The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) today termed “a positive first step” a compromise announced yesterday that would keep 15 of the FCC’s 24 field offices open, rather than only the eight in an original proposal (TRDaily, June 9). But the union, which represents FCC employees, said the plan can be improved.

“Our goal is to make sure that FCC field staff can continue to do their valuable work in the communities where they now serve,” NTEU National President Colleen Kelley said in a news release. “We believe the work of the field offices should be strengthened through an effective modernization plan.”

“I am glad that our message resonated with leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and with the FCC commissioners,” Ms. Kelley added.

Yesterday’s field office closure compromise was announced by Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

But the NTEU news release said “the new agreement does not go far enough and may still prevent the FCC from adequately safeguarding the radio spectrum and effectively serving various spectrum users and the public.

“Keeping 15 offices open is still not enough,” Ana Curtis, president of NTEU Chapter 209 (FCC), said in the release. “The 24 offices each serve several states or large cities. They need to be modernized and fully staffed by compliance specialists and administrative assistants as well as engineers. Those who are served by these offices have testified to the value of the work of these field offices and the need to keep them open and fully staffed.”

“Our main concern continues to be personnel cuts,” Ms. Curtis told TRDaily in an e-mail. “We are receiving information that indicates that many of the offices the Commission agreed to keep open are currently staffed by one or two engineers. The offices that they still proposing to close are the ones staffed by at least three or four engineers and compliance specialists and administrative assistants.  There are some indications that the Commission may even decide to contract out some of this work.  We do not agree that [using] private entities would result in any cost savings.  We have also had negative experiences when contracting out ministerial duties that are best left to government rather than to private, for-profit entities who do not come with the knowledge and expertise that our employees have acquired by virtue of their work with licensees, consumers, state and local public safety entities, and industry customers.”- Paul Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com