2008 is an election year and with both major parties having already picked their nominees, we can now settle down to a litany of who will give us the most for our vote or who best fits our values.  We have already heard the barbs thrown back and forth over patriotism, rights, and a few digs regarding responsibilities.  Yes, responsibilities always come with rights.

 Responsibilities also come with positions of trust.  Positions of trust include our elected officials, those they appoint, employees and consultants hired to provide services or complete tasks assigned to us defense contractors and signatories to the NISPOM (government agencies).  When an individual is granted an eligibility to access classified information they have also gained the responsibilities that accompany a position trusted to safeguard national security.  Sometimes these responsibilities are restrictions on activities that are normally not restricted.  These restrictions are binding by force of law: Executive Orders 12829, 12958, 12333. 13355 & 13381; "the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;" "Internal Security Act of 1950;" "National Security Act of 1947;" "Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;" and other public laws as referenced in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).  These restrictions are due to various studies of historical trends on the actions and motivations of spies -- both internal and external.

 

The responsibilities to protect our national secrets and to abide by the restrictions on our activities are based on the willingness of both parties: the individual requesting eligibility to access classified and the government agency sponsoring the requested access.  In Texas, we are an "at will" state -- meaning that either the worker or the employer can decide at any time to cancel the employment contract for any reason not prohibited by law.  Regardless of which state or foreign country we are in, if we decide we wish to be granted eligibility for access and the sponsor decides to grant us legibility to access, we have agreed that we will abide by a few restrictions on our activities.

 

What are these restrictions?  They could be considered common sense guidelines on how not to expose yourself or others in your company to the possibility of blackmail or bring you or others to the attention of international spies or terrorists wishing to do the United States harm.  A very thorough description of the adjudicative guidelines and reporting responsibilities is available from the Employee's Guide to Security Responsibilities.  If you are interested in a one page handout to use as a security briefing reminder, forward this newsletter to a colleague (Forward to a Friend) and when they sign up for the newsletter, both of you will receive a copy of 20 Reporting Responsibilities of Cleared Individuals.

 

by John Hille, ISP 

Please send your questions or tips and techniques you wish to share to ajsconsulting@earthlink.net.

 

A: Reviewing of the PSM Net and regular verification of the Personal Summary records are required because:

For more tips & techniques, to refresh your JPAS knowledge, or to learn how to effectively use JPAS, register now for either JPAS & e-QIP Immersion or JPAS & e-QIP Proficiency & Troubleshooting. 

 

For more information on delegating JPAS maintenance actions please call (512) 650-4819.

Sheri Escobar, NCMS' current president gave a presentation at the Lone Star Chapter in June part of which included glimpses of possible future changes in the Personnel Security arena.  One of those changes is being headed by the ASIS Defense & Intel Council a proposal for using contractor background investigations as an interim eligibility determinant.  Expect to see a survey on this soon.

 

Meanwhile, does your company do background investigations?  How do you verify the citizenship of your employees and fill in the I-9 forms?  On June 9th, the president amended Executive Order 12989 to include a requirement for future contracts that contractors must use an electronic verification system to verify employee eligibility (i.e., that the employee is legally allowed to work in the U.S.) and in response Secretary Michael Chertoff designated e-Verify as the system of choice.  On June 12th, the Federal Register received notification of intent to adjust the Federal Acquisition Rules (FAR) to include the new requirement to use e-Verify.  If you want to comment on this FAR change, please do so within the 60 day comment period.

 

How will this affect personnel security?  As FSOs, we should work with Human Resources, and the Contracts department and be sure that all are expecting this change and preparing for it.

 

Feedback Request: Is your facility familiar with the e-Verify program?  If so, how much time is involved in verifying employee eligibility?  Have you found the system to be fairly accurate?  Please send your answers to ajsconsulting@earthlink.net.  

Training

  

 August 14, 2008

Dave & Busters