Evidence at the Hiring Freeze Arbitration reveals
NWS had $125 million Surplus at End of FY13
Click here to See NWS Budget Surplus 2013
(January 17, 2014) The National Weather Service finished last Fiscal Year, which ended September 30, 2013, with $125 million in unspent funding. The information was revealed at arbitration over unfilled vacancies in the National Weather Service – the longest and most crucial arbitration in NWSEO history – held January 13 – 16. Although the NWS spent
98.5 percent of the funds in Local Warnings and Forecast account (from which most employees’ salaries are paid), money from the overfunded accounts could have been moved to LWF account after notifying the Appropriations Committees. This type of reprogramming routinely occurs every year. The NWS has 451 vacancies.
The arbitration focused on two issues: 1) whether the NWS violated several staffing agreements by failing to fill various Lead Forecaster, Journeyman Forecaster and HMT-Met Intern vacancies throughout all regions of the NWS prior to and after the 2013 hiring freeze; and 2) the Agency’s unilateral implementation of the hiring freeze without first bargaining with NWSEO.
The Agency implemented the hiring freeze on March 27, 2013 claiming that it did not have funds to fill the vacancies. The attached spreadsheet outlines the $125 million surplus in appropriated funds. Approximately half of that amount is money left over on the various line items that make up "Operations, Research and Facilities" and continues to be available for the NWS to spend this fiscal year in addition to the new funds appropriated by Congress this week. The other half of the $125 million is in “Procurement, Acquisition and Construction” and remains available until the end of FY 15. (Not only has Congress fully funded the President’s FY 2014 request for the NWS, but it added an additional $11 million to the Local Warnings and Forecast account).
On the attached spreadsheet: "Operations, Research and Facilities" Row 1011 shows FY 2012 and Row 1015 shows FY 2013. “Procurement, Acquisition and Construction” Row 1012 shows FY 2012 and Row 1014 shows FY 2013.
At the hearing, NWSEO contended that the NWS has funds that could be reprogrammed to fill vacancies. Similarly, the NWS has needlessly terminated training, travel and conference attendance, and delayed maintenance when funds were available.
A decision is expected from Federal Labor Arbitrator Joseph Sharnoff in late spring or early summer. His decision is then subject to appeal to the Federal Labor Relations Authority and then to the United States Court of Appeals.
-NWSEO-
NWS Excuses for Hiring Freeze in light of $125 million Surplus Don’t Add Up
January 24, 2014 print copy
(January 24, 2014) Evidence of a $125 million dollar surplus in fiscal year 2013 has the National Weather Service scrambling for excuses for why they didn’t seek permission from Congress to reprogram the money and avert an unnecessary and dangerous hiring freeze. Currently there are 451 vacancies agency-wide.
In response to information learned at the January Hiring Freeze arbitration and communicated by NWSEO, the NWS claims they “did not receive allotments for the final FY13 NOAA Spend Plan, which included over $20M in additional Local Warnings and Forecasts (LWF) funding, until the end of August, when funds in the spend plan targeted for planned hires could no longer be executed.” The fiscal year 2013 ended on September 30, 2013.
This response only serves to generate more questions that NWSEO would like answered:
What "funds in the spend plan targeted for planned hires"? Where is that money now?
Why didn’t they then lift the freeze at the end of August?
The NWS knew the funds had been appropriated, so why didn’t they begin recruitment process? Just because it couldn’t be "executed" by the end of the fiscal year (September30) doesn’t mean that recruitment shouldn’t have begun.
The NWS also says a “critical but often overlooked aspect of the carryover is that FY13 had less active severe weather and hurricane seasons. This resulted in high unobligated overtime, premium pay and emergency travel balances."
The “unobligated overtime, premium pay and emergency travelbalances” are all LWF money. Money the Agency originally claimed was completely spent. Why didn’t they start using this money at the end of FY 13 to end the hiring freeze?
NWSEO maintains that the NWS could have asked Congress to reprogram the funds to enable them to fill vacancies of critical positions. Below, you will read (in italics) NWS’s reasons for not requesting a reprogramming, followed by the union’s rebuttal – stating firmly that for the mission of saving lives and property, the critical positions should have been filled.
The NWS says, “No. The NOAA Spend Plan, which constituted all requested reprogrammings for NOAA was submitted in May, approved in July and allotted in August. NWS could not submit yet a new reprogramming proposal while the current proposal was being reviewed."
NWSEO believes the Agency’s response is simply is not true. The NWS did submit a new reprogramming request to Congress to avoid furloughs after submission of the spend plan and while it was waiting for approval.
The NWS says, "Further, NWS justifies to Congress, and they approve, how much each PPA receives. Some of these PPAs, including the Sandy Supplemental, have specific objectives related to observing, processing, and dissemination infrastructure in support of the NWS’s mission critical service delivery. Reprogramming funds from these objectives for filling vacancies would permanently degrade NWS’ ability to operate and maintain its forecast process independent of staffing levels."
NWSEO wants you to know, that the fact of the matter is, that the NWS DID NOT spend the $125 million initially appropriated for these other "objectives" (that's why there is $125 million unspent) so the NWS can’t say that had they reprogrammed these funds they would have degraded other NWS capacities. That statement is only true if they actually had spent the $125 million on those "objectives." And although some Sandy money was designated in the Supplemental for certain specific purposes that would not include labor, $25 million was just to "improve forecasting capabilities." The NWS explained at the hearing the big cost associated with hiring is allegedly a non-recurring, one time only expense - the $100,000 PCS cost. To say that they can’t use those funds for recurring expenses like increased labor costs if they hired someone, doesn’t hold water.
NWS also says, “Finally, by the time any such reprogramming could be approved, NWS would not have time during the remainder of the fiscal year, given NOAA’s 80 day hiring model, to successfully fill many staffing vacancies."
The NWS could have started process and positions would have been filed by now!
-NWSEO-
No one cares more for National Weather Service employees than
National Weather Service employees.
No one works harder for National Weather Service employees than
National Weather Service employees.
We are NWSEO.