Overview
Title
Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; Membership
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has picked some of its leaders to form a special team that checks how well the top people at the EPA are doing their jobs, but it doesn't say how they choose these team members or how much it costs to run the team.
Summary AI
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the members of its Performance Review Board for 2020. This board, in accordance with federal regulations, evaluates senior executives' performance appraisals at the EPA. The board membership includes various directors and deputy directors from the EPA's offices and regions. For further information, individuals can contact Lizabeth Engebretson at the EPA.
Abstract
Notice is hereby given of the membership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Performance Review Board for 2020.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; Membership" from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serves to inform the public about the members selected for the EPA's Performance Review Board for the year 2020. This board is tasked with evaluating the performance appraisals of senior executives within the agency. The members listed are various directors and deputy directors from different offices and regions within the EPA. For those seeking further information, Lizabeth Engebretson at the EPA is the designated contact.
General Summary
The notice outlines the membership composition of the EPA's Performance Review Board for 2020, which is responsible for reviewing senior executive performance evaluations as necessitated by federal regulations. The board's role includes meticulously assessing initial performance appraisals submitted by supervisors and providing recommendations to the appointing authority.
Significant Issues or Concerns
There are several notable issues within the document:
Transparency and Fairness: The document does not clarify the criteria or process used to select the members of the Performance Review Board. This absence of explanation may lead to concerns about transparency and the fairness of member selection.
Budgetary Implications: There is no mention of the budget or the costs related to managing the Performance Review Board, which might raise questions about resource allocation and the risk of unnecessary spending.
Legal References: The document refers to specific sections of the U.S. Code but does not provide context or clarification on these legal references. This could be problematic for readers who are not familiar with legal or governmental regulations.
Performance Metrics and Effectiveness: The notice does not present any performance outcomes or metrics from previous boards to justify the board's effectiveness or necessity, leaving an information gap about its impact.
Complex Language: The formal language and numerous official titles used throughout the document may be challenging for some readers to comprehend, potentially limiting the accessibility of the information.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the document offers limited direct impact. However, understanding that the EPA is actively reviewing its executive performance evaluations might instill some confidence in the agency's commitment to accountability and efficiency. Yet, the lack of transparency about the board's operations and impact might dampen this perception.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For those within or closely working with the EPA, such as agency employees and stakeholders in the environmental sector, the board's operations are crucial. The evaluations are pivotal in ensuring that senior executives are meeting their performance expectations, which can directly affect agency policies and actions. On the downside, stakeholders might view the lack of detailed procedural or selection criteria information as a potential oversight, leading to concerns regarding the board's integrity and fairness.
In summary, while the document fulfills its obligation to disclose board membership, it raises several questions about the board's selection process, oversight responsibilities, and operational transparency, which could influence both public perception and internal stakeholder trust.
Issues
• The document does not specify the criteria or process used to select members of the EPA Performance Review Board, which could lead to concerns about transparency and fairness.
• There is no indication of the budgetary implications or costs associated with the functioning of the Performance Review Board, which could raise concerns about potential wasteful spending.
• The document references specific U.S.C. sections but does not provide a clear explanation of their implications or how they relate to the Performance Review Board, which might be unclear to readers unfamiliar with legal references.
• The document does not provide any performance metrics or outcomes from previous years' Performance Review Boards to justify its effectiveness or necessity.
• The language used is largely formal and includes numerous titles and offices, which may be complex and not easily understood by all audiences.