Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

This is the president’s budget request. Exactly the same as what OMB asked for

Anonymous wrote:So does this look like good news?

It seems like this means they are hoping to avoid significant further shrinkage. Whether they get the budget they ask for is a separate issue.

So does this look like good news?

Anonymous wrote:Many more than 100 took the DRP. More like 6x.

6x would include people who took VERA/VISP, and those folks should already be off the payroll. That may account for the differences.

Many more than 100 took the DRP. More like 6x.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For your reading pleasure:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/secfy26congbudgjust[/quote]

Thanks so much. I was wondering where the heck to find this thing.

Atkins is testifying about it on Monday.[/quote]

How do they lose positions in ENF? Another VERA/VSIP?[/quote]

Are there more than 1,178 FTEs in ENF today? If yes, I assume they’re factoring in some moderate level of attrition before FY26 begins.

As you might notice, the total FTE for FY25 enacted was significantly lower than what the agency actually had for FTEs at the start of FY25.

I wouldn’t read too much into these specific numbers.[/quote]

Yeah, where did they get 4500 for ‘25? [/quote]

Could the drop be fron people who took the fork? They are still enployees for the rest of the FY. But thr SEC knows they are gone for the next FY?[/quote]

PA said about 4200 employees currently, and about 100 people took DRP, so that gets you to the 4100 in the budget request

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For your reading pleasure:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/secfy26congbudgjust[/quote]

Thanks so much. I was wondering where the heck to find this thing.

Atkins is testifying about it on Monday.[/quote]

How do they lose positions in ENF? Another VERA/VSIP?[/quote]

Are there more than 1,178 FTEs in ENF today? If yes, I assume they’re factoring in some moderate level of attrition before FY26 begins.

As you might notice, the total FTE for FY25 enacted was significantly lower than what the agency actually had for FTEs at the start of FY25.

I wouldn’t read too much into these specific numbers.[/quote]

Yeah, where did they get 4500 for ‘25? [/quote]

Could the drop be fron people who took the fork? They are still enployees for the rest of the FY. But thr SEC knows they are gone for the next FY?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For your reading pleasure:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/secfy26congbudgjust[/quote]

Thanks so much. I was wondering where the heck to find this thing.

Atkins is testifying about it on Monday.[/quote]

How do they lose positions in ENF? Another VERA/VSIP?[/quote]

Are there more than 1,178 FTEs in ENF today? If yes, I assume they’re factoring in some moderate level of attrition before FY26 begins.

As you might notice, the total FTE for FY25 enacted was significantly lower than what the agency actually had for FTEs at the start of FY25.

I wouldn’t read too much into these specific numbers.[/quote]

Yeah, where did they get 4500 for ‘25?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For your reading pleasure:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/secfy26congbudgjust[/quote]

Thanks so much. I was wondering where the heck to find this thing.

Atkins is testifying about it on Monday.[/quote]

How do they lose positions in ENF? Another VERA/VSIP?[/quote]

Are there more than 1,178 FTEs in ENF today? If yes, I assume they’re factoring in some moderate level of attrition before FY26 begins.

As you might notice, the total FTE for FY25 enacted was significantly lower than what the agency actually had for FTEs at the start of FY25.

I wouldn’t read too much into these specific numbers.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For your reading pleasure:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/secfy26congbudgjust[/quote]

Thanks so much. I was wondering where the heck to find this thing.

Atkins is testifying about it on Monday.[/quote]

How do they lose positions in ENF? Another VERA/VSIP?

Anonymous wrote:For your reading pleasure:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/secfy26congbudgjust

Thanks so much. I was wondering where the heck to find this thing.

Atkins is testifying about it on Monday.

For your reading pleasure:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/secfy26congbudgjust

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

What are you talking about?? This IS the chair’s policy. As is the 5 bullets.

Certain divisions may choose not to comply with that policy. But it’s still the chair’s policy.

I applaud CF for having the integrity to follow the policy. If the chair wants to change it, then he can and should. But this wink wink BS (here’s the official
policy, but then here’s the informal policy) is ridiculous and gives the chair a pass.

Not sure what you're talking about but the RTO FAQs say infrequent TW is ok for personal situations like doctors appointments. I have to assume the FAQs represent the chair's policy unless there is an updated document I am not aware of.

“Infrequent” is a meaningless term. I read that as “never,” unless the FO defines it. Don’t blame CF for not sticking its neck out to play this silly game where the FO tries to have it both ways — appease opm but not being “too strict,” while putting all the risk on line managers.

Infrequent is open to varying reasonable interpretations, but “never” is not one of them.

True. And Haley’s comet infrequently comes near earth. I guess that’s the standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

What are you talking about?? This IS the chair’s policy. As is the 5 bullets.

Certain divisions may choose not to comply with that policy. But it’s still the chair’s policy.

I applaud CF for having the integrity to follow the policy. If the chair wants to change it, then he can and should. But this wink wink BS (here’s the official
policy, but then here’s the informal policy) is ridiculous and gives the chair a pass.

Not sure what you're talking about but the RTO FAQs say infrequent TW is ok for personal situations like doctors appointments. I have to assume the FAQs represent the chair's policy unless there is an updated document I am not aware of.

“Infrequent” is a meaningless term. I read that as “never,” unless the FO defines it. Don’t blame CF for not sticking its neck out to play this silly game where the FO tries to have it both ways — appease opm but not being “too strict,” while putting all the risk on line managers.

It literally says you can use it for dr. appointments. You're putting words in there that aren't there.

How many doctors appts per psy period?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Cf staff, I’d actually appreciate if they just said that this was a decision that Cf management made to make the ad hoc policy restrictive. That it is within division discretion, and this is the ad hoc policy that they decided. Done. I think what is frustrating is if they make it seem like this is the Chairs policy, or that they are “in it with us”. I don’t admire their position, but I think leadership taking personal ownership of decisions, even if not popular with Staff, is respectable.

What are you talking about?? This IS the chair’s policy. As is the 5 bullets.

Certain divisions may choose not to comply with that policy. But it’s still the chair’s policy.

I applaud CF for having the integrity to follow the policy. If the chair wants to change it, then he can and should. But this wink wink BS (here’s the official
policy, but then here’s the informal policy) is ridiculous and gives the chair a pass.

Not sure what you're talking about but the RTO FAQs say infrequent TW is ok for personal situations like doctors appointments. I have to assume the FAQs represent the chair's policy unless there is an updated document I am not aware of.

“Infrequent” is a meaningless term. I read that as “never,” unless the FO defines it. Don’t blame CF for not sticking its neck out to play this silly game where the FO tries to have it both ways — appease opm but not being “too strict,” while putting all the risk on line managers.

Infrequent is open to varying reasonable interpretations, but “never” is not one of them.