complex, or geographically challenging and FLM, SFLO, or FLP team servicing the office or area needs additional help.
– CED has sufficient time for additional responsibilities required to obtain and maintain loan making and servicing authority without negatively impacting CED’s current farm program obligations.

The announcement of the new Microloan-FSFL program is an exciting opportunity to reach a new customer base with a streamlined loan product, but an already heavy workload of FLP loans may be an obstacle in this implementation.

NASCOE Position:
Many Farm Loan teams already have a broad portfolio of direct and guaranteed loans, including microloans. Their workload in some locations is at a level that already equates to delayed processing of FSFL applications. This impacts our ability to deliver Microloan-FSFLs, which by nature are intended to be streamlined, easily accessible, and quickly processed.

A good number of CED’s have either educational background or work history that includes finance, and equips them to be a candidate for Farm Loan approval authority.
When loan applicants present to FSA with a proposed project and are assigned to work with FLO/FLM to determine credit worthiness, we may see situations where customers could be redirected to the FLP Microloan program, instead of the FSFL.

A change in policy that would allow for CED’s to have a limited Loan Approval Authority specific to FSFLs up to $50,000 or $100,000, this would allow for a much more streamlined implementation of the FSFL Program, specifically the recently announced Microloan-FSFL.

A suggestion is for CED’s be required to complete Phase 1 of the FLOT program as currently prescribed in 6-PM, Part. 13, but then complete Phase 2 in a modified format to include meeting the state-established credit quality standards on a prescribed number of independently prepared files, which consist only of FSFLs up to $50,000/$100,000, or comparable direct microloans.

This delegation of authority would apply to loan approval only for FSFLs. It would accomplish a significantly improved delivery of service for FSFL applications, particularly in counties without a full-time FLP presence.

(Reference #1)
DAFLP Response: According to 1-FSFL Handbook, the COC or STC is the approval official for FSFL loans, and FLP loan approval officials only provides a recommendation.  FSFL loans are not mentioned in the loan delegation section of FLP Handbook (1-FLP), only Exhibit 15 for FBP, which describes how to document the recommendation.  Our FLP handbooks only cover FLP functions and program policies and procedures. We believe changes for approval of FSFL Microloans be a Price Support/DAFP, rather than DAFLP, decision.

DAFO Response: This would be a sea-change in CED duties requiring major discussions with DAFO, HRD, and FLP. Likewise, any such changes in the duties of the CED would require the assent of respective county committees to determine if the CED would be able to assume added duties.
DAFP Response: We appreciate the suggestion submitted requesting a change to FSFL policy where CED’s can be trained to have limited loan approval authority for FSFL’s up to $50,000 or $100,000.
The National Price Support Division and Farm Loan staff will work together to develop a modified “no cost” loan approval authority training package.  At a later time, we will share more details about the loan approval authority training package and intended audience.

NASCOE: The COC has the authority for FSFL, but the question is to allow CED’s to have the ability to make the financial analysis. The option is available to designate CED’s to get loan authority for FLP in states now, but if this could be an option for FSFL. You must be delegated loan approval authority at this time to do financial analysis. There are two things: loan approval authority to compete with FLM on a level playing field and do not take authority away from COC. This would allow the microloan program to become more viable. COC would have final approval authority.

Management Response:
This will be deferred to FL and they want to make this a larger issue than just FSFL. They did agree with the recommendation and FL agreed also and were ready to start the process. Currently CED’s can receive loan authority if the SED consents with the need. There are no real extra costs associated with this type of request at this time. NASCOE wants the loan approval authority to do the financial analysis for FSFL loans up to $100,000 with the final approval under the COC authority.

Final Agreement:
The DAFLP agreed to put together a pilot program to give CED’s loan approval authority for the purpose of doing financial analysis for FSFL to include micro loans. The COC would still have final approval up to $100,000.00 for all FSFL loans.

Final Agreement from 2017 Negotiations:
“Agreement: As resources may permit, DAFLP and DAFP agreed to put together a pilot program to give CED’s authority to conduct financial analysis on Farm Stored Facility Loans under the County Committee approval limits. The COC would still have final approval up to $100,000.00 for all FSFL loans. NASCOE accepts the response. “

NASCOE Response: What is the status?

Resolution:
DAFP: Nothing has been done at this point but will be added to the radar to be done.

DALP: Has been discussing this for FP and will be getting together in the next few months to put a plan together. The will reviewing the FLOT training to determine what portions of the training that will be utilized. The will have to decide whether this will be expanded to the Micro loan program. Finding trainers for the program will be a challenge. Meeting with FP in the next 3-4 weeks to put together a more formalized approach for the training.


ITEM 12 – Including the NASCOE New Hire Packet Part of Exhibit 6 in 28-PM

Issue:
NASCOE and management have agreed in previous negotiation meetings that State Offices shall make NASCOE membership informational brochures and application forms available to all new hires. This has been communicated to SED’s and AO’s through emails and memos from DAFO to the state offices. However, with routine turnover in SED’s and DAFO, NASCOE has to make subsequent requests that State Offices be reminded of this agreement.

NASCOE Position:
If the membership informational brochure, membership application and FSA-444 were added to the new hire checklist in exhibit 6 in 28-PM it would be made available to all new employees as previously agreed to by NASCOE and Management.

HRD Response:
While HRD recognizes NASCOE as an employee organization, we do not feel that putting informational material in our agency handbooks is appropriate. Exhibit 22 of Handbook 22-PM, contains a copy of the Labor-Management Relations Agreement between USDA/FSA and NASCOE, and Section 3, Item 15 of this handbooks specifically states that solicitation of membership shall be conducted during non-duty hours of the employees involved.

Final:
27-PM and 28-PM are in process of revision, they have no problem adding the form FSA-444 to the checklist. They could provide links or information to employee associations in the informational packet. This would be especially helpful if the packets were done electronically. NASCOE accepts this response.

HRD: Handbook 28-PM is in the process of being re-written, and this item will be addressed in the handbook revision.

NASCOE Response: What is the status of this handbook?

Resolution:
28-PM revision will start after 27-PM is released. 27-PM is in the final review process.


Items to Follow-up from 2016

The following items were addressed during the 2017 negotiation session. Both items were addressed and agreed upon pending the release of 27-PM revision. Please provide the status of the 27-PM revised handbook.

HRD:
Handbook 27-PM has a complete revision which is in the final review stage. We would anticipate this handbook being issued by this summer.


ITEM 2  SHARED MANAGEMENT-PROCEDURE

Issue:
“Before STC approval of the establishment of a permanent shared management operation, the SED will consult the NASCOE state affiliate.” At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position:
NASCOE recommends that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedures in 27-PM, paragraph 52C. SED’s are to consult in pre-decisional format before the establishment of a shared management operation.

HRD Response:
We agree that the policy requires the consultation and defer to DAFO on any reminders to or reinforcement of the policy with the States. We do stand ready to assist if any clarifications or changes to the handbook need to be issued.

DAFO Response:
States routinely send in requests for approval of shared management proposal. DAFO always ascertains if consultation has taken place. If this is not happening, we should be informed.

Negotiation agreement:
NASCOE would like an official response from the state association attached to the decisions regarding shared management to ensure the NASCOE state affiliate is involved. DAFO will review this issue to come up with a solution to show a written NASCOE position accompanying the State request for permanent shared management. A response will be sent back to NASCOE within 30 days. This is to ensure the states are following current policy. NASCOE will provide feedback in the consultation. Written documentation of the consultation with the state association included in the submission to DAFO for permanent shared management. An email will be sufficient for a response. HRD can draft policy for DAFO review to be submitted to NASCOE.

DAFO Response:
Shared management is and has been a reality for many years. Given budgetary and legislative restrictions, we see no realistic alternatives in the near future. DAFO approves all shared management requests and ensures that NASCOE affiliates have been contacted and that all requisite COC and STC approvals have been obtained.
HRD Response: HRD will defer to DAFO on this issue; however, if the decision is made to incorporate this into the handbook, HRD can certainly update Handbook 27-PM, Paragraph 52C accordingly.

FINAL:
Management will agree to having the associations also be part of the shared management situation and having COC involvement. There will be an amendment to 27 PM to include such reference. NASCOE accepts this response.

RESOLUTION:
HRD: Handbook 27-PM has a complete revision which is in the final review stage. We would anticipate this handbook being issued by this summer.


ITEM 4 – TEMPORARY SHARED MANAGEMENT-LENGTH OF TIME

Issue:

Provisions in 27-PM paragraph 53C “temporary shared management operations shall not exceed 120 calendar days.” At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position:
NASCOE recommends that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedures. Procedures shall be followed in instances where shared management operations exceed 120 days by SED’s meeting with COC’s to “work out a permanent solution. Any exceptions to the 120 calendar day limitation shall be approved in advance by DAFO.”

HRD Response:
We concur with the statement of the policy and defer to DAFO on any reminders to or reinforcement of the policy with the States. We do stand ready to assist if any clarifications or changes to the handbook need to be issued.

DAFO Response:
All extensions are approved by DAFO after it is determined how long the shared management operation will continue and what plans the State has to end it. As was have reiterated many time, budgetary and current Congressional restrictions prevent us from taking necessary steps to ease the situation of so many shared management office.

Agreement:
DAFO agreed to have temporary defined as 6 months and the review will have attached COC minutes showing the consultation with the state affiliate of NASCOE was done.

DAFO Response:
Given the many variables is each situation, it is often difficult to determine prospectively when it might be feasible to discontinue a share management operation. DAFO always asks the state what their future plans are.

HRD Response:
The 120 days has already been changed to 6 months in Handbook 27-PM. As soon as Revision 2 is released, this will be visible to all employees.

FINAL:
Management agreed to have COC’s involved in shared management extensions. DAFO agreed to have temporary defined as 6 months and the review will have attached COC minutes showing the consultation with the state affiliate of NASCOE was done.

NASCOE:
Accepts this response.

Resolution:
HRD: Handbook 27-PM has a complete revision which is in the final review stage. We would anticipate this handbook being issued by this summer.


Items to Follow-up from 2015

Item #4 – ASPIRING LEADER PROGRAM FOR PROGRAM TECHNICIANS

Issue:
Management has an aspiring leadership program for Grade 9 employees but no such program for CO-7 employees. We have many Program Technicians that have leadership potential and need a vehicle to develop leadership skills making them more attractive to promotion opportunities.

NASCOE position:
NASCOE supports an aspiring leadership program for CO program technicians that will provide an opportunity to develop leadership skills and open the door for more opportunities in our agency. NASCOE proposes a national task force to develop an aspiring leadership program that might encompass one or two years of leadership development for program technicians.

HRD RESPONSE:
Regarding an Aspiring Leaders Program for PTs, LEDB welcomes a work group with representation from NASCOE, which would explore what the program would look like, from a nonmonetary perspective. Please provide LEDB with NASCOE contacts consisting of members interested in following through with this idea.

Resolution:
NASCOE will provide names of 6-8 employees to work on this group (CED’s and PT’s, one PT from each area and balance CED’s) within 30 days.

This was agreed to and NASCOE was informed that a contractor had been hired a couple of years ago. Barbara Boyd informed NASCOE that the contractor was not meeting expectations and would have to be replaced. NASCOE would like a status update on the item agreed upon in 2015.

HRD:
The first phase of the PT Leadership program was completed in FY 2015-2016. In FY 2017, there was no funding available to hire contractors to complete this training program. In FY 2018, HRD hired DAI Solutions to carry out the final curriculum for Phase 2 of the PT Leadership program, which includes a train-the-trainer aspect. This contract is currently in progress under the auspices of Theresa Martin and Linda Treese, DAFO. HRD has received positive feedback from both contractors and DAFO that the program planning is moving along as planned and is on time. The PT Leadership Program is scheduled to be completed and ready to implement, by September 30, 2018.

Resolution:
DAFO: Leadership Excellence for Program Technicians will be completed in September 2018, and ready to roll out in FY 2019. The course is a nine month process with 2 virtual and 3 live training sessions. The purpose of the course is to help PT’s prepare to advance their career paths or become a better leader in place. The course will be an application and selection process, similar to the Graduate School Aspiring Leader course.


Item #16 – SHARED MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Several items agreed to in the FSA/NASCOE Shared Management Agreement, Exhibit 8, in 27 PM are currently not being followed by some State Offices.

Issue:
“Before STC approval of the establishment of a permanent shared management operation, the SED will consult the NASCOE state affiliate.” At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position:
NASCOE requests that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedure. SED’s are to consult in pre-decisional format before the establishment of a shared management operation.

Issue:
In a permanent shared management operation, “one Program Technician (PT) position in the headquarters office and each full-time sub-office shall be graded one level higher than their normal grade up to a CO-8, if the PT is responsible for all the activities in the office when the CED is absent, and the CED is absent at least 40 percent of the time.” At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position:
NASCOE requests that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedure. STO’s and CED’s should follow procedure by grading applicable employees one level higher than their normal grade.

Issue:
“For temporary shared management operations expected to last more than 30 days, upgrades for CED’s and lead PT’s shall be on the beginning of the first pay period following the effective date of the shared management operation. CED’s and lead PT’s in current temporary shared management operations where the arrangement has be effective for more than 30 days shall be immediately upgraded according to this agreement.” At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position:
NASCOE requests that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedure. STO’s and CED’s should follow procedure by grading applicable employees one level higher than their normal grade.

Issue:
Provisions in 27-PM Par. 53C “temporary shared management operations shall not exceed 120 calendar days” At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position:
NASCOE requests that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedure. Procedure should be followed in instances where shared management operations exceed 120 days by SED’s meeting with COC’s to “work out a permanent solution”.

Issue:
The challenge of shared management for CED’s and PT’s is often overwhelming. CED’s are required to handle a double workload and with the CED out of the office, responsibility falls on PT’s to handle management issues for which they have not been trained or compensated. To date, little or no resources are available to assist CED’s and PT’s operating in a shared management working environment.

NASCOE Position:
NASCOE requests that a national task force be assembled to develop resources and tools for CED’s and PT’s geared specifically for shared management. Information gathered by the task force should include input from round table discussions between employees to share ideas and problem solving. NASCOE requests that by May 30th, a shared management task-force be appointed and subsequent framework be developed to guide the task-force. Improving shared management is also expected to increase positive feedback on future Employee Viewpoint Surveys (EVS).

DAFO RESPONSE:
DAFO will remind States of the requirements in the handbook related to establishment of temporary or permanent shared management operations. Note: DAFO always asks if the State consultation with the NASCOE affiliate has occurred when notified of a shared management proposal.

Please note that upgrades are not always appropriate but DAFO agrees that when they are appropriate then they should be implemented. CED’s must meet the provision for the higher classification, and an upgrade for a lead PT is appropriate only IF they are delegated to perform the CED’s duties during the CED’s absence when the CED is absence at least 40% of the time. If the CEDs retain control and handle much of their duties remotely (work assignments, program or payments approvals, leave approvals, etc.), then the requirements for a lead PT position is not met. That determination on the delegation of the duties is made locally; the national policy and procedures provide the option when warranted.

If the policies and procedures are not being followed please provide the specifics so that DAFO can address it with the applicable SEDs.

DAFO does not believe a taskforce is required to develop resources and tools for CEDs and PTs for shared management but we do agree that a tool kit to provide State Offices and applicable CEDs and PTs with shared management best practices could be helpful to all involved. DAFO will solicit best practices and develop a method to provide access to this information.

Resolution:
Management agrees to encourage states to work with NASCOE to do some more education with state presidents on consulting for shared management proposals and management will do more education on using these positions.

Grade 8 positions: Management agrees with NASCOE on this issue Will include language of lead PT’s in check sheet for these combinations

Temporary Shared Management: NASCOE will inform management of any unofficial shared management situations.

Workload problems with shared management: Management will put together a virtual workgroup. Management will work with NASCOE on development of this group.

HRD will continue to work with DAFO to support any needs they may have with this request.

Resolution:
Shared management training: The task force was stopped until we had SED’s on board and the creation of FPAC it has been slowed down however the intent to start the task force back up and continue the process. DAFO agrees to continue with the Shared Management task force. In 60 days DAFP will come up with a timeline for the task force.

Programs Submission Response: CRP CCMS Reports

ISSUE:

CRP has a $50,000 payment limitation. It is becoming increasing difficult to research multi-county producers’ payment limitations due to the limited report access in CCMS by county. Since FSA employees are only able to access the administrative county they are responsible for in CCMS. We are forced to make a mental note of our multi-county producers and constantly reach out to neighboring counties or counties across the country to research their current payment limitation status.

FACTS:

After our 2017 CRP payment cycle it was discovered that a multi-county corporation was over the $50,000 CRP payment limitation for the last 2 years. This was unknown to the one of the 2 county office’s involved or the producer, due to how the payments were processed. Multiple CRP contracts were enrolled in several counties over the last 3 years.

SOLUTION:

FSA is currently operating under nationwide customer service. Our reports need to be the same. Please, allow county offices to pull reports in CCMS for an individual producer on a nationwide basis, NOT per Admin County. One report is much more efficient to track than individually contacting every county office associated with the producer and the time constraints involved with those actions.

DAFP RESPONSE:

From a CCMS reports perspective I agree with the concern.  To help with this situation we are moving CCMS data into the EDW for more flexible reporting.    The EDW will have the ability to view outside of the county(s) the user has access to in CCMS.  This should allow users to develop a list of all the contracts a producer has regardless of location.  Until that time there are CCMS reports in the Common Data SharePoint site that provide the CCID.  An office can filter by a CCID to see all contracts a producer has an interest in.  I know this is less than ideal as users would need to look up a CCID in CRM/BP first, but it does allow better multi county visibility than CCMS provides.

I cannot provide any comments on the specific PL issue mentioned, that will need to be address by others.

Program Submission Response: COLS Search Enhancement

ISSUE:

CRP – COLS
New GIS Offer (Search by Tract Option Needed)

FACTS:

All CRP offers are placed by Tract Number.

When placing a new offer for CRP there are a number of steps. One that would simplify the process would be to add a Tract Search on the New GIS Offer screen. Currently, offers are not removed from the signup list. They start out in Farm Number Order then Tract, but then the numbers randomly change. The data within a signup is not sorted in an ascending order. Therefore it is a constant scroll and search, which wastes time.

SOLUTION:

It would be much more efficient method to include a Tract Number Search when selecting the State/County/Signup.

If a search is not a viable option, at least update the listing for the signup to be sorted by ascending Tract Number.

NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE:

This will be added to the enhancement list and we will see what we can do.  COLS is slated for a redesign in a couple years and we had already identified this as a pain point needing fixed.  Whether or not I can get it in before the redesign will be up to management and funding allocations.

2017 NASCOE Convention Question and Answer Session

Thursday, August 3, 2017
Saint Charles, Missouri

Panel members included:
Chris Beyerhelm – Acting Administrator     Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP
John Chott – Acting DAFO                                  Darren Ash – FSA Chief Information Officer
Radha Sekar – CFO                                                 Thomas Mulhern – HRD
Mark Rucker – DAM                                               Glenn Schafer – Bridges to Opportunity
Doug Nash – OCIO-CIO                                        Francisco Salguero – OCIO
Jim Radintz – DAFLP                                               Brenda Carlson – Regional Public Affairs
Bob McGrath- OBF BPMS                                  Catherine Kuhlmeier – OBF BPMS

Q:     AGI, 941 Form: Are there any plans to simplify this process with IRS?

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: AGI is required as a condition of eligibility under statute and congress and FSA work closely with IRS on this matter.  The largest problem has been the name difference in the different agencies.  They have been talking to IRS to determine just what the problem is with keying in the names.

Q:     When working on the budgets, there is a projected 8% cut, so what is the starting point for this?

A:      Radha Sekar – CFO: the original cut was 10.5% and they looked at the ceiling for 2016 and that was used for 2018 projections.  Currently they are looking at keeping the 2016 level with the senate version and the House version is less, but nothing is complete at this point.

Q:     Wetland determinations can take up to 3 years to get back.  Is there any way to get these done faster?

A:      Chris Beyerhelm – Acting Administrator: the reorganization will help with this problem because NRCS will be organized under the same Under Secretary with FSA and that should help with logistics.  Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP:  With only one mission area, this should help with some of these local problems.

Q:     What is the timeline for release of the workload numbers?

A:      Radha Sekar – CFO: these reports should be released to the field soon.  Chris Beyerhelm: If and when we decide to look at ARS data for staffing decisions we will engage the associations for input.

Q:     Hiring Freeze: what criteria is being used for critical positions and do you expect the hiring freeze to be lifted soon?

A:      Chris Beyerhelm – Acting Administrator: OMB lifted the freeze and the Secretary put it back on.  In the meantime the Secretary is allowing agencies to submit critical hiring requests. DAFO reaches out to the states who compile their requests which are bundled and submitted to the Secretary for consideration  The Secretary has already approved approx. 160 internal hires, 30 external hires , and 30 additional temps.  Since the NASCOE convention the Secretary has approved an additional 200 external and 98 internal positions to be advertised. This should get us close to the 98% level.  John Chott – Acting DAFO: Internal hires should be good.

Q:     Temporary employees hired after 1989 cannot buy back their retirement time.  Is this going to be changed?

A:      John Chott – Acting DAFO: DAFO has confirmed with HRD that temporary time, GS or CO, cannot be bought back for time after 1989.  This affects a good number of FERS field, state and national employees.  As noted, CO employees were being denied service credit for temporary time before 1989 because it was not considered Federal service.  FSA worked closely with OGC, who, in turn, worked with USDA and the OPM General Counsel to reverse this decision.  There are some exceptions for the post-1989 situation but none affects USDA and most apply to Foreign Service positions.

Q:     BTO pilot counties received full training and will the rest of the counties receive full training?

A:      Glenn Schafer – BTO: right now they are in a holding pattern for training due to budget, but there are plans to do such training in the future, budget allowing.

Q:     What were the results of the survey pertaining to BTO?

A:      Glenn Schafer – BTO: Receipt for Service is the main use of BTO at this time.  The receipt for service of BTO is separate from RFS and those that did not like RFS reflected that in their comments and blamed all of BTO.  The software is powerful and they were able to develop it quickly but it is not as user friendly as they hoped and they want to improve many of the components in BTO.  They will be using the comments in the survey as a guide.

Q:     Where is the President’s picture?

A:      Mark Rucker – DAM: they have not received it yet.

Q:     If there are any changes to a position description, it will delay the announcement, so how does that really work?

A:      Chris Beyerhelm – Acting Administrator: As part of the strategy to reduce the time to hire HRD has established “express lane” positons most of which are in the county offices. These positions are already classified which makes the process much quicker. If the hiring official changes the positon description it requires a new classification which slows the process down.

Q:     Skills for Success training is not mandated and allows the states to hold the training based on budget.  The PT’s are the ones on the front lines with the producers and are one of our greatest assets and this training would be beneficial to them.  Can this training be mandated rather than dependent on state budgets?

A:      John Chott – Acting DAFO: Chris Beyerhelm: they had a meeting with a list of items they wanted based on budget and they chose to have more staff as a greater priority but it will be put back on top of the list. DAFO will put in requests for FY 18 an amount which will cover most of the state training for 6000 GS and CO PTs. We hope that this will be approved.

Q:     From a state affected by drought, the emergency haying and grazing is appreciated.  The 150 mile radius that was added later, was there any discussion to keep the hay in the drought stricken areas? 

A:      Chris Beyerhelm – Acting FSA Administrator: they did not add that restriction because it would be more burdensome for the county offices to track this.

Q:     We have not gone far enough in guidance regarding extra time worked in ARS and there needs to be some training.  The county offices will get the jobs done and that is not always reflective in ARS, so how do we navigate this?  Do we just let the work sit?  We need guidance on this subject.

A:      Chris Beyerhelm – Acting Administrator: Recognize that the employees are dedicated but we need to be more judicious about how we are documenting our time.  We need to plan to be done by the end of the day if at all possible while looking for ways to do our work more efficiently.  The concern is that if we get our work done by working after core, overtime, and comp time allowances it gives Congress and others the impression that the job got done in the reported hours. This gives a false impression because it actually took longer to get the work done. When we tell congress that we need more people they see we are getting the job done with what we have.  Acting Administrator Beyerhelm also advised to use the new Web Access availability only when needed so as not to further skew the reported time.

Q:     Importance of coding WEBTA correctly, and can there be a line item for processing AGI’s?

A:      Bob McGrath- OBF: they hear that we need less programs and then some ask for more.  If this is sent in, they will run it through the MCA team.

Q:     Late filed crop reports cannot be accepted and with the November 15 deadline, it makes it impossible with large workloads.  Can they still be accepted as long as evidence of the crop exists?

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: there was no deadline to accept late-filed crop reports until into the next year and in many cases, there was no evidence, so they felt that 12 months would be adequate for accepting late filed reports.  Trying to create data that is very old in order to participate in a program is the problem.   Additionally, if you are referring to the deadline for late-filed acreage reports which is 12 months after the ARD, anything filed more than 12 months after the previous year’s ARD would be well into the next or subsequent crop reporting year.  So any physical evidence would be contemporaneous and not necessarily illustrative of what was present on crop acreage more than a year before.  (NASCOE will continue this conversation with DAFP)

Q:     Some offices have tried to stick to the regular time schedule, but there will be pressure from the state offices to get the job done.

A:      Radha Sekar – CFO: What programs that are impacted by things that cannot be done must be identified.  Chris Beyerhelm – Acting Administrator: They have had discussions with state offices regarding expectations in program delivery and will continue to do so.

Q:     The crop report comes in timely and reports hay, but then in the spring, reports the hay plowed up and planted to corn, then he is required to pay the $46 fee.  This is wrong since he timely filed.

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: There is simply not enough information to frame a response on this.  Offices need to follow 2-CP and submit specific questions relative to the procedure that is causing concern.  But in the question above, the corn would be viewed as subsequent crop acreage.  If reported by the corn’s ARD, not sure why there is reference to a fee.

Q:     Some offices are doing work for other offices that is not credited correctly.

A:      Catherine Kuhlmeier – OBF: they are looking into reporting for work done in specific counties.  There are many parts in this problem.  They don’t want to make it more difficult to document the time.  Daniels: this was a negotiation item to show that the work is done where it should be but we must be careful that the office where the work is actually done does not hurt the home office that shared employees, in regard to workload.  They are trying to figure out how to adjust this.

Q:     MIDAS, BTO are both systems we work with, but BTO seems to have a lot of capabilities.  Can BTO take over MIDAS functions?

A:      Darren Ash – Chief Information Officer: This concept has been discussed internally previously.   MIDAS is used by other agencies, such as NRCS, but BTO is not.  NRCS does use the same underlying software (Salesforce) as Bridges.   Any changes going forward must be able to support FSA and NRCS.  In addition, there are license complications that would need to be resolved.  The current licensing approach enabled nationwide rollout of BTO, but constrains expansion for other purposes.  BTO has potential to unite the two systems, but there is a lot more involved in the process to determine the right course of action.

Q:     There was Geo spatial pilot and it was ended when CARS came out and many producers have the capability of using geo special maps.  Can FSA use this type of software for our producers?

A:      Darren Ash – Chief Information Officer: Yes, eventually. Our overall objectives is to allow producers to submit their data to us by different means, including the use of electronic, geospatial maps.  This is one of the proposed system changes, but will depend on additional resources. Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: They have heard that the producer makes the report with FSA and then takes the information to RMA.  Less than 10% of crop reports taken are done with RMA first.

Q:     In donating leave, it would be nice if it were determined in dollars because a grade 12 donating to a grade 5, gets hour for hour right now and not the true value based on leave.

A:      Thomas Mulhern – HRD: He believes this issue has been raised in the past, and OPM does not appear to be flexible on this and USDA does not have the ability to change that statute.  Chris Beyerhelm – FSA Acting Administrator: This is a budgetary issue when passing leave between grades.

Q:     They have an acting CED and is now in a shared management situation, and there is no extra pay for the extra work for the CED.

A:      Chris Beyerhelm – FSA Acting Administrator: there is no room to do this at this time, the positions are capped out at certain grades.  There is spot cash award money that could be available in this case.

Q:     There is an initiative coming for beginning farmers and in many of our current programs, many beginning farmers come in, and many times a late filed crop report was necessary.  The fee could be waived in the past and now the fee cannot be waived unless there was a catastrophic event.  The answer was that a notice was issued and the farmers should be aware of the crop report requirement.  If we are to charge all producers that come in, they will not participate.  Can 4-CP be considered common reading?  Why are the late filed provisions different for LFP?

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: the beginning farmer can have some fees waived so give them a break.  Late-file acreage reporting fees, however, are not penalties and should not be viewed as such.  They are charged to reimburse FSA for the costs incurred in verifying the accuracy of the acreage report.  In the new farm bill, this could be discussed.  Memos are not official policy but they are working on getting this into the handbook.  There are continuous crop reports available and this could help in some cases.

Q:     What are the thoughts behind the new FSA/NRCS/RMA together on a long range basis?

A:      Bob Stephenson – Acting Chief of Staff of the Farm Production and Conservation Mission Area: the reorganization will not affect field level work, but more on a national basis.  The IT perspective can be integrated for the agencies to improve customer service to farmers.

Q:     In many cases, NRCS is not in the office very much, but in reality this will increase our workload more to cover NRCS issues.  Where does the conservation district fit in the reorganizational concept?

A:      Bob Stephenson: Conservation districts (CD’s) are part of State government and we are aware there is some bartering done with CD and NRCS for space and share work; however, CD is not federal.  They will probably be a player in this situation, but it is not clear how this will be done in the future. Chris Beyerhelm: it is expected that there will be joint staff meetings done on the local level between FSA and NRCS and there will be program sharing between the agencies.  Sharing facilities will also be part of this.  The Secretary wants an open concept between agencies.  There should be conversational knowledge of programs between agencies.

Q:     The postcard that will be coming out to the non-resident land owners regarding the mentoring/sale of land to a beginning farmer will have an impact on current rental situations and what are we supposed to tell them?

A:      Chris Beyerhelm: This was discussed when we decided to roll this program out—there is a very close analogy to this policy as there is to CRP –both have the consequence of displacing an existing renter if the landlord decides to put their land in CRP or rent to a beginning farmer –While it is understandable that an existing farmer or rancher would be concerned about the loss of land, in both cases USDA has decided it is equally important to practice conservation practices and/or provide opportunities for beginners.

Q:     Some offices have staffing shortages due to illness, etc, so the COF looked for a volunteer and was able to find a very qualified candidate, but they have very limited access to the computer even though they have to clear the background check, so is there a way to get volunteers more access?

A:      Thomas Mulhern – HRD: This is a challenge when looking a federal employment.  There is a lack of flexibility involved and there are limitations put on volunteers vs a federal employee.  Darren Ash – CIO: After researching this question (post NASCOE convention), from a security perspective, there are no security policies explicitly preventing a volunteer access.

Q:     ARS: what type of quality control is being done to ensure items are entered correctly? 

A:      Catherine Kuhlmeier – OBF: there will be more AgLearn training on validity and consistently for item entries.  They are working on this type of improvements in ARS.

Q:     Why can’t there be a code for doing things on a “national” level, so that it can be recorded for work done outside of the normal county operations in ARS?

A:      Catherine Kuhlmeier – OBF: they are working ways to capture the work without adding more of a burden on the office. Radha Sekar – CFO: this is a good option to use the national code to document how the time is being spent without taking away from the county doing the work.

Q:     MPP: there are proposed changes to help the dairy farmers and some extension agents have commented that the changes will do no good.  Without a floor on the MPP program, it does not good for the farmer.

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: everyone acknowledges that the program is ineffective and improvements cost money and the question is always: where is the money going to come from.

Q:     They have been in shared management since 1999, and now shared management is pretty standard.  There is no way to document the work done in the sub office.  Is there a way to account for that time?

A:      Chris Beyerhelm: there is a task force on shared management and they are trying to establish uniform ways of handling shared management.    Should it be treated as one big area or should it be separate?  Let Chris Hare know and he will relate that information through the task force. Catherine Kuhlmeier – OBF: there are options that are being worked on in this case.

Q:     Can we develop a method to freeze information so it doesn’t change information done prior to the date the information is loaded in MIDAS.

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: This will be looked into

Q:     Can it be discussed with the SED’s to become aware that the 10 hour spot awards can be approved by the direct supervisor, but in some cases, the SED’s are reviewing these and it is backing up the process

A:      Chris Beyerhelm – Acting Administrator: This will be looked into

Q:     Will supervision be allowed for CO to GS in this new reorganization?

A:      Chris Beyerhelm: This has not been discussed in the reorganization efforts so far, however, current regulations do not allow for CO employees to supervise GS employees.

Q:     NM restricted COC meetings to quarterly meetings and doing so by conference calls due to budget and do not let the producers know about such.  Did the national office approve this?

A:      John Chott – Acting DAFO: To the best of our knowledge, DAFO did not specifically approve this.  However, meetings should not be held if there is not business at hand.  However, DAFO does support monthly meetings when there are business items.

Q:     Gov Delivery is a good concept, but is there a way to make this more personal to the county offices?

A:      Brenda Carlson – Regional Public Affairs (Gov Delivery): texting: they are adding subscribers at 6,000/month.  In the cases of non-opening emails, they can monitor this and the engagement rate is about 58% and the federal government rate is about 38%.  For the $150,000 to $200,000/year investment in this process provides a good return on the investment for communication.  County offices are doing a good job in sending out bulletins and if there is an overload from COF and STO, then let her know, but keep in mind that not all producers subscribe to both.  She is open to suggestions and NASCOE was were the texting idea came from.  She is a communications specialists and supports the most effective means of communication.  Gov Delivery is very cost effective and effective means to get out information.  Texting is becoming a very effective means to communications.  Orth: they do use the information in Gov Delivery.

Q:     Will you take into consideration that a CRP takes more time than an ARC/PLC contract for workload purposes?

A:      Radha Sekar – CFO: There is enough data to show the difference in the signup times between contracts in different programs.  The analysis will reveal these types of difference in the metrics of working with programs.

Q:     We need someone to fix WebTA because there are many issues with data loading.

A:      Thomas Mulhern – HRD: there are lot of issues with 4.2 and there are changes in the system.  There is an ongoing work group that address different issues.  If there are issues we are not aware of, please send them in.  He cannot give a date on when the changes will be made and it is a continuous process.

Q:     Is there any way to lift the CAP on CRP acres?

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: no, this would require legislation.

Q:     Is there a way to change the crop reporting deadlines?

A:      Brad Karmen – Acting DAFP: there is big issue with this and it was determined to have common reporting dates with FSA and RMA.  Different dates are confusing for producers, so the dates were made the same regardless if producers had insurance or not.

Q:     There are many issues with district directors and their disregard to the role of the COC in the county office.  Will there be a reminder sent to the state offices regarding this?

A:      This was answered First, that DAFO acknowledges and supports the fact that COCs are the supervisor of the CED.  Second, it was answered that DD’s have 12 or 13 delegated supervisory and oversight responsibilities over the county office but we do not support DD’s being heavy handed; Third that DD”s are an integral part of our field operations and, finally, we need to know case where DD’s may be overstepping their bounds.

Programs Submission Response: MIDAS Farm Records with CRP Revisions

ISSUE #2:
CCMS can read MIDAS to tell if a producer is still active or if a farm or tract number has changed.

Why can’t MIDAS read CCMS when a revision is completed and update the contract numbers in MIDAS automatically?

FACTS:
If we enter field numbers, farm and tract numbers and practices in CCMS, why can’t MIDAS read that information and automatically update it at the farm/tract/field level?
It would make the revision process much more efficient if that information carried over automatically.

SOLUTION:
Interface software further to reflect contract revisions automatically updating in MIDAS from CCMS.

NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE:
We fully agree with your suggestion. However, there are a lot of technical hurdles that make this very difficult to accomplish. At this point CCMS does not have any direct communication with MIDAS in either direction. CCMS currently reads from the web farm records system to determine that a farm/tract/producer is no longer active and not from MIDAS.

This enhancement is on our list of items that we know needs to be done but we cannot comment on the timeframe due to the technical complications.

Programs Submission Response: Cost Share Software Enhancements

ISSUE # 1:
Cost Share Software – when terminating an FSA-848, why can’t we use a Search function for that process? A search feature has been built in for all other functions in that software but the Terminate/Reinstate. You have to scroll through all of the 848’s in the system.

FACTS:
When terminating an FSA-848, you have to scroll through all pages of 848’s to find the one you need, by scrolling from 2013 forward. All other functions that have a search feature, you can enter either the source contract, application number, or producer’s name.

SOLUTIONS:
Build a search feature in the Terminate/Reinstate section of Cost Share Software.

NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE:
Users currently have the ability to use the search function when terminating an FSA-848.  Users need to be sure they are utilizing the Agreement Search located near the bottom of the left navigation menu under the Agreement Maintenance header and not the Application Search located near the center of the left navigation menu under the Cost Share header. When an agreement is located using the Agreement Search, a terminate or reinstate process link is contained in the Links column of the search results. Whether that link is a terminate link or a reinstate link depends upon the status of the agreement that is selected. 

It would appear that the user(s) who submitted this question may be unfamiliar with the difference between the Application Search and the Agreement Search. If the Application Search is used to access an agreement, no link to the terminate or reinstate process will be displayed. The results of the end user satisfaction survey that was recently conducted contained several similar comments, so it appears there may be widespread misunderstanding of the difference between the two searches. In an attempt to clarify the differences this topic was covered during a conference call with State Conservation Specialists on July 20, 2017. Specialists were provided with a document explaining the differences between the two searches and were asked to cover this topic with users in their states.


ISSUE # 2:
When revising 848’s in CSS, we are unable to remove a component code. So if NRCS originally marked code 6DP ($17.26/ac) on the component code but it should have been 6SOP ($11.98/ac), we are unable to remove that 6DP code which would also de-obligate the funds for 6DP.

FACTS:
Our only option is to add the corrected component code and then zero out the dollar amount to de-obligate the funds for the incorrect component. However, the incorrect information (unnecessary component) will still appear on the 848.

SOLUTIONS:
Add capability to CSS to allow for us to remove a component code from the 848.

NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE:
Prior to approval of the FSA-848, components can be deleted from incomplete applications.  Additionally, components can be removed from applications with a status of complete if the application is first un-submitted to return it to an incomplete status. However, as you indicate, the current design of CSS does not permit removal of a component after approval of the FSA-848. Users who completed the end user satisfaction survey also expressed the desire to have the ability to remove a component from an agreement. Due to limited funding and resources for software enhancements it is not expected that the ability to remove a component will be added to the existing CSS. However, this suggestion is appreciated and will be considered as work is undertaken to redesign the cost share process in new software that will be created.

2017 NASCOE Negotiation Items

ITEM 1: LOAN APPROVAL AUTHORITY

Issue:  Currently, 1-FLP, Par. 25 outlines that SED’s, in conjunction with FLC, should identify areas of their State that could justify and benefit from CED having loan approval and servicing authority.

The office or area where CED would be designated by SED to obtain loan making and servicing approval authority must meet both of the following conditions.

– Direct and/or guaranteed caseload in the office or area is high, complex, or geographically challenging and FLM, SFLO, or FLP team servicing the office or area needs additional help.

– CED has sufficient time for additional responsibilities required to obtain and maintain loan making and servicing authority without negatively impacting CED’s current farm program obligations.

The announcement of the new Microloan-FSFL program is an exciting opportunity to reach a new customer base with a streamlined loan product, but an already heavy workload of FLP loans may be an obstacle in this implementation.

NASCOE Position: Many Farm Loan teams already have a broad portfolio of direct and guaranteed loans, including microloans. Their workload in some locations is at a level that already equates to delayed processing of FSFL applications.  This impacts our ability to deliver Microloan-FSFLs, which by nature are intended to be streamlined, easily accessible, and quickly processed.

A good number of CED’s have either educational background or work history that includes finance, and equips them to be a candidate for Farm Loan approval authority.

When loan applicants present to FSA with a proposed project and are assigned to work with FLO/FLM to determine credit worthiness, we may see situations where customers could be redirected to the FLP Microloan program, instead of the FSFL.

A change in policy that would allow for CED’s to have a limited Loan Approval Authority specific to FSFLs up to $50,000 or $100,000, this would allow for a much more streamlined implementation of the FSFL Program, specifically the recently announced Microloan-FSFL.

A suggestion is for CED’s be required to complete Phase 1 of the FLOT program as currently prescribed in 6-PM, Part. 13, but then complete Phase 2 in a modified format to include meeting the state-established credit quality standards on a prescribed number of independently prepared files, which consist only of FSFLs up to $50,000/$100,000, or comparable direct microloans.

This delegation of authority would apply to loan approval only for FSFLs. It would accomplish a significantly improved delivery of service for FSFL applications, particularly in counties without a full-time FLP presence.

DAFLP Response: According to 1-FSFL Handbook, the COC or STC is the approval official for FSFL loans, and FLP loan approval officials only provides a recommendation.  FSFL loans are not mentioned in the loan delegation section of FLP Handbook (1-FLP), only Exhibit 15 for FBP, which describes how to document the recommendation.  Our FLP handbooks only cover FLP functions and program policies and procedures. We believe changes for approval of FSFL Microloans be a Price Support/DAFP, rather than DAFLP, decision.

DAFO Response: This would be a sea-change in CED duties requiring major discussions with DAFO, HRD, and FLP. Likewise, any such changes in the duties of the CED would require the assent of respective county committees to determine if the CED would be able to assume added duties.

DAFP Response: We appreciate the suggestion submitted requesting a change to FSFL policy where CED’s can be trained to have limited loan approval authority for FSFL’s up to $50,000 or $100,000.

The National Price Support Division and Farm Loan staff will work together to develop a modified “no cost” loan approval authority training package.  At a later time, we will share more details about the loan approval authority training package and intended audience.

Agreement: As resources may permit, DAFLP and DAFP agreed to put together a pilot program to give CED’s authority to conduct financial analysis on Farm Stored Facility Loans under the County Committee approval limits. The COC would still have final approval up to $100,000.00 for all FSFL loans. NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 2: MAILING CONTRACTS TO OTHER COUNTIES

Issue: Mailing of original FSA-578 certifications and ARC/PLC contracts after they are faxed or emailed to the office when working in nationwide customer service. I took a certification for a county and emailed the signed 578 & map to the county, now I have to take the time to also make out an envelope, make a copy of the original and mail the original to the county office that I just emailed the paperwork to. What a waste of time and finances (46.5 cents for each certification I have to mail to different offices.) Plus why do I need a copy of the contract since I have the copy of the email that I sent?

NASCOE Position: According to procedure State and County Office Action State and County Offices that process nationwide customer service FSA-578’s must: • immediately FAX a copy of the signed FSA-578 and map to the producer’s administrative county • mail the original signed FSA-578 and map to the producer’s administrative county • maintain a copy of the signed FSA-578 and map. When taking a FSA-578 or ARC/PLC contract under Nationwide Customer Service we must immediately fax or email the administrative county a copy of the certification or contract and then we must mail the original to the administrative county and keep a copy.

To remove the redundancy of having a lot of paper work in both offices by eliminating the mailing of the FSA-578 and/or ARC/PLC contract when working in Nationwide Customer Service because it will already either faxed or emailed the information and the original can be kept on file in the office. The forms should be emailed or faxed and the original filed in the office that took the form. The emailed form could be stored in a sent folder with the County’s name on it, but the original would still be available if needed.

DAFP Response: DAFP is not opposed to only requiring the emailed or faxed copy of the document being sent to the administrative county of the farm, however, there are some concerns that must be addressed.

Generally, the policy for sending/receiving contracts and certifications is outdated when compared to the technology available.  While this technology is usually reliable, there are times when it fails.  Also, the scanned and emailed copy of a map or the faxed copy of a map is not of the best quality which would necessitate the mailing of at least the map from one county to the other.

Policy for the sending and receiving of certifications and contracts needs to be removed from each program’s policy handbook and included in handbook 1-CM.  DAFP will move towards developing a more user friendly format in handling producers that are using the Nationwide Customer Access function to enroll or certify farms.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 3: AGLEARN TRAINING

Issue: Training on various topics is provided for through the AgLearn website and employees are to log on and take the required training when the training has been posted to AgLearn and before the deadline.

NASCOE Position: Notification of training requirements are ongoing throughout the year, some have several months to complete, some have a relatively short timeframe to complete the training. During heavy workload times, it is difficult to complete the trainings with the short turnaround timeframe.

Have all required training issued and posted to Ag Learn at the beginning of the FY and have the year to work on the required training, or at least be able to see all the training at once and when it is due to be completed and be able to manage the completion of it more efficiently.

HRD Response: HRD appreciates NASCOE’s idea in this area. However, the Ag Learn courses are typically created by a specific program area (civil rights or IT) or at the Department level.  As a result, HRD cannot load the courses prior to their availability from the appropriate area.  HRD will; however, make a note and load the course just as soon as it is available thus giving employees the maximum amount of notice to complete their training requirement and meet the established deadlines.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response. HRD will work with the AgLearn contractor to enhance the software to add an email notification feature for when courses have been added to an employee’s worklist and the possibility of a 30-day deadline notification reminder email.


ITEM 4: STAFFING/PERSONNEL

Issue: The SWA RSO pilot has become an approved organization and consists of employees in state offices throughout the southwest area. There have been several job opportunities within the RSO, but they only list state offices as potential duty locations.

NASCOE Position: By limiting duty stations to state offices, numerous highly-qualified candidates do not apply because they don’t want to move across the state. If a job can be carried out across state lines, it doesn’t make sense that the same job couldn’t be carried out remotely in a county office.

RSO positions, as well as many other NOF jobs that allow STO duty stations, should allow the selected employee to work out of a county office.

HRD Response: HRD will defer to DAFO on this issue for the RSO positions.  If DAFO wishes to pursue this option, HRD can certainly accommodate the “area of consideration” in the vacancy announcement process.   As a side note, there are some STO positions which are located in county offices.

As far as National Office positions, this would be left up to the selecting official’s discretion. However, once again, HRD could certainly accommodate the “area of consideration” in the vacancy announcement process.

DAFO Response: The previous SED RSO Council established a policy, which strongly encouraged the duty station of RSO employees in SWA STO’s; however, they also afforded some latitude to the Selecting Official (in consultation with RSO Manager) to duty station an employee in a County Office.  A compelling reason for doing so was required.  Only one such request has been approved.

DAFO has discussed this item with the Manager of the RSO, who feels that the RSO needs its employees co-located, not scattered.  Concentrations of employees provide for a number of benefits including training, cross-training, and enhanced privacy protection because of the nature of the work performed, all of which ultimately provide payback to the end-user/customer in form of available and informed personnel to respond rapidly and efficiently.

There is also the issue of space to accommodate both the newly hired RSO employee in small offices.

Agreement: This item will be considered in the future. They will discuss the possibility of doing remote positions with the RSO management.  NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 5: CRP CONTINUOUS CONTRACTS

Issue: 7 CFR 1410.22 states “For general signup and continuous signup contracts except grasslands, mid-contract management must be conducted to implement management activities, such as disking and prescribed burning according to an approved conservation plan, as part of the CRP contractual obligation on all contracts entered into under general signup and continuous signup, as specified in 7 CFR 1410.30”.

NASCOE Position: Continuous CRP offers are made and approved based upon a determined resource need on the offered land. By requiring that the cover established on this resource concern be disturbed by a mid-contract management activity, it defeats the purpose of establishing a practice to correct a resource need

To maintain the intent of the Continuous CRP program, which is to address a resource concern and incorporate the appropriate practice to correct the resource concern, an update to the regulations needs to be made. Not all CRP contracts need to have mid-contract management practices which will disturb the established cover.

DAFP Response: The requirement for at least 1 management activity during the contract period for all practices, except CP87 and CP88, is to ensure the approved cover, applicable plant diversity and wildlife benefits are maintained, while ensuring the resource concern(s) continues to be addressed.  Management activities are site specific, developed in coordination with the appropriate technical agency with the experience necessary to ensure the resource concern(s) are not jeopardized during the approved management activity, and are included as part of the producers conservation plan of operations.  This is applicable to all practices, not just those enrolled under the continuous CRP signup provisions.  In addition, participants may receive cost-share for approved management activities to lessen the cost of such activities and further ensure the approved cover is in compliance with the practice standards and conservation plan of operations.   Over 30 years of experience with CRP cover establishment, maintenance, and management activities has shown that appropriate management activities performed at the appropriate time helps ensure the approved cover, plant diversity, and wildlife benefits are present and maintained throughout the contract period.  Such activities also assist participants in maintaining compliance with their contract requirements, which results in fewer contract violations for non-compliance, fewer contract terminations, and fewer required refunds of payments.  In addition, the required management activities ensure that tax payer funds are used in an efficient and effective manner for the benefits obtained, while treating all participants in a fair and equitable manner.

Though not specifically referenced in 2-CRP (Rev 5), Mid Contract Management is required by the CFR and Statute.

As you have referenced, 7 CFR 1410.22 states “For general signup and continuous signup contracts except grasslands, mid-contract management must be conducted to implement management activities, such as disking and prescribed burning according to an approved conservation plan, as part of the CRP contractual obligation on all contracts entered into under general signup and continuous signup, as specified in 7 CFR 1410.30”.

Further, Section 1232(a)(5) DUTIES OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS.

(a) IN GENERAL — Under the terms of a contract entered into under this subchapter, during the term of the contract, an owner or operator of a farm or ranch shall agree (5) to undertake management on the land as needed throughout the term of the contract to implement the conservation plan.

Agreement: Farm Bill discussions are going on currently and there could be some discretion used in the future to work with NRCS technical determinations. At this point, mid contract management could be modified but it must be followed.

NASCOE accepts this response.


ITEM 6: COC ELECTION BALLOTS

Issue: There are no clear instructions on the election ballot that a title is required if the voter is an entity.

NASCOE Position: Clear instructions should be added to the election ballot stating that a title for an entity is required.

Under Step 3, Sign on label to the right, it says “You must sign on the label next to Signature (By) or your ballot cannot be counted”, we could add an additional sentence that states, If you are an entity, trust, corporation, partnership, etc., you MUST include a title such as trustee, member, etc. or your ballot will not be counted. This sentence could even be in bold or red print.

DAFO Response: Below is what the label looks like now. The suggested addition could be added under the directions for Step 3.  The label has not changed for years, and there have been no issues so far.  However, it is doable. We will have to discuss this matter with MSD and the various contractors involved in the ballot process.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response. DAFO has agreed to insert a statement (note) in red to list example titles for persons to enter for signing authority. DAFO also agreed to update procedure to allow County Committee’s discretion to determine validity of individuals signing on behalf of an entity without entering a title on the ballot.


ITEM 7: COT OPENINGS AND PLACEMENTS

Issue: Currently COT’s are hired, trained and then apply for county office openings. During 2015 negotiations, NASCOE proposed hiring COT’s for the county office where the COT would be permanently placed and then training would take place.  NASCOE noted that this proposal would increase applications from individuals who wanted to be in that specific county which would lead to a stable county office into the future.  Management expressed openness to consider NASCOE’s suggested changes and NASCOE provided a white paper with concepts on how these changes might benefit county committees looking for stability and provide more opportunities for county office employees.

NASCOE Position:  Just like the FLOT position, NASCOE feels that a COT should be hired for the county office where the CED position is needed.  Further, this proposal is of high priority for our membership.  Management has not formally responded to NASCOE’s suggested changes to the COT program hiring process.  NASCOE requests that management respond in writing to the concepts to allow further discussion on this topic and search for solutions to NASCOE’s and management’s differences.  A PT would be able to apply for a specific CED position and be trained for that position, in other than for hard to fill positions

The COC would make the selection for the county and the state committee would actually hire the COTS.   The position would be advertised for a specific county, the application is done through USAJOBS, the STC selects COTS and would submit 3 names for county openings. (This item was also submitted in 2016)

HRD Response: The decision on how to select and train COTs as well as place them upon completion of the training program is an agency choice.   Obviously, there are pros and cons associated with the current at-large method as well as the specific location method which NASCOE supports.  There is certainly value in the at-large program as it allows states the ability to hire and train COTs before actual vacancies occur.  This way, when the vacancy does occur, there are individuals ready to be interviewed and selected for the CED position rather than just beginning the training process.  HRD will defer to DAFO for their determination on what is best for the States and County Offices on this issue.

DAFO Response: Not all FLOTs are hired for a specific office, as the past.   DAFO continues to believe that states cannot determine with complete accuracy where vacancies will be in the future.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 8: ENHANCING MIDAS SOFTWARE

Issue:  Currently MIDAS users can search farm number, tract number, owner, operator etc.  Being able to search in Midas by CRP contract # would be useful for farms that have multiple contracts on the same tract number.  For instance, if a farm was reconstituted and the farm number changed, every CRP contract would have to be revised. Every field with CRP would have to be revised in Midas as well to add the suffix to the CRP contract #.  If you could search by contract, you could ensure that all the field numbers were updated correctly.

NASCOE Position: Modify the search options in MIDAS to include being able to search by CRP contract number and have all CLU’s associated with that shown in the search results. This will lead to fewer omissions on the CRP mismatched report.

DAFP Response: This suggestion is being added to our list of enhancements and will be implemented as soon as resources and budget can be allocated to the enhancement.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 9: MODIFY THE CCC-576

Issue: The Issue is that when you enter multiple losses for a producer and the notice of loss application prints, it prints to a continuous run of pages. The first page of the CCC-576 Notice of Loss, has the producer’s name, crop year and state and county code listed.  However, the continued pages of the CCC-576 do not have any information listed regarding to name, crop, year, state and county code or page number.  If the pages get out of order or mixed with another producers notice of loss you cannot tell which page goes where.

NASCOE Position: Modify the CCC-576 to include the producer’s name, crop year, state code, county code and page number in the header to each page of the CCC-576 when it prints.

DAFP Response: This enhancement is being adopted and will be implemented in the near future.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 10: USING CO SLOTS AND HIRING PROCEDURE TO FILL GS POSITIONS

Issue: Several states have routinely utilized CO ceiling slots to fill positions for the GS side. More and more often this is being done because it is usually less complicated and quicker than going through the GS hiring procedure.  Many times the intent is to convert the position to GS in a few months but there are several cases around the country where this has not been done or has not been done timely.

NASCOE Position: NASCOE understands that FSA is understaffed both on the CO and GS side and that SED’s have the ability to flex ceiling slot from CO to GS and vice versus. While this might be a tool that is available for states to consider it should not be a common occurrence and the slots should revert back to the original ceiling as soon as possible.

HRD Response: While this can be done, HRD would caution offices on doing this as a way to circumvent merit promotion hiring policies on the GS side. This hiring method should truly be used when we don’t have an FTE available for the position needing to be filled.

DAFO Response: The “flexing” of staff years from CO to GS and vice versa is a tool used by some SED’s to mitigate short-term staffing short falls and meet critical needs. It should be understood that positions are not flexed, rather it is the staff year (I.e., funding) that is flexed to fill a critical need.   It continues to be DAFO’s policy that the flexing of staff years is a short term situation and not a common occurrence.  It is DAFO’s policy that approved flexing does not carry beyond the fiscal year for which it is approved.  In recent years, many State’s individual employment levels have been below their State ceiling levels and the need for flexing has been minimal. 

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 11: INCLUDING THE NASCOE NEW HIRE PACKET PART OF EXHIBIT 6 IN 28-PM

Issue: NASCOE and management have agreed in previous negotiation meetings that State Offices shall make NASCOE membership informational brochures and application forms available to all new hires. This has been communicated to SED’s and AO’s through emails and memos from DAFO to the state offices.  However, with routine turnover in SED’s and DAFO, NASCOE has to make subsequent requests that State Offices be reminded of this agreement.

NASCOE Position: If the membership informational brochure, membership application and FSA-444 were added to the new hire checklist in exhibit 6 in 28-PM it would be made available to all new employees as previously agreed to by NASCOE and Management.

HRD Response:  While HRD recognizes NASCOE as an employee organization, we do not feel that putting informational material in our agency handbooks is appropriate.  Exhibit 22 of Handbook 22-PM, contains a copy of the Labor-Management Relations Agreement between USDA/FSA and NASCOE, and Section 3, Item 15 of this handbooks specifically states that solicitation of membership shall be conducted during non-duty hours of the employees involved.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response. HRD has agreed to add the FSA-444 to the checklist of required forms in the exhibit of 28-PM in a handbook update. HRD also agreed to insert a link to all employee associations for information in 28-PM.


ITEM 12: IT CYBERSECURITY

Issue: Our Country is in an ongoing battle of cyber threats and attacks. In fact, several thousand Federal employees have had their SS#’s stolen. After which, and over the past 18 months, Federal employees have been offered a free service of identity protection through CSID.

NASCOE Position: The threats on our identity are still very real and the need for cyber security has only increased. Would like to see all employees offered Identity protection during their employment years and possibly at a reduced cost for retirees.

HRD Response: The decision as to what type of credit monitoring and identity protection employees/retirees will receive as a result of the cyber incidents falls with the jurisdiction of OPM rather than HRD.

Agreement: NASCOE accepts the response.


ITEM 13: IT/WEBTA

Issue: WebTA 4.2 is not user friendly. The screens are hard to read/follow when loading time and attendance. The screens in the new WebTA system are very hard on the eyes when reading them, and program codes are not listed in order.

NASCOE Position: Several modifications would greatly increase the efficiency of recording our time and attendance. Those would include differentiating each line, grouping the activities alphabetically and locking the header so that the day is always visible when you scroll to the bottom of the entries.  In addition, it does not read very easy when the CED’s time and attendance is printed for the County Committee’s review and approval.

OBF Response: OBF concurs with this recommendation. OBF and HRD are working together to have a change implemented by the NFC to address this at a future date to be determined.

HRD Response: The WebTA 4.2 dashboard issue came up after implementation. NFC responded that the WebTA 4.2 system is 508 compliant and the current display is as designed.   NFC advised that any requested screen changes to the application would be an enhancement. On February 27, 2017, HRD submitted a follow-up inquiry to OHRM to determine whether USDA has any plans to requisition the enhancements and if so, what specifically, and when might they be available in WebTA 4.2.  HRD will continue to follow-up on this issue.

Agreement: The request has been made to list activities alphabetically. There has been assurance from Kronos to simplify WebTa.  To ensure the headquarters team is notified of the problems.  They are working on setting up a SharePoint site for state offices to input problems and issues.  They are aware that there are attempts to address issues and this has bypassed headquarters and this is not a good situation.  Everyone is facing the same problems.  There are people from the field involved in testing.  NASCOE accepts the response.  A list will be compiled and submitted through STO.  A NASCOE POC (Dennis Ray) will have access to the SharePoint site to submit issues.


Items from 2016 NASCOE Negotiations (Resubmitted)

ITEM 2: SHARED MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE

Issue:  “Before STC approval of the establishment of a permanent shared management operation, the SED will consult the NASCOE state affiliate.”  At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position: NASCOE recommends that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedures in 27-PM, paragraph 52C. SED’s are to consult in pre-decisional format before the establishment of a shared management operation.

HRD Response:  We agree that the policy requires the consultation and defer to DAFO on any reminders to or reinforcement of the policy with the States.  We do stand ready to assist if any clarifications or changes to the handbook need to be issued.

DAFO Response:  States routinely send in requests for approval of shared management proposal.  DAFO always ascertains if consultation has taken place.  If this is not happening, we should be informed.

Negotiation agreement: NASCOE would like an official response from the state association attached to the decisions regarding shared management to ensure the NASCOE state affiliate is involved. DAFO will review this issue to come up with a solution to show a written NASCOE position accompanying the State request for permanent shared management.  A response will be sent back to NASCOE within 30 days.  This is to ensure the states are following current policy.  NASCOE will provide feedback in the consultation.  Written documentation of the consultation with the state association included in the submission to DAFO for permanent shared management. An email will be sufficient for a response.  HRD can draft policy for DAFO review to be submitted to NASCOE.

DAFO Response: Shared management is and has been a reality for many years. Given budgetary and   legislative restrictions, we see no realistic alternatives in the near future.  DAFO approves all shared management requests and ensures that NASCOE affiliates have been contacted and that all requisite COC and STC approvals have been obtained. 

HRD Response: HRD will defer to DAFO on this issue; however, if the decision is made to incorporate this into the handbook, HRD can certainly update Handbook 27-PM, Paragraph 52C accordingly.

Agreement: Management will agree to consulting the associations during the proposed establishment of a permanent shared management situation and having COC involvement.   There will be an amendment to 27 PM to include such reference.  NASCOE accepts this response.


ITEM 4: TEMPORARY SHARED MANAGEMENT-LENGTH OF TIME

Issue:  Provisions in 27-PM paragraph 53C “temporary shared management operations shall not exceed 120 calendar days.”  At present, many STO’s are not following this procedure.

NASCOE Position:  NASCOE recommends that SED’s be reminded of applicable handbook procedures. Procedures shall be followed in instances where shared management operations exceed 120 days by SED’s meeting with COC’s to “work out a permanent solution.  Any exceptions to the 120 calendar day limitation shall be approved in advance by DAFO.”

HRD Response:  We concur with the statement of the policy and defer to DAFO on any reminders to or reinforcement of the policy with the States.  We do stand ready to assist if any clarifications or changes to the handbook need to be issued.

DAFO Response:  All extensions are approved by DAFO after it is determined how long the shared management operation will continue and what plans the State has to end it.  As was have reiterated many time, budgetary and current Congressional restrictions prevent us from taking necessary steps to ease the situation of so many shared management office.

Agreement: DAFO agreed to have temporary defined as 6 months and the review will have attached COC minutes showing the consultation with the state affiliate of NASCOE was done.

DAFO Response: Given the many variables is each situation, it is often difficult to determine prospectively when it might be feasible to discontinue a share management operation. DAFO always asks the state what their future plans are.

HRD Response: The 120 days has already been changed to 6 months in Handbook 27-PM. As soon as Revision 2 is released, this will be visible to all employees.

Agreement: Management agreed to have COC’s involved in shared management extensions. DAFO agreed to have temporary defined as 6 months and the review will have attached COC minutes showing the consultation with the state affiliate of NASCOE was done.

NASCOE accepts this response.

Programs Submission Response: Practice Length in COLS

ISSUE:
Contract length selection in COLS

FACTS:
Currently when adding a new offer in COLS, contract length defaults to 10 years and has been erroneously left at the default in times of high workload and short turn around deadlines. This results in the need for an FSA-321 misaction/misinformation to correct the error. In addition, we are required to obtain a statement from the contract holder that they did want the 15 year contract (for example).

SOLUTIONS:
In order for the contract length to not be inadvertently left at the 10 year default, would it be possible that the field default to a “blank” so the user would have to select 10 – 15 years? If this entry is overlooked then the software should notify the user that the years have not been specified. This should greatly lessen the number of FSA 321s being submitted to fix the incorrect contract length.

NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE:
Our team is currently testing a new Practice Screen redesign. It has been in development for months and has been a huge effort for COLS. Practice Length field value will default to “-Select-“ for all practices with multiple practice year options available. (See screen shot below) If a practice only has one Practice Length it will automatically default to the only option available. It is currently targeted for deployment to production the end of this month.

 DEFAULT VALUE “-Select-“

COLS 1

DROPDOWN VALUES AVAILABLE TO SELECT FROM

COLS 2

DEFAULT VALUE “10”

COLS 3

I would like to point out the following information provided by the development team:

  • When there is only one practice length, that will be automatically selected.
  • When there is more than one practice length, dropdown will be defaulted to “—Select—“ and user will be forced to select one length.

There is a defect logged against the Practice Length field that was found during testing. If the team is able to fix it timely, we should be on target for deployment the end of this month. Keep in mind if it is not easily fixed, it will be delayed. An IB will be issued once it is in production.

President’s Notes from NASCOE Meetings with Management

 

NASCOE Vice President, Dennis Ray, and I recently visited WDC and feel that we had a really productive trip. We met with the following people in management:

  • Val Dolcini, FSA Administrator
  • Mark Rucker, Deputy Administrator of management (DAM)
  • Greg Diephouse, Deputy Administrator of Field Operations (DAFO)
  • Radha Sekar, Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
  • Brad Pfaff, Deputy Administrator of Farm Programs (DAFP)
  • Chris Beyerhelm, Associate Administrator
  • Mike Schmidt, Associate Administrator
  • Thomas Mulhern, Human Resources Director
  • Darren Ash, Chief information Officer (CIO)

We met with the Deputy Administrator of Management (DAM), Mark Rucker, on leasing, phone, and office environmental conditions, space issues and wavier requirements. DAM understands our county office environment and needs. We also talked about the CISCO phone system and the upgrades that seem to be helping improve the system. There are a few environmental issues across the country that were discussed, and DAM agreed to follow up on those. DAM is always receptive to improving our working conditions.

We met next with Greg Diephouse, Deputy Administrator of Field Operations (DAFO) and his staff Linda Treese, Pat Spalding, Rick Pinkston, and Trina Brake. DAFO agreed to send out a NASCOE Membership Packet for STO use with new CO hires. DAFO has mailed every SED and STO a NASCOE Membership packet. DAFO encourages all employees to join their respective associations and realizes the importance of each association’s mission. NASCOE appreciates DAFO’s effort and support with this, and many other issues. The status of the shared management negotiation item was discussed. There should be an amendment out soon that requires written confirmation that a proposed shared management arrangement has been discussed with all the COC’s involved, as well as with the NASCOE State Association President. Other topics included COC authority, BTO update, staffing issues, temps, county office footprint and structure, performance issues and the NAPA Study.

Radha Sekar, FSA Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and Bob McGrath discussed budget, workload, and staffing. The CFO says we are not tremendously understaffed, as most CO employees think, because we continue to meet most of our program deadlines and get payments out timely. We discussed several staffing issues, including that our FTE’s aren’t figured considering the permanent disaster programs like LFP and ECP. It was agreed that some administrative funds should come with the implementation of these types of programs. There currently are no provisions for this, and it was suggested that NASCOE work with DAFP on this issue. NASCOE asked about the workload tool and its release. NASCOE still feels strongly that we are understaffed across the country and that a workload measurement tool is needed. The CFO has agreed to share some data from the proposed workload tool with NASCOE for constructive feedback.

Brad Pfaff, Deputy Administrator of Farm Programs (DAFP), and his staff Brad Karman and Kim Viers (on a detailed assignment) met with us on COC authorities in 2-CRP. NASCOE has asked for DAFP to reinstate COC authority to approve CRP-1’s and delegate that authority to CED’s. The current handbook policy allows the CED to approve CRP-1’s without delegation. DAFP has promised to try and reinstate this policy. DAFP recently has asked NASCOE to review certain information on ACRSI as it would pertain to county office operations. NASCOE has had a task force working on ACRSI for over a year-and-a-half and appreciates management allowing us to provide constructive feedback on its impact to the field. NASCOE had asked DAFP for some relief for those states that just learned that their forage reporting date would now become November 15th. DAFP waived late file fees for those states for thirty days. NASCOE also shared some concerns with other agencies having the ability to make MIDAS edits. DAFP didn’t feel that any of these edits would interfere with FSA, but agreed to go back and look at a few concerns that NASCOE membership had. We wrapped up the DAFP session discussing our geospatial needs.

Dennis and I met next with Chris Beyerhelm, Associate Administrator, on directives, staffing, cost analysis update, county office footprint, COC authorities, WEBTA, and GovDelivery. The Associate Director intends to get all of our directives updated and simplified. As always, staffing and budget issues dominate most of the conversations with our Associate Administrator.

Val Dolcini, FSA Administrator, discussed what he thought FSA’s future looked like. He felt that NASCOE’s role with employee issues and negotiations has been very effective. He hopes we will continue to have the all-association negotiation sessions. The Administrator feels that there is a benefit to all the associations being in WDC at one time. The Associations, including NASCOE, feel that the joint negotiations meetings have been successful. NASCOE thanked Val for his leadership and the support he has given NASCOE during his administration. He has allowed us to work with all of FSA’s management personnel on a lot of different issues during his time in WDC.

Mike Schmidt, Associate Administrator, and his assistant, Katina Hanson, met with us on ACRSI and COC authority. The Associate Administrator supports the COC system and its role. As new farm bill talks begin, NASCOE will continue to stress the importance of a strong COC delivery system.

Thomas Mulhern, Human Resource’s Director, and Barbara Boyd, Deputy Director for Human Resources, met with us on the status of the PT position description task force. This task force has met with some success on rewriting PT position descriptions. NASCOE had asked for a task force, which resulted from a negotiation item from last year. The task force is also looking at adding a position with promotion opportunities for PT’s as well as continuing to look into the possibility of a grade reclassification. We also discussed the CO hiring process. It has been mandated that the CO hiring process will start using a questionnaire to replace the current KSA’s. NASCOE will have representation on this task force as well.

Darren Ash, Chief Informational Officer (CIO), met with us and gave us an update on IT issues. We discussed MIDAS edits and ACRSI. The CIO addressed our ability to have reports and query information that we need to perform our job at a more efficient level. There should be some much awaited information on this coming soon. We discussed the IT Steering Committee and its future. Darren has worked hard to communicate well with the field on all of our concerns and issues and is making progress in resolving them. NASCOE appreciates the time that the CIO gives us and the personal touch he has given the field in addressing our needs.

Respectfully Submitted by,

Wes Daniels
NASCOE President

Programs Submission Response: CCMS Software Enhancement

ISSUE:
No current report to list contracts currently in revision status in CCMS.

FACTS:
We have many options for reports in CCMS.  One of the reports still needed is a report on contracts “In Revision” status. We can print reports for contracts that are “Active”, “Expired”, “Terminated”, “Revised”, “Divided”, and “Transferred”, but we do not have a report for the contracts that are in the process of a revision.

SOLUTIONS:
Please add to the available reports in CCMS a report for contracts in revision status.

NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE:
Thank you for the suggestion. I agree with your idea and will work to add it to a future enhancement. Until the time we can get a report added  users do have the ability to search by the revision status from the search contract screen. These searches will provide offices with all the contracts that fall under each revision status. I know this is not as nice as a full report but it does provide offices with the ability to identify contracts “In Revision”.