UNCLASSIFIED

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Colin Patrick Walle, Interim President – Local 1998

FROM: CA/PPT – Frank E. Moss

SUBJECT: 2004 Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements

I am in receipt of your January 30, 2004 grievance between the parties filed under provisions of Article 20, Section 8 regarding management’s decision to implement new adjudication performance elements and standards. I am responding as the employer’s representative with a written decision on this matter. Management requested and you granted an extension until March 10 for this reply.

Your grievance alleges that management committed three violations:

1) The 2004 performance appraisal system for passport specialists is not fair or reasonable;

2) The 2004 adjudication standards and elements are not consistent with the duties listed in the position description; and,

3) The 2004 adjudication standards and elements do not contribute to maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the U.S. passport and the passport issuance process.

Management would like to point out that under Article 20, Section 3(d), grievance procedures do not apply to the content of critical elements and performance standards. Grievances may be filed only alleging violations of Article 18. Our response to you regarding your latest allegations in no way should be construed as an indication that management believes that there have been any violations of Article 18 regarding the new performance standards for passport specialists.

-2-

Regarding the first alleged violation, we disagree with your statement that the 2004 performance appraisal system is not fair or reasonable. It is management’s belief that the new standards better clarify the employee’s responsibilities and how his/her work performance will be evaluated. Additionally, we believe that the new standards will ensure consistency of method throughout the system, and result in more accurate evaluations for passport specialists. Furthermore, we believe that the new “fully successful” standards are exceedable by the majority of passport specialists at all grades.

Regarding the second alleged violation, that the 2004 adjudication standards and elements are not consistent with the duties listed in the position description, management again rejects your argument. Critical elements and responsibilities developed for a performance plan clarify generalities that are listed in position descriptions. During the development of the new performance elements, previous critical elements and responsibilities, as well as duties listed

in the position descriptions for all passport specialists, were carefully reviewed. Determining the important components of exactly what is involved in adjudicating a passport application was explored. There are no responsibilities listed in the new performance standards that are not in accord with passport specialists’ position descriptions.

Regarding the third alleged violation, that the 2004 adjudication standards and elements do not contribute to maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the U.S. passport and the passport issuance process, management totally rejects your argument. During the two-year developmental process, the concept of what adjudication of a passport application means was explored in-depth. In the end, how citizenship and identity are qualitatively evaluated, the necessity of comprehensive anti-fraud knowledge, customer service skills and technical skills, (such as accuracy and production standards), were given equal weight. We believe that the new “Knowledge”, “Fraud Awareness” and “Security Awareness” elements, in particular, address the critical duties and responsibilities that all passport specialists are expected to apply when reviewing passport applications for citizenship, identity and entitlement.

Therefore, the relief requested in this grievance is denied. Your next relief would be to invoke the arbitration procedures contained in Article 22 of the Agreement.