-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
What YOU can do to fight back - IFT limit
- Thread starter James48843
- Start date
JonesH2O
New member
I just faxed and mailed the following. I borrowed some from folks who provided comments earlier in this thread (thank you) and added a few more of my own.
Dear Mr. Emswiler,
These comments refer to the Interim rule published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2007 (72 FR 73251).
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), a general notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register. This subsection does not apply when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The reasons listed in the preamble of this action do not show good cause for an Interim rule or emergency action. Therefore, this action is not exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), after notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. This action does not give the public an opportunity to participate in any future rule making; one that presents a public record of comments and agency responses that are submitted with this action.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
This action states in the Classification section: I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. They will affect only employees of the Federal Government. Employees of the Federal Government are not small businesses or small organizations, so they can be certified as not having a significant economic impact. However, retiree's of the Federal Government, former federal employees (who have chosen to keep their money in the TSP) and small business who provide investment counseling to TSP shareholders are small entities and small business entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, this action will have a significant economic impact on those entities.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
This action states in the Classification section: I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to 5 CFR Ch. III Part 1320.3 Definitions - For the purposes of this definition of ‘‘ten or more persons,'' ‘‘persons'' does not include employees of the respondent acting within the scope of their employment, contractors engaged by a respondent for the purpose of complying with the collection of information, or current employees of the Federal government (including military reservists and members of the National Guard while on active duty) when acting within the scope of their employment. Therefore, retirees of the Federal Government and former federal employees, are not exempt from Paperwork Reduction Act.
Currently, § 1601.22 of the TSP regulations state participants may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine, or by completing and filing (mailing) the appropriate paper TSP form. The action would change the current voluntary method of requesting an interfund transfer, to a mandatory requirement to request interfund transfers by mail. Paperwork Reduction Act rules are clear on voluntary vs. mandatory requirements: Conversion from voluntary to mandatory information collection would be considered a substantive modification of the existing requirement, even though the number of responses and burden hours may not change. Therefore, this action is not exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
For the above reasons, I request that the Interim Rule be withdrawn. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this action.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Emswiler,
These comments refer to the Interim rule published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2007 (72 FR 73251).
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), a general notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register. This subsection does not apply when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The reasons listed in the preamble of this action do not show good cause for an Interim rule or emergency action. Therefore, this action is not exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), after notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. This action does not give the public an opportunity to participate in any future rule making; one that presents a public record of comments and agency responses that are submitted with this action.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
This action states in the Classification section: I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. They will affect only employees of the Federal Government. Employees of the Federal Government are not small businesses or small organizations, so they can be certified as not having a significant economic impact. However, retiree's of the Federal Government, former federal employees (who have chosen to keep their money in the TSP) and small business who provide investment counseling to TSP shareholders are small entities and small business entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, this action will have a significant economic impact on those entities.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
This action states in the Classification section: I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to 5 CFR Ch. III Part 1320.3 Definitions - For the purposes of this definition of ‘‘ten or more persons,'' ‘‘persons'' does not include employees of the respondent acting within the scope of their employment, contractors engaged by a respondent for the purpose of complying with the collection of information, or current employees of the Federal government (including military reservists and members of the National Guard while on active duty) when acting within the scope of their employment. Therefore, retirees of the Federal Government and former federal employees, are not exempt from Paperwork Reduction Act.
Currently, § 1601.22 of the TSP regulations state participants may make an interfund transfer using the TSP Web site or the ThriftLine, or by completing and filing (mailing) the appropriate paper TSP form. The action would change the current voluntary method of requesting an interfund transfer, to a mandatory requirement to request interfund transfers by mail. Paperwork Reduction Act rules are clear on voluntary vs. mandatory requirements: Conversion from voluntary to mandatory information collection would be considered a substantive modification of the existing requirement, even though the number of responses and burden hours may not change. Therefore, this action is not exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
For the above reasons, I request that the Interim Rule be withdrawn. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this action.
Sincerely,
wv-girl
Member
What about taking a couple of full page ads in the Washington Post using the newsletters written at tspshareholder.org ? Washington has a vast amt of fed employees, not to mention congress, house reps, etc.
07Harley
New member
I don't think they get a D in communications. I think they are successfully sneaking this change into effect in March with very few shareholders knowledege that anything is up. When the other 3.79 million members find out it will already be a done deal.
Maybe we need to communicate better with the other share holders thru CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, Dianne Sawyer, Katie Curic and Bill O'Reilly.
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE BUT, IT'S WORTH FIGHTING FOR!
Maybe we need to communicate better with the other share holders thru CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, Dianne Sawyer, Katie Curic and Bill O'Reilly.
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE BUT, IT'S WORTH FIGHTING FOR!
I agree with you, Art. The TSP Board not only gets a D- for their communication and public affairs effort, but they are now demonstrating deceit and arrogance by posting this Fed. Register notice during the Christmas-New Year's holiday week, and trying to make the Rule effective on Jan. 7th, which is a clear attempt to sneak it through before most Feds even realize what is going on. The attitutude is..."we know what is best for you, and we don't really want any comments on this that disagree with us". I really think we should emphasize this behavior that they are demonstrating in our continued contacts with ETAC, Congress, and others. Even if they are right and there is a problem with trading costs (which I do not believe, since they have not proven their case), the way they have approached this whole situation displays a shocking degree of callousness and arrogance. This type of behavior alone shows that we clearly need new leadership at FRTIB.
TSP people may not be as smart as you think in all matters.
This whole mess will become a public relations nightmare. They misjudged their customers.
They obviously did not have much of a communnications plan on this. If so, you would have seen special announcements on their web site over a period of time defining the problem and then asking for cooperation. A good plan would have had their leadership talking about this in every major communications avenue for many many months to educate employees about the problem and their perceived affects. I give their public affairs effort a grade of D-.
Additionally GAO has been critical of the lack of regular oversight and hearings by the DOJ and Congress. This lack of regular accountability and their massive liability protections can make one pretty cocky.
Times inthe market have been good and the funds have been successful with this 4-5 year bull market, so who cares? Until now.
Memories are short in the Beltway where just a few years ago TSP was spending millions fixing their service, their web page, and fighting with the contractor....and so it goes.
This whole mess will become a public relations nightmare. They misjudged their customers.
They obviously did not have much of a communnications plan on this. If so, you would have seen special announcements on their web site over a period of time defining the problem and then asking for cooperation. A good plan would have had their leadership talking about this in every major communications avenue for many many months to educate employees about the problem and their perceived affects. I give their public affairs effort a grade of D-.
Additionally GAO has been critical of the lack of regular oversight and hearings by the DOJ and Congress. This lack of regular accountability and their massive liability protections can make one pretty cocky.
Times inthe market have been good and the funds have been successful with this 4-5 year bull market, so who cares? Until now.
Memories are short in the Beltway where just a few years ago TSP was spending millions fixing their service, their web page, and fighting with the contractor....and so it goes.
Minnow
Well-known member
Couldn't agree with you more RAE!!! Still keeping up the fight. Just taking pause to realize that these aren't chimps that we're dealing with. I would never be contentious with one of the TSPartans standing with me
but for what it's worth, to file lawsuit, I believe you only have to claim that a specific wrong (tortious or otherwise) has occurred -- you don't have to exhaust the process -- just alledge that the wrong has occurred and I believe this will occur when the first letter goes out -- and by this time, the short comment period will be exhausted anyways and we will both be right. As always, I welcome any and all thoughts.
but for what it's worth, to file lawsuit, I believe you only have to claim that a specific wrong (tortious or otherwise) has occurred -- you don't have to exhaust the process -- just alledge that the wrong has occurred and I believe this will occur when the first letter goes out -- and by this time, the short comment period will be exhausted anyways and we will both be right. As always, I welcome any and all thoughts.I'm kind of conflicted here guys. On the one hand, I do believe in the process and writing to these folks and asking for reviews and audits and all really makes sense -- it's our right and if we feel we have been wronged, then why not take part in and try to use the democratic process? I have signed the petition and faxed/written so many people that I am just about sick of my own complaints. **note: still not giving up.**
On the other hand, I see how these people operate and they haven't done anything without the prior approval of their counsel. They have received legal advice galore (don't know how many on the board actually hold law degrees themselves) and will claim fiduciary duty until the cows come home and will most likely never be held accountable given a strict interpretation of their duties. It's slimy I know but if you think for one second that they aren't/weren't already anticipating a lawsuit, then you are fooling yourself. All these things that we are doing (i.e. writing our congressmen and senators, faxing the ETAC, etc.) are very admirable but the board has basically just thrown down the gauntlet or slapped us in the face with a duelling glove (however you want to look at it). They just slammed us and said, "If you don't like it, so what? Sue us!" We know they are monitoring this and the other website. You have to know that we are dealing with a worthy adversary here. It's all providing them access to our thought process and our future arguments. We need these forums to collectively and effectively communicate so I see no alternative to keeping them from meddling in our minds -- so to speak.
After we get the letters (Don't know if I will get one since I've traded alot but my balance is well below $200K) it seems then is the time to just say, "See you in court!" I'm not trying to say that arguing with them in the form of faxes, emails and phone calls right now is counter-productive but it might well be given that they have heard our arguments and have closed their ears and handled things the way they have. They seem confident in their position and would not have gone about things this way if their legal department didn't put their stamp of approval on it. I'm sure their General Counsel more than welcomes all comments as it gives him more ideas on how to effectively defend against our lawsuit when it comes. Again, the sliminess factor increased exponentially but as James (note: great work my man and I've had to go out and play with the kids and the dogs myself -- puts things in much better perspective, eh?) has pointed out, the only recourse is to file suit in federal court. If the TSP Board really wanted to hear from anyone, they would have followed the 60 day comment period but we all know that was and is not the case. They have taken an adversarial position and are not backing down. Any lawyer worth their retainer fee will tell their client that after you have exhausted the possible avenues of compromise, then it's best to just stop communicating and let the lawyers and the courts do their job -- still slimy but what's the alternative? **note: I still haven't given up.**
By the way, Happy New Year to all of you and may the New Year bring many smiles and blessings to all of you and yours (this includes you too TSP Board monitors).
Minnow - I'm not an attorney, but I do know that the way these things normally work, you must exhaust all avenues for comment and appeal, before litigation can be filed. If you have not exhausted all avenues, any lawsuit filed would be easily tossed out by any court as not having status (or whatever the proper legal term is). So, as tiresome as it sometimes feels to submit these comments, letters, etc.....it is our only avenue for being heard at this point, and one that we must utilize. I do believe that FRTIB made some administrative errors in the Fed. Register posting that they just made, and that it will have to be withdrawn. Perhaps Paladin or someone with more legal experience than me can chime in on this approach, but that is my belief and my understanding.
Don't give up the fight, guys. Progress often comes in small steps along a long road.
Minnow
Well-known member
I'm kind of conflicted here guys. On the one hand, I do believe in the process and writing to these folks and asking for reviews and audits and all really makes sense -- it's our right and if we feel we have been wronged, then why not take part in and try to use the democratic process? I have signed the petition and faxed/written so many people that I am just about sick of my own complaints. **note: still not giving up.**
On the other hand, I see how these people operate and they haven't done anything without the prior approval of their counsel. They have received legal advice galore (don't know how many on the board actually hold law degrees themselves) and will claim fiduciary duty until the cows come home and will most likely never be held accountable given a strict interpretation of their duties. It's slimy I know but if you think for one second that they aren't/weren't already anticipating a lawsuit, then you are fooling yourself. All these things that we are doing (i.e. writing our congressmen and senators, faxing the ETAC, etc.) are very admirable but the board has basically just thrown down the gauntlet or slapped us in the face with a duelling glove (however you want to look at it). They just slammed us and said, "If you don't like it, so what? Sue us!" We know they are monitoring this and the other website. You have to know that we are dealing with a worthy adversary here. It's all providing them access to our thought process and our future arguments. We need these forums to collectively and effectively communicate so I see no alternative to keeping them from meddling in our minds -- so to speak.
After we get the letters (Don't know if I will get one since I've traded alot but my balance is well below $200K) it seems then is the time to just say, "See you in court!" I'm not trying to say that arguing with them in the form of faxes, emails and phone calls right now is counter-productive but it might well be given that they have heard our arguments and have closed their ears and handled things the way they have. They seem confident in their position and would not have gone about things this way if their legal department didn't put their stamp of approval on it. I'm sure their General Counsel more than welcomes all comments as it gives him more ideas on how to effectively defend against our lawsuit when it comes. Again, the sliminess factor increased exponentially but as James (note: great work my man and I've had to go out and play with the kids and the dogs myself -- puts things in much better perspective, eh?) has pointed out, the only recourse is to file suit in federal court. If the TSP Board really wanted to hear from anyone, they would have followed the 60 day comment period but we all know that was and is not the case. They have taken an adversarial position and are not backing down. Any lawyer worth their retainer fee will tell their client that after you have exhausted the possible avenues of compromise, then it's best to just stop communicating and let the lawyers and the courts do their job -- still slimy but what's the alternative? **note: I still haven't given up.**
By the way, Happy New Year to all of you and may the New Year bring many smiles and blessings to all of you and yours (this includes you too TSP Board monitors).
On the other hand, I see how these people operate and they haven't done anything without the prior approval of their counsel. They have received legal advice galore (don't know how many on the board actually hold law degrees themselves) and will claim fiduciary duty until the cows come home and will most likely never be held accountable given a strict interpretation of their duties. It's slimy I know but if you think for one second that they aren't/weren't already anticipating a lawsuit, then you are fooling yourself. All these things that we are doing (i.e. writing our congressmen and senators, faxing the ETAC, etc.) are very admirable but the board has basically just thrown down the gauntlet or slapped us in the face with a duelling glove (however you want to look at it). They just slammed us and said, "If you don't like it, so what? Sue us!" We know they are monitoring this and the other website. You have to know that we are dealing with a worthy adversary here. It's all providing them access to our thought process and our future arguments. We need these forums to collectively and effectively communicate so I see no alternative to keeping them from meddling in our minds -- so to speak.
After we get the letters (Don't know if I will get one since I've traded alot but my balance is well below $200K) it seems then is the time to just say, "See you in court!" I'm not trying to say that arguing with them in the form of faxes, emails and phone calls right now is counter-productive but it might well be given that they have heard our arguments and have closed their ears and handled things the way they have. They seem confident in their position and would not have gone about things this way if their legal department didn't put their stamp of approval on it. I'm sure their General Counsel more than welcomes all comments as it gives him more ideas on how to effectively defend against our lawsuit when it comes. Again, the sliminess factor increased exponentially but as James (note: great work my man and I've had to go out and play with the kids and the dogs myself -- puts things in much better perspective, eh?) has pointed out, the only recourse is to file suit in federal court. If the TSP Board really wanted to hear from anyone, they would have followed the 60 day comment period but we all know that was and is not the case. They have taken an adversarial position and are not backing down. Any lawyer worth their retainer fee will tell their client that after you have exhausted the possible avenues of compromise, then it's best to just stop communicating and let the lawyers and the courts do their job -- still slimy but what's the alternative? **note: I still haven't given up.**
By the way, Happy New Year to all of you and may the New Year bring many smiles and blessings to all of you and yours (this includes you too TSP Board monitors).
07Harley
New member
This is what I faxed to Mr. Emswiler:
Dear Mr. Emswiler,The Thrift Board’s proposed Interim Rule to amend 5 CFR Chapter VI, Section 1601.32, paragraph (b) is inappropriate for the following reasons:(1) If the FRTIB would change the time that it posts share values from 7pm the day of the Inter Fund Transfer request to 7am the next day, the potential Fair Valuation problem that concerns the Board would not be an issue. Once the potential Fair Valuation problem is eliminated there would be no reason to limit IFT’s and no reason to take action against frequent transfers.
(2) The proposed Interim Rule contains no definition of what constitutes the practice of “excessive trading.” Therefore, the Executive Director has no way to determine which participants might be participating in the practice of “excessive trading.” This Interim Rule would allow the Executive Director to apply discriminatory restrictions to select participants based on his interpretation of “excessive trading”.
(3) Since there is no limit on the number of interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant, there is no such thing as “excessive trading” under the current regulations.For the above reasons, I petition that the proposed Interim Rule be REPEALED.
Additionally, I respectfully request that you please read the following 2 online newsletters concerning the TSP.
http://tspshareholder.org/newsletters/Vol1_No4.html
http://tspshareholder.org/newsletters/Vol1_No5.html
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Emswiler,The Thrift Board’s proposed Interim Rule to amend 5 CFR Chapter VI, Section 1601.32, paragraph (b) is inappropriate for the following reasons:(1) If the FRTIB would change the time that it posts share values from 7pm the day of the Inter Fund Transfer request to 7am the next day, the potential Fair Valuation problem that concerns the Board would not be an issue. Once the potential Fair Valuation problem is eliminated there would be no reason to limit IFT’s and no reason to take action against frequent transfers.
(2) The proposed Interim Rule contains no definition of what constitutes the practice of “excessive trading.” Therefore, the Executive Director has no way to determine which participants might be participating in the practice of “excessive trading.” This Interim Rule would allow the Executive Director to apply discriminatory restrictions to select participants based on his interpretation of “excessive trading”.
(3) Since there is no limit on the number of interfund transfer requests that may be made by a participant, there is no such thing as “excessive trading” under the current regulations.For the above reasons, I petition that the proposed Interim Rule be REPEALED.
Additionally, I respectfully request that you please read the following 2 online newsletters concerning the TSP.
http://tspshareholder.org/newsletters/Vol1_No4.html
http://tspshareholder.org/newsletters/Vol1_No5.html
Sincerely,
Show-me
Well-known member
Lets start pushing back. Here is a simple way to fax and it is free. Write something, anything in word then copy and paste it in the comments block. You will get a email confirming your fax. Click the URL and voilà off goes the fax.
http://faxzero.com/
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel,
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 1250 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Agency's Fax number is (202) 942-1676.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Ray on (202) 942-1665.
Contact you Congressional Offices and get the word out. The FRTIB is pulling a fast on trying to get this through over the Holidays while everyone is in vacation mode.
FIGHT PEOPLE FIGHT!
http://faxzero.com/
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel,
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 1250 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Agency's Fax number is (202) 942-1676.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Ray on (202) 942-1665.
Contact you Congressional Offices and get the word out. The FRTIB is pulling a fast on trying to get this through over the Holidays while everyone is in vacation mode.
FIGHT PEOPLE FIGHT!
MacDaddy
Member
I am a member of the AFGE Union. I have been in contact with my local rep and he has been forwarding this information to the National Headquarters. When I first contacted him he said the National Office had never even heard of any of this (Surprised face). I just forwarded the latest information regarding the interim rule change in hopes that they can jump in with a little more clout then we have at this time. I hope it helps.
I would like to thank all that have expended countless hours researching and corresponding with us and the managing agencies on this matter. I know there are a lot more people out there like myself that manage their own accounts but only read or don't post on here very often and I would hope that they are taking action as well.
Thanks again and keep at it. We WILL have to be heard eventually. Maybe not when we are expecting, but they can't dismiss us forever.
I would like to thank all that have expended countless hours researching and corresponding with us and the managing agencies on this matter. I know there are a lot more people out there like myself that manage their own accounts but only read or don't post on here very often and I would hope that they are taking action as well.
Thanks again and keep at it. We WILL have to be heard eventually. Maybe not when we are expecting, but they can't dismiss us forever.
There is something going on here that I don't understand.
The Board claims that the number of trades that is driving up the cost, the L-funds aren't contributing to that because they wrap up everything up into just one trade. However, as I understand it, Barclays charges based upon the actual dollar amount that is traded. Way back when I was in high school, we learned that if A = ( a+b+c ), then C(A) = C( a+b+c ).
So what am I missing? Barclays might be charging a nominal fee for each trade but, given the dollar amounts that are being traded, I'm sure it's lost in the noise.
If we're right, and it is the L-funds that is driving up the cost, then restricting the number of trades people can make will have little impact on that - something the Board is bound to see in the next couple of years as their costs continue to rise. So we might see a relaxation in the trade restrictions somewhere down the road but I am betting it will be too late to help many of us.
The Board claims that the number of trades that is driving up the cost, the L-funds aren't contributing to that because they wrap up everything up into just one trade. However, as I understand it, Barclays charges based upon the actual dollar amount that is traded. Way back when I was in high school, we learned that if A = ( a+b+c ), then C(A) = C( a+b+c ).
So what am I missing? Barclays might be charging a nominal fee for each trade but, given the dollar amounts that are being traded, I'm sure it's lost in the noise.
If we're right, and it is the L-funds that is driving up the cost, then restricting the number of trades people can make will have little impact on that - something the Board is bound to see in the next couple of years as their costs continue to rise. So we might see a relaxation in the trade restrictions somewhere down the road but I am betting it will be too late to help many of us.
This went to the Comptroller General anyway:
Dear Mr. Walker:
I am extremely concerned about the legality of a proposed rule made yesterday by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board in Federal Register notice, FR Doc. E7-25007 Filed 12-26-07; 8:45 am. As you pointed in our in your most recent GAO report number GAO-07-611 released on July 23, 2007, the Thrift Savings Plan is one of the largest pension plans in the world. You also pointed out that there is no regular Congressional or DOL oversight over the Board and its activities.
The proposed rule appears to give the Board unlimited authority to SANCTION any federal employee or TSP participant they choose which could have substantial adverse financial impact on the participant without the due process required for such sanctions under 5 USC Section 558.
The proposed rule was published between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, when many Federal employees are on leave and unaware of this action. More importantly, Congress is not in session and does not return until the day the interim rule becomes effective on January 7, 2008.
This very short comment period appears designed to avoid public scrutiny and Congressional oversight and may be a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, in that there is no emergency, and this "interim rule" may violate 5 USC section 553 by not giving the legally required full comment period and notice of proposed rule making.
I also believe the interim rule also violates 5 CFR Chapter VI, Section 1601.22, paragraph (a) which governs daily interfund transfers.
I ask that you review this rule published in the Federal Register and take action you or your staff deem appropriate.
Dear Mr. Walker:
I am extremely concerned about the legality of a proposed rule made yesterday by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board in Federal Register notice, FR Doc. E7-25007 Filed 12-26-07; 8:45 am. As you pointed in our in your most recent GAO report number GAO-07-611 released on July 23, 2007, the Thrift Savings Plan is one of the largest pension plans in the world. You also pointed out that there is no regular Congressional or DOL oversight over the Board and its activities.
The proposed rule appears to give the Board unlimited authority to SANCTION any federal employee or TSP participant they choose which could have substantial adverse financial impact on the participant without the due process required for such sanctions under 5 USC Section 558.
The proposed rule was published between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, when many Federal employees are on leave and unaware of this action. More importantly, Congress is not in session and does not return until the day the interim rule becomes effective on January 7, 2008.
This very short comment period appears designed to avoid public scrutiny and Congressional oversight and may be a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, in that there is no emergency, and this "interim rule" may violate 5 USC section 553 by not giving the legally required full comment period and notice of proposed rule making.
I also believe the interim rule also violates 5 CFR Chapter VI, Section 1601.22, paragraph (a) which governs daily interfund transfers.
I ask that you review this rule published in the Federal Register and take action you or your staff deem appropriate.
Last edited:
Miss_Piggy
Member
Thanks James!
We will keep plugging along. I have been on the phone all day to the Congressional Committees and the individual offices of the Senators and Congressmen on those committees. Unbelievable how everything in the beltway is parylized during the holidays. Bet TSP counted on that one.
I talked by email twice today with Ms. Ray. Can't believe she never mentioned this filing in our discussions.
Unfortunately, TSP seems to be doing whatever they want without working or communicating with the customers, much less their own advisory board.
iT IS 1 A.M. HERE iIN EUROPE SO i'M OUT OF HERE!
We will keep plugging along. I have been on the phone all day to the Congressional Committees and the individual offices of the Senators and Congressmen on those committees. Unbelievable how everything in the beltway is parylized during the holidays. Bet TSP counted on that one.
I talked by email twice today with Ms. Ray. Can't believe she never mentioned this filing in our discussions.
Unfortunately, TSP seems to be doing whatever they want without working or communicating with the customers, much less their own advisory board.
iT IS 1 A.M. HERE iIN EUROPE SO i'M OUT OF HERE!
James48843
Well-known member
No Art, we can't.
The appropriate recouse, according to the Administrative Procedures Act, is to file suit in federal court. I posted earlier today the citations of Title 5 that are required to be followed. It starts with 5 USC 553, and continues in other 5 USC sections that follow that. In short, the United States Code is the law, and is what has to be followed. They are doing what amounts to a sanction against individuals, the right to place money where people see is best for their own purpose. And a 'sanction" has it's own appeal process which is required to be followed. The law provides for that. And the law provides, that when it is not followed, that a person can bring suit against a government agency in Federal Court.
Now, I have done my best to help others organize a response. I have worked my tail off, researched, discussed, strategized, asked for and received a lot of input from a lot of people, and done my darndest to keep everyone informed, and asked only in return that YOU tell each of your coworkers how vitally important it is that THEY get involved. That THEY each tell someone else that their very retirement plan is under attack. That the math simply does not add up, and that their livelyhood is about to be blown away.
And now, the recourse for this violation in law, is to file in federal court, ask for an injunction againt this rule's date of effect on January 7th. Even if successful, that only buys us a little time.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the capital $ to hire an attorney and do that.
The BIG battles lay ahead.
And I am about out of energy for a few days. I've been working litteraly around the clock for the last five days, while on Annnual Leave, to do research, put together newsletters, try to do the math, consult with team mates on strategy, and come up with the best way to inform the masses and motivate them to respond. There are 3.8 MILLION members of the TSP. And only 2,596 of them have signed the petition so far. And only about a hundred have "chiped in" to fight this impingment of freedom.
I am one small guy, sitting at one lonely keyboard, tapping out my heart, talking to other small guys (and gals), sitting at their keyboards, tapping their hearts out, all of us trying to get people to see that the math simply does not make sense. People- WAKE-UP!
This is YOUR freedom and YOUR rights that are about to be slammed, and the math simply doesn't make sense.
I have even gotten "hate mail" from a half-dozen "G" fund apes who don't know any better, who think we are taking THEIR money away from them, 'cause that is what the TSP told them.
No Art, we can't depend on a Bush Administration Appointee "solicitor general" to ride to the rescue. The "Solicitor General" handles cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and appeals from lower courts. This isn't in court. Yet. See: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/ for the duties of the "Solicitor General"
The "Comptroller General" is of little use in this matter either. All they do is, upon request of a Congressional leader, is to review policies and report back to members of Congress what they find. They last took a look at the TSP here: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07611.html They don't have the power to order TSP to do anything.
Sorry I sound frustrated, but this is a long war, and there will be many battles and many fights. The key is that we are right, and we hold the moral high ground. This is STILL America.
We have to educate 3.8 MILLION other TSP shareholders, and somehow move THEM into action to protect their own rights. Motivate THEM to take action to protect the rights and gains that others before them have won.
How do we do this?
That becomes the question.
I'm signing off for the night- it's been a long day, up since 4 a.m. tapping away. I've not moved anything in my own account since November, when the word of this COUP broke out. I've been too busy trying to organize people to fight back, that I haven't had time to watch my own account, which, by the way, would have been better off if I had moved off to the sidelines at the begining of the month, had I had the time to watch it properly. No, it's time for a break.
It's time to go play with my son and my dog.
Good night, and good luck.
Wow James! Spoken like a true fed.
I have the name and fax number of the Comptroller General. His office reviews all Fed Register proposed rules and provides comments to the agency within 7 days.
I am goiong to bring the legal and procedural errors to the CG GAO's attention first thing in the morning.
[FONT=LLFMF G+ Helvetica]Comptroller General [/FONT]
[FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][FONT='LLFLK I+ Helvetica']David M. Walker[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][/FONT][FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][FONT='LLFLK I+ Helvetica']FAX (202) 512-5507[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][/FONT]
Government Accountability Office
441 G St., NW
Washington, DC 20548
I have the name and fax number of the Comptroller General. His office reviews all Fed Register proposed rules and provides comments to the agency within 7 days.
I am goiong to bring the legal and procedural errors to the CG GAO's attention first thing in the morning.
[FONT=LLFMF G+ Helvetica]Comptroller General [/FONT]
[FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][FONT='LLFLK I+ Helvetica']David M. Walker[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][/FONT][FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][FONT='LLFLK I+ Helvetica']FAX (202) 512-5507[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=LLFLK I+ Helvetica][/FONT]
Government Accountability Office
441 G St., NW
Washington, DC 20548
