40912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Higher Education Workforce Project

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approval of a

demonstration project final plan.

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2000, the

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

published a notice in the Federal

Register (65 FR 13170), to allow Haskell

Indian Nations University to conduct a

demonstration project to test the

feasibility and desirability of a new

personnel management policies and

procedures. This notice announces the

approval of a final plan of the

demonstration project for Haskell Indian

Nations University.

DATES: Implementation of this

demonstration project will begin on

October 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Karen Swisher, Haskell Indian Nations

University, Lawrence, Kansas 66046,

785–749–8497; e-mail address:

kswisher@ross1.cc.haskell.edu.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Overview

Public Law 105–337, Haskell Indian

Nations University (HINU) and

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic

Institute (SIPI) Administrative Systems

Act of 1998, Oct. 31, 1998, allows HINU

to conduct a demonstration project to

test the feasibility and desirability of

new personnel management policies

and procedures. Public Law 105–337

finds that the provision of culturally

sensitive curricula for higher education

programs at Haskell Indian Nations

University is consistent with the

commitment of the Federal Government

to the fulfillment of treaty obligations to

Indian tribes through the principle of

self-determination and the use of

Federal resources. It further finds that

giving a greater degree of autonomy to

the institution while maintaining it as

an integral part of the Bureau of Indian

Affairs will facilitate the transition of

Haskell Indian Nations University to a

4-year university. This notice is

published in accordance with authority

delegated by the Secretary of the Interior

to the Assistant Secretary—Indian

Affairs by 209 DM 8.

The 31 total comments received on

the first notice in the Federal Register,

March 10, were valuable guides to

revision of the Higher Education

Workforce Project (HEWP). Three

speakers commented on the Federal

Register notice at the April 24 public

hearing, and 28 letters were received by

the deadline of May 8. Fourteen

identical letters opposed the

demonstration in general terms. A

number of commentors submitted a

form letter which arrived on May 9, and

its concerns although not official

comments, were also considered.

Written comments represented input

from both Haskell employees and

alumni. Most changes to the

demonstration project derive from these

public comments.

The majority of the changes are in the

area of Contribution-based

Compensation and Assessment System

(CCAS). Major changes include the

decision that the General Increase will

be given to all employees annually

regardless of CCAS assessment scores.

Within-Grade Increases will also

continue. And the General Schedule

salary structure will be maintained as

the framework for the project’s

broadbanding system, revisions were

made to clarify Indian preference,

veterans’ preference, merit principles,

and Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO).

The comments highlighted instances

of misunderstanding with the present

personnel system as well as the project

innovations. They underscored the

importance of providing training on the

Demonstration Project to supervisors

and employees. The substance of all

comments received has been conveyed

to the Office of Indian Education

Programs (OIEP) and the HEWP Steering

Committee, in the event that policies,

processes, and training sessions may

benefit from such perspectives. The

following is a summary of these written

and oral comments by topical areas and

a response to each.

2. Summary of Comments

A. Participating Employees, II.E.

Comments. One comment suggested

only faculty should go under the

demonstration project. The commenter

stated that hiring problems are a

problem in the area of Instruction, so

employees in other areas should be

exempt from the demonstration.

Response. Public Law 105–337 Sec.4

Authority (h) (1) states that all

applicants for employment with, all

eligible and employees of, and all

positions in or under an institution

named in section 3(b) shall be subject to

inclusion in a demonstration project

under this Act. Prior to the design phase

of the demonstration project other work

units on campus besides instruction had

expressed dissatisfaction with the

current personnel system. For the

preceding reasons all employees at the

institution will be included in the

demonstration project. Information was

added to clarify the makeup of the

participants in the project and the

division of the participants into an

experimental and a control group for the

purpose of evaluating the contribution

based portion of the assessment process.

B. Hiring and Appointment Authorities,

III.A

Comments. Three comments gave

support to the HEWP plan to classify,

examine and appoint employees on site

rather than at the area BIA personnel

office in Albuquerque.

An area of great concern was Indian

Preference. Of the items contained in

the letters which arrived after the

closure of the comment period was the

statement that Indian preference is

compromised by the demonstration, and

one other letter voiced this concern.

One letter in support of HEWP noted the

Indian Preference wording of III.A.1,

which states that applicants who meet

Indian Preference qualifications will

receive preference in hiring. Also, the

impact of the Scholastic Achievement

Appointment on Indian preference

received two negative comments. One

further question regarding Indian

Preference concerned ranking

procedures for Indian preference if more

than one applicant meets Indian

Preference.

Two comments opposed the optional

extension of the probation period from

one to three years, because of a concern

that this would place undue stress on

employees. One stated that one year of

probation, not three, was sufficient time

to evaluate an employee.

Two comments supported contingent

appointments, and one other comment

expressed the concern that contingent

appointments would replace permanent

employees.

One comment suggested language that

would delineate the Haskell Board of

Regents, role in the hiring and review of

the Haskell President. It based its

authority on Public Law 105–337 and a

resolution passed by the National

Haskell board of Regents Jan. 13, 2000

(2000–03). The recommended language

included giving the Regents authority

for (1) determining the process for

applications for President; (2) rating and

ranking Presidential applicants and (3)

recommending the most qualified

candidate(s) to the Director of OIEP. It

suggested that the Regents conduct an

annual review of the President to be

used to help determine appropriate

personnel actions based on performance

or conduct. The comment further

suggested that the Regents expand their

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40913

authority after long-range development

planning, self-study, and training.

Commenters also showed concern for

hiring procedures. One requested

clarification of academic procedures in

reference to hiring of Academic

positions and questioned whether nonacademic administrators should follow

the same procedures. One comment

stated that the term insufficient number

is not clarified in reference to highest

certifiable grouping of candidates

(III.A.1.a).

Response. HEWP proceeds with the

hiring and appointment authorities of

the demonstration project, which

improves personnel administration of

employees. The demonstration project

corrects personnel problems by

providing on-site personnel

classification, examination, rating, and

appointment authorities.

The revised document clarifies and

strengthens wording of Indian

preference hiring procedures, which is

supported by the Public Law 105–337

limitation:

No demonstration project under this Act

may provide for a waiver of Indian

preference. (4.C.i).

The Indian Preference rating section

now reads:

If one or more qualified applicants

demonstrate Indian preference eligibility,

then only those applicants will be considered

for the position. Those Indian Preference

candidates who meet the minimum

qualifications will be further evaluated based

on Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities that are

directly linked to the position(s) to be filled

and receive numerical scores of 70, 80, or 90.

If no Indian Preference applicants meet the

minimum qualifications, then other

candidates will be considered. Those nonIndian Preference candidates who meet the

minimum qualifications will be further

evaluated based on Knowledge, Skills, and

Abilities that are directly linked to the

position(s) to be filled and receive numerical

scores of 70, 80, or 90.

The Scholastic Achievement

Appointment in the Federal Register is

revised to allow this appointment only

for candidates who qualify for Indian

Preference.

Policies for probation and contingent

appointments remain as they are in the

Federal Register. The flexible probation

period allows for employees to finish

advanced degrees or licensing required

for upper-level position. This

encourages an educated, well qualified

workforce. In the case of faculty, the

probation period is a compromise with

the seven years required for tenure at

most colleges. Contingent appointments

are not meant to replace permanent

employees. The Federal Register states:

The contingent appointment may not be

used to replace or substitute for work

performed by employees occupying regular

positions required to perform the mission of

the institution, but may be used to

supplement regular positions work activities

(III.A.2).

The intent of HEWP is to provide

contingent appointments for general

staffing needs and academic

appointments equivalent to the

positions of teaching assistant and

instructor. Contingent appointments are

subject to time limits so that contingent

employees can transition to permanent

positions. The use of part-time

instructors can become exploitive, with

such employees given limited salaries,

no benefits, and no permanent status.

HEWP allows for the flexibility of

temporary and emergency additions to

the workforce, but with the provision

that ongoing employment leads to

institutional commitment.

HEWP does not address the

relationship between the Board of

Regents and OIEP. The demonstration is

a personnel system within the federal

government, and legal liability for the

system rests with the federal

government. The HEWP Operations

Manual and the memorandum of

understanding between OIEP and the

Board of Regents will expand on the

Regents, role outside of this document.

HEWP clarified the term academic

procedures in III.A.1.a. The Federal

Register is revised to clarify the number

of highest certifiable groupings of job

candidates:

If according to the judgment of hiring

personnel the ‘superior’ group does not

create a large enough pool of eligible

applicants for ranking, then applicants in the

next lower group may be certified.

C. Broadbanding, III.B.

Comments. One comment suggested

employees’ change in broadband levels

should be noncompetitive. Other

comments showed a need for

clarification of the Federal Register: one

comment misinterpreted broadbanding

as a means to lower base salary; another

comment said the terms Professional

and Technical/Specialist as broadband

categories were unclear; another

comment requested clarification for GS

and WG equivalent levels, as well as

executive ranges. Finally, the Simplified

Assignment Process (III.B.2) was

considered a preliminary step toward

downsizing:

[Simplified Assignment Process] implies

HINU is downsizing, shrinking instead of

growing.

Response. Advances within

broadband levels are noncompetitive,

and advances from one broadband area

to another can be noncompetitive. This

provides for rewarding high-performing

employees who contribute to the

institution’s mission. This also

encourages continuity by moving

employees through broadbands without

necessitating a change to a supervisory

positions. Broadbanding does not

change base pay or the locality

adjustment. Step increases for

satisfactory or higher performance, and

incentive increases as a result of

assessment scores can be added to base

pay. Base pay is not subject to reduction

except under adverse actions. The three

broadband categories are changed to

Academic, Technical/Specialist and

Support. HEWP revised graphics and

terms to clarify broadband salary levels

and increases. The Simplified

Assignment Process section opens with

a general statement that emphasizes the

flexible assignment process of

broadbanding rather than as a method of

initiating downsizing at HINU.

D. Classifications, III.C.

Comment. Employees are entitled to

an appeals process for classification of

positions and a timeline.

Response. The section Classification

Appeals (III.C.6) addresses appeals and

limits, including the time period for

case processing under Title V (5 CFR

511.605).

E. Contribution-based Compensation

Assessment System, III.D.

Comment. Four comments supported

CCAS as a tool to improve employee

quality. Individual comments about

CCAS questioned procedural details.

These included clarity of the graphic

illustration (with the suggestion that it

should be inverted so up showed highachieving employees); privacy of

ranking procedures; and second-level

supervision of the pay pool for the

Administrative Council and the

President. Two comments questioned

the learning contract process, with one

concerned that employees would be

required to pursue degrees and/or

training to keep a job. One commenter

was unfamiliar with the term 360 degree

feedback used in the assessment

process. Another comment on 360

degree feedback expressed concern that

surveys used to provide customer

feedback would be too time consuming

and further requested information on

the specific means to obtain peer

evaluation.

Response. The demonstration

implements CCAS on the starting date

but with amendments based on

comments. Details of the procedures are

clarified, including the graphic

illustration of CCAS. Privacy in

40914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

personnel matters continues to be a

priority of the managers, supervisors,

and HINU personnel office for CCAS

according to federal guidelines. As the

supervising manager of HINU, the

President has final authority over the

Administrative Council and in turn is

assessed by the OIEP director. The

learning contracts, which are written

agreements between supervisors and

employees, encourage employees to

receive training to remain current with

their appropriate employment fields.

The institution also expects employees

to learn appropriate behaviors in the

workplace. HINU has required, for

example, all-campus training in

harassment issues as well as computer

literacy. Training is part of the ongoing

personnel process. Such training

enhances the skills of employees,

resulting in qualified, high-performing

employees. HEWP added wording to

clarify the term learning contract, and

the Operations Manual will specify

procedures. HEWP added language to

III.D.3 to clarify the term 360 degree

feedback, as an assessment system that

includes input from several sources.

HEWP does not believe that surveys

would be unmanageable. At present,

customers provide information via

surveys for teacher evaluation,

computer services, library services

evaluation, and procurement and

warehouse evaluation. Other areas of

the institution use surveys to collect

data, but they are not coordinated into

one assessment process, which would

be the advantage of the demonstration

project. Procedures for peer evaluation,

as well as customer and manager

evaluations, will be developed for each

area of the institution and explained in

the Operations Manual.

F. General Comments

A range of general comments

questioned overall procedures of the

demonstration project, including the

following:

(1) Fairness

Comments. Two comments suggested

supervisors can use the broadbanding

system to unfairly move employees to

undesirable work assignments and

enable managers to insert the phrase

‘‘other duties as assigned’’ into job

descriptions. Because such broadband

changes may not be adverse actions, no

appeal process is in place. Two

comments expressed concern that the

supervisors would conduct the

employee assessment unfairly and

politicize the process. One respondent

was uncertain who would conduct the

assessments, and if that person would

be appropriate. One comment suggested

the importance of equitable

administration of sabbatical awards, and

another comment noted the importance

of managerial training for fairness of the

demonstration.

Response. The demonstration

establishes a structured, group review

process to assess employees’

contributions to the mission, including

broadband work assignments,

assessments, and sabbatical awards.

This process is designed to reduce

favoritism and promote fairness. The

advantage of flexible movement among

assignments and levels enhances the

ability of the institution to meet needs

that change quickly as new academic

programs evolve and as budget

appropriations change on an annual

basis. Employees with exceptional skills

can be recruited and moved through pay

levels more quickly. Sabbaticals are

evaluated on criteria that evaluate

overall contribution to the mission.

Balances are in place to ensure

supervisors give employees fair work

assignments, assessments, and rewards.

The demonstration project provides a

balance to supervisory assessment

scores and ranking through use of pay

pool panels. These provide for review of

supervisors’ ratings by their peers (i.e.,

by other raters in the same pay pool)

and by the supervisor of all raters in that

pool. In addition, rated employees are

rank-ordered by the entire pay pool

panel. The intent here is not so much

to require ranking per se as to ensure

that inflation or deflation by any rater

will be identified and corrected via the

normal operation of the panel process.

Finally, the pay pool manager (who is

at a higher organizational level than all

the above-mentioned supervisors)

oversees and approves the results of the

group review process.

A focused training session will teach

supervisors and managers how to

administer CCAS correctly. HEWP

concurs that formal and informal

training is essential for every employee

in the project. Additionally, a thirdparty evaluator continually collects data

on project operation and monitors

compensation trends, among other

areas.

Broadbanding does not imply

employees will be assigned outside their

fields of expertise. The Federal Register

states:

a technical expert can be assigned to any

project, task, or function requiring similar

technical expertise. A manager might be

asked to manage any similar function or

institution consistent with that individual’s

qualifications (III.B.2).

An employee may appeal an

undesirable assignment under the

current negotiated agreement with the

union. The negotiated union agreement

also provides appeals procedures for

assessment scores. The current

evaluating supervisor, familiar with the

work environment, will conduct the

assessment.

In summary, the pay pool panel

process, managerial training, continuing

evaluation, and union appeals all guard

against favoritism and promote fairness

for employees under the demonstration.

(2) Composition of the Steering

Committee and Team

Comments. Two commenters raised

concerns regarding the individuals who

developed the demonstration project.

They noted the need for expertise in the

fields of labor law, federal personnel

systems, and academic personnel

systems. Adequate Indian

representation on the development team

and committee was questioned by one

comment.

Response. HEWP team members

represented labor law concerns

throughout the development of the

project documents. Also, steering

committee members are familiar with

labor law in their roles as respondents

to union negotiations. The negotiated

agreement in effect during the initial

design portion of the project was with

NFFE. After the initial publication of

the proposed project IEF was certified as

the bargaining unit for HINU. Currently,

IEF does not have a negotiated

agreement with the university.

However, the administration of the

university is committed to working with

IEF to ensure the success of the

university. The federal personnel

specialist at Haskell has worked with

the team from the time of her

appointment in July, 1999. An Office of

Personnel Management personnel

officer familiar with demonstrations

projects spent details totaling more than

seven months at Haskell. She worked

with the team and steering committee to

develop a lawful, effective personnel

system. Those who worked on HEWP

also had academic experience in

personnel practices, including

University of Utah, Arizona State

University, Cornell University, and

Montana State University. Team

members researched personnel practices

at numerous colleges and universities,

including St. Mary’s College, Baker

University, University of Kansas, Ohio

State University, Simon Fraser

University, George Mason University,

Georgia Institute of Technology,

Portland State University, University of

Delaware, University of Minnesota,

University of Wisconsin, and others.

Most of the team and committee

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40915

members who developed the program

are Indian. The steering committee and

director of Office of Indian Education

Programs have final authority over the

project. All of these individuals are

Indian. The team used volunteer

members with expertise who

contributed to the overall effort. Twothirds of the SIPI-Haskell team were

Indian. When Haskell separated from

SIPI, two non-Indians remained with

the team out of four active members,

and three resource people. Four out of

six members of the sub-committee

developing descriptors for the

operations manual are Indian.

(3) Academic Freedom

Comment. One comment suggested

HEWP suppresses academic freedom

because it derives from a military

model. Another comment also

expressed concern over academic

freedom.

Response. As a federal institution,

Haskell remains under federal law

regarding conflict of interest and the

Hatch Act. HEWP makes no change

from Title V in classroom or other areas

of academic freedom. In Academic

Ethics (III.E.2) it clarifies employee

responsibilities and rights regarding an

academic environment outside the

restrictions of usual government

employment. Ideas and concepts were

drawn from other demonstration

projects, Air Force and Army, however,

the employees in these projects were

civil service employees as is the case

with HINU.

(4) Availability of Federal Register

Document for Employee Input.

Comments. One comment in support

of HEWP described the numerous

training sessions made available to

employees. Two adverse comments

noted the working draft of the Federal

Register was unavailable to employees,

while one comment said the Federal

Register language was overly

bureaucratic.

Response. In December, 1999, the

HEWP team announced availability of

the draft at the library and on the

campus electronic bulletin board. The

team provided training sessions during

regular meeting times, including

meetings with Faculty Senate, Facilities,

Athletics, Managers, Food Services, and

Student Services. They created an email address for response to comments

and suggestions. Because the Federal

Register is a legalistic document, and

provides evidence that is acceptable to

a court of law (prima facie evidence),

language must be accurate and specific.

Team members followed models,

recommendations, and requirements in

the National Archives and Records

Administration publication ‘‘The

Federal Register: What It Is and How To

Use It’’ (rev. 1992).

(5) Budget

Comments. Concerns arose over

adequate budget to support the changes

of HEWP, including monies to support

professional training and technological

upgrades.

Response. The steering committee and

team members made OIEP aware of the

need for budget increases. Salary

adjustments are based on the possibility

of level funding. Clarification of the

professional training provisions (III.G)

includes encouragement for outside

grants monies. To address upgrades of

information systems on campus, outside

consultants evaluated the available

technology and estimated costs to

implement and support the

demonstration project. The revisions to

HEWP made as a result of comments

simplify the information technology

needs.

(6) Definitions

Comment. One commenter asked for

the addition of explanatory definitions

to the document. The commenter noted

Retained Rate Employee in III.D.5 is a

confusing term. The commenter also

questioned the meaning of positive

education requirements in the

Scholastic Achievement Appointment

section (III.A.1.b). Another comment

noted Merit Principles are not defined

in III.D.a, the section, Delegation of

Examining Authority.

Response. The definition and rights of

an employee who retains a salary after

a Reduction-In-Force under 5 U.S.C.

5363 and 5 CFR part 536 are delineated

in these federal documents, which are

cited in III.D.5. The term positive

education requirements refers to

positions with a directly related or

professional level college curriculum.

Federal Merit Principles are the

widespread ethical and legal standards

that guide all federal institutions’

personnel systems (5 U.S.C. 2301–2305).

Technical demonstration project terms

were defined within the text of the

document. The operations manual will

include a glossary of technical

personnel vocabulary.

(7) Waivers

Comment. The waiver to Chapter 71

of Title V, USC was considered

unnecessary since all employees are

under the demonstration project.

Response. The waiver enforces the

unilateral application of the project to

all union and non-union employees, as

determined in the authorizing law,

Public Law 105–337.

Dated: June 23, 2000.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Introduction

A. Purpose

B. Problems with the Present System

C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits

D. Participating Institutions

E. Participating Employees

F. Bargaining Requirements

G. Project Design

III. Personnel System Changes

A. Hiring and Appointment Authorities

B. Broadbanding

C. Classification

D. Contribution-Based Compensation and

Assessment System

E. Special Situations Related to Pay

F. Revised Reduction-In-Force (RIF)

Procedures

G. Academic Degree and Certificate

Training

H. Sabbaticals

IV. Training

A. Supervisors

B. Administrative Services Staff

C. Employees

V. Conversion

A. Conversion to the Demonstration project

B. Conversion Back to the Former System

VI. Project Duration

VII. Evaluation Plan

VIII. Demonstration Project Costs

A. Step and Promotion Buy-Ins

B. Out-Year Project Costs

C. Personnel Policy Boards

D. Developmental Costs

IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulations

A. Waivers to title 5, United States Code

B. Waivers to title 5, Code of Federal

Regulations

I. Executive Summary

The project was designed by an

Alternative Personnel System (APS)

Team, under the authority of the Interim

President of HINU and the Office of

Indian Education Programs, Bureau of

Indian Affairs. There are three major

areas of change: (a) Institutioncontrolled rapid hiring; (b) a

contribution-based compensation

system; (c) and a simplified assignment

process. The project will cover all

employees at HINU as described under

section II. E. The Department of Interior

will perform extensive evaluation of the

project.

II. Introduction

A. Purpose

The purpose of the project is to

demonstrate that greater managerial

control over personnel processes and

functions at the worksite can enhance

the effectiveness of a higher education

workforce and, at the same time, expand

40916 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

the opportunities available to employees

through a more responsive personnel

system. This demonstration project will

provide managers at the lowest practical

level the authority, control, and the

flexibility they need to provide quality

educational opportunities for American

Indian students. This project not only

provides a system that recognizes,

rewards, and retains employees for their

contribution, but it also supports their

personal and professional growth.

B. Problems With the Present System

Haskell Indian Nations University, a

Federal higher education institution,

provides post-secondary education to

Native American students from across

the United States. To do this effectively

and efficiently, the institution must

employ top-quality faculty,

administrators, support staff, and

technical/specialist workforce. The

current personnel system must be reengineered to provide incentives and

rewards to employees who exhibit

characteristics of educational mastery,

enthusiasm, and innovation, and who

increase their contribution to the higher

education mission accordingly. Hiring

restrictions and overly complex job

classifications unduly exhaust valuable

resources (staff, time, and budget), and

unnecessarily detract attention from the

institution’s educational mission.

Managers must be able to compete with

the private and public education sector

for the best talent and be able to make

timely and competitive job offers to

potential employees. Those same

managers need the tools to reward

employees for continuing excellence so

that the higher education system reflects

a quality workforce. The current

personnel system does not provide an

environment that motivates employees

to continue to increase their

contribution to the institution and its

mission. A contribution-based

compensation system will help

managers acquire motivational tools and

provide a forum in which to apply

them. The higher education process is

continually changing and depends on

shared expertise of a highly educated

faculty and staff; therefore, managers

can implement most effective strategies

through local control of positions and

their classification. Managers need the

ability to move employees freely within

their institution to meet the educational

mission and to provide developmental

opportunities for employees. Managers

at present have only limited tools to

shape the workforce to ensure

continued growth of new ideas,

strategies, and state-of-the-art skills for

the 21st century.

The inflexibility of many of today’s

personnel processes and the diffused

authority, accountability, and approval

chains throughout the system result in

a workforce that cannot posture itself for

a rapidly changing technological and

academic environment. This

demonstration is designed: (1) To

provide an encouraging environment

that promotes the growth of all

employees; and (2) to improve the local

higher education manager’s ability and

authority to manage the workforce

effectively.

C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits

This project will demonstrate that a

human resources’ system tailored to the

mission and needs of a higher education

institution will result in: (a) Increased

quality in the higher education

workforce and the educational outcomes

produced; (b) increased timeliness of

key personnel processes, especially

hiring; (c) increased retention rates of

‘‘excellent contributor’’ and separation

rates of ‘‘poor contributors’’; (d)

increased satisfaction of institutional

customers with the higher education

process and its outcome; and (e)

increased satisfaction with the

personnel management system by

customers/ students, employees and

tribal communities.

The Higher Education Workforce

Project (HEWP) builds on the features of

demonstration projects at the

Department of Defense Acquisition, Air

Force Research Laboratory, Department

of the Navy (China Lake), and National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST). The long-standing Department

of the Navy (China Lake) and NIST

demonstration projects have produced

impressive statistics on job satisfaction

for their employees versus that for the

Federal workforce in general. Therefore,

in addition to the expected benefits

mentioned above, it is anticipated that

the HEWP will result in more satisfied

employees as a consequence of the

proposed demonstration project’s hiring

procedures, classification accuracy, pay

equity, and fairness of performance

management. A full range of measures

will be collected during project

evaluation.

D. Participating Institutions

The Higher Education Workforce

Project (HEWP) will cover Haskell

Indian Nations University, an

institution of higher education of the

Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Indian Affairs. HINU is located in

Lawrence, Kansas.

E. Participating Employees

In determining the scope of the

demonstration project, primary

consideration was given to the number

and diversity of occupations within the

Higher Education Workforce Project,

which includes professional employees

and supporting personnel. The project

provides for adequate development and

testing of the Contribution-based

Compensation and Assessment System

(CCAS). The intent of this project is to

provide the institution with increased

control and accountability for the

covered workforce. Therefore, the

decision was made to include all

General Schedule (GS) and Wage Grade

System (WG) positions in the

demonstration project. All positions and

series in effect on October 1, 2000 will

be included in the demonstation project.

Employees will be divided into two

groups, an Experimental and a Control

group. Employees covered under the

Performance Management and

Recognition System Termination Act

(pay plan code GM) are General

Schedule employees and are covered

under the demonstration project.

F. Bargaining Units

Of the approximately 200 HINU

employees, all except managerial

employees formerly were under union

representation by the National

Federation of Federal Employees union

and were covered by a negotiated

national agreement. At the time of final

publication the Indian Educators

Federation (IEF) union had been

certified as the bargaining unit

representative for OIEP. The NFFE

agreement will continue to be

recognized as the applicable agreement

until such time as a new agreement is

reached in accordance with the specific

requirements under Public Law 105–

337. Any collective bargaining

agreement in effect on the day before

this demonstration project commences

shall continue to be recognized by HINU

until such date of a new negotiated

agreement, as may be determined by

mutual agreement of the parties.

G. Project Design

In 1996, after several years of

planning and research, HINU submitted

legislation to Congress for developing a

different higher education personnel

system. In 1997 SIPI submitted

legislation to Congress proposing an

alternative personnel system. In 1998,

the two pieces of legislation were joined

due to the similarity of the two higher

education schools’ missions and

identification of similar problems with

acquiring personnel. Public Law 105–

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40917

337, Oct. 31, 1998, authorized each

institution to carry out a demonstration

project for developing a higher

education alternative personnel system.

A joint Steering Committee was

established in September 1999 as the

governing body for the project. Members

on the Steering Committee represented

both institutions and the Office of

Indian Education Programs, BIA. An

Alternative Personnel System Team was

established in October 1999, made up of

employees from SIPI and HINU to

design and develop the demonstration

project that would test a new personnel

system for use at SIPI and HINU. The

APS team presented recommendations

for a new system to the Steering

Committee in December 1999 for

approval. BIA, OIEP subsequently

determined that the two institutions

could separate individual alternative

personnel systems and the Steering

Committee was disbanded. HINU

continued to use its APS team to design

this project. The APS team developed

an alternative personnel system that

represents sweeping changes in the

entire spectrum of human resources

management for HINU. Several of the

initiatives are designed to assist the

institution in hiring the best people to

fulfill mission requirements. Others

focus on developing, motivating, and

equitably compensating employees

based on their contribution to the

mission. Initiatives to effectively

manage workforce turnover and

maintain institutional excellence were

also developed.

Public Law 105–337 authorizes HINU

to test alternative benefits systems.

Though no changes have been made to

the existing benefits systems in this

publication, HINU reserves the right to

test alternative benefits systems in the

future in accordance with the provisions

of Public Law 105–337.

III. Personnel System Changes

A. Hiring and Appointment Authorities

1. Simplified, Accelerated Hiring

The complexity of the current system

and various hiring restrictions create

delays; hamper management’s ability to

hire, develop, realign, and retain a

quality workforce that is reflective of the

institution’s mission statement; and

inhibit a quick response to the

technological, economic and

educational needs of tribal

communities. Line managers,

departmental and divisional managers

find the complexity limiting as they

attempt to accomplish timely

recruitment of needed personnel with

appropriate knowledge and skills. To

compete with the private sector and

institutions of higher learning for the

best talent available and be able to make

expeditious job offers, managers need a

process that is streamlined and easy to

administer. In order to create a human

resources management system that

facilitates meeting HINU’s mission and

institutional excellence, this

demonstration project will respond to

today’s dynamic environment by

obtaining, developing, motivating, and

retaining high-performing employees.

The project will provide a flexible

system that can restructure or renew the

workforce quickly to meet diverse

mission needs, respond to workload

needs, and contribute to quality

educational infrastructure.

Specifically, this part of the

demonstration project will provide

simplified, accelerated hiring of quality

personnel by providing HINU full

authority to appoint individuals to

positions. Appropriate recruitment

methods and resources will include

those that are likely to yield quality

candidates with the knowledge, skills,

and abilities necessary to perform the

duties of the position.

(a) Delegated Examining Authority.

This demonstration project establishes a

streamlined applicant examining

process. This process will be used to fill

all positions at HINU. Basic eligibility

factors will be determined, using any

and all available resources, linking

applicants’ knowledge, skills, and

abilities to those required in each

position. Minimum eligibility

requirements will be those at the lowest

equivalent grade of the appropriate

broadband level. Selective placement

factors may be established when judged

to be critical to successful job

performance. These factors will be

determined by the HINU selecting

officials and communicated to

applicants for minimum eligibility. All

candidates will be evaluated to

determine if they meet minimum

qualifications. If one or more qualified

applicants demonstrate Indian

preference eligibility, then only those

applicants will be considered for the

position. Those Indian Preference

candidates who meet the minimum

qualifications will be further evaluated

based on Knowledge, Skills, and

Abilities that are directly linked to the

position(s) to be filled and receive

numerical scores of 70, 80, or 90.

If no Indian Preference applicants

meet the minimum qualifications, then

other candidates will be considered.

Those non-Indian Preference candidates

who meet the minimum qualifications

will be further evaluated based on

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities that are

directly linked to the position(s) to be

filled and receive numerical scores of

70, 80, or 90.

Veterans’ preference eligibles meeting

basic (minimum) qualifications will

receive an additional five or ten points

(depending on their preference

eligibility) added to the minimum

scores identified above. Applicants will

be placed in one of the following quality

groups based on their numerical score

including any preference points:

Basically Qualified (score of 70 to 79);

Highly Qualified (score of 80 to 89); or

Superior (score of 90 and above). The

names of veterans’ preference eligibles

will be entered ahead of others having

the same numerical score.

For scientific and professional

positions at the basic rate of pay

equivalent to GS–9 and above, names of

all qualified applicants will be referred

by quality groups in the order of the

numerical ratings, including any

veterans’ preference points. For all other

positions, (i.e., other than professional

positions at the equivalent of GS–9 and

above), veterans’ preference eligibles

with a compensable service-connected

disability of ten percent or more who

meet basic (minimum) eligibility will be

listed at the top of the highest group

certified.

For GS–9 and above academic and

academic administrative positions, the

institution may convene committees to

review the applications on the

certification list. In accordance with

academic procedures—which could

include review of credentials and

interviews—these committees will

recommend a ranked preference list to

the hiring officials. Non-academic

supervisors may choose to use

committees in the hiring process for

GS–9 level positions and above.

All applicants in the highest group

will be certified. If according to the

judgement of the selecting official the

Superior group does not create a large

enough pool of eligible applicants for

ranking, then applicants in the next

lower group may then be certified;

should this process not yield a sufficient

number, groups will be certified

sequentially until a selection is made or

the qualified pool is exhausted. When

two or more groups are certified,

applicants will be identified by quality

group (i.e., Superior, Highly Qualified,

Basically Qualified) in the order of their

numerical scores. Indian preference

eligibles will be placed at the top of the

Superior group. Passing over any

veterans’ preference eligible(s) to select

a non-preference non-Indian eligible

requires approval under current passover or objection procedures.

The on-site Personnel Director will

serve as a consultant during the hiring

40918 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

process, overseeing Indian and veterans’

preference, timely processing of

paperwork, and other procedures that

ensure lawful and equitable procedures

for all applicants. The hiring process

will reflect the federal Merit Principles.

(b) Scholastic Achievement

Appointment. This demonstration

project establishes a Scholastic

Achievement Appointment that

provides the authority to appoint

candidates with degrees to positions

with positive education requirements.

This appointment applies only to Indian

Preference candidates. Candidates may

be appointed under this procedure if (1)

They meet the minimum standards for

the positions as published in OPM’s

Operating Manual ‘‘Qualification

Standards for General Schedule

Positions,’’ or university classification

standards, (2) they meet the selective

factors stated in the vacancy

announcement, (3) the occupation has a

positive education requirement, (4) the

candidate has a cumulative grade point

average (GPA) of 3.5 or better (on a 4.0

scale) in those courses in those fields of

study that are specified in the

Qualification Standards for the

occupational series and an overall

undergraduate GPA of at least 3.0 on a

4.0 scale, and (5) the appointment is

into a position at a pay level lower than

the top step of GS–7. Appointments may

also be made at the equivalent of GS–

9 through GS–11 on the basis of

graduate education and experience, but

with the requirement of a GPA of at

least 3.7 on a scale of 4.0 for graduate

courses in the field of study required for

the occupation.

(c) Eminent Scholars Appointment.

This demonstration project establishes

an Eminent Scholar Appointment that

provides the authority to appoint Indian

Preference candidates with expertise

relevant to the mission of the

institution. Candidates appointed under

this authority may have specialized

skills and/or knowledge in fields not

conventionally acquired through

academic degree programs.

Qualifications include a demonstrated

record of achievement and recognition

as a foremost expert in the appointee’s

area of expertise. Academic degrees may

be considered. The President has hiring

authority over this appointment.

2. Permanent, Contingent and

Temporary Appointment Authorities

The educational work environment is

seriously affected by variable workload

and mission changes that require

flexibility not only in workforce

numbers but required skills and

knowledge. The current personnel

system is unable to adapt the workforce

rapidly to these changes. This

demonstration project provides a

method to adjust the workforce as

needed. Under this demonstration

project there are three appointment

options: permanent, contingent and

temporary appointments. The

permanent appointment replaces the

existing career and career-conditional

appointments. The contingent

appointment is a new appointment

authority that is based roughly on the

existing term appointment to provide

flexible hiring practices for HINU. The

contingent appointment is for limited

positions not to exceed four years, with

an option for one additional year when

the need for an employee’s service is not

permanent. All employees under the

permanent and contingent

appointments will be eligible for

benefits under the guidelines of the

demonstration project, provided the

appointment is the duration of at least

one year. Benefits are the same as those

currently afforded permanent

employees. An academic year is

considered equivalent to a calendar year

for academic appointments.

The institution may make a temporary

appointment for a period that is

expected to last less than one year.

Reasons for making a contingent or

temporary appointment include, but are

not limited to, carrying out special

project work; staffing new or existing

programs of limited duration; filling a

position in activities undergoing review

for reduction or closure; and replacing

permanent employees who have been

temporarily assigned to another

position, are on extended leave, or have

entered military service. Selections for

temporary appointments for less than

one year will be non-competitive.

Selections for contingent appointments

may be made under non-competitive or

competitive examining processes.

Employees hired under a one-year or

more, contingent appointment authority

are not permanent, but may be eligible

for conversion to permanent

appointment. To be converted, the

employee must (1) have been selected

for a contingent position under

competitive procedures, with the

announcement specifically stating that

the individual(s) selected for the

contingent position(s) may be eligible

for conversion to permanent

appointment at a later date; (2) must

have participated in each cycle of the

contribution-based assessment process

during their appointment; and (3) be

selected under merit promotion

procedures for the permanent position.

Service under a contingent appointment

immediately prior to a permanent

appointment may be applied toward the

probationary period at the discretion of

the manager, provided contribution is

adequate and the permanent position is

in the same career path as the

contingent appointment. The institution

may place a contingent employee in any

other contingent position, provided the

employee meets the qualifying

requirements of that position. However,

such reassignment will not serve to

extend the appointment beyond the

original contingent appointment time

period. Academic and Technical/

Specialist conversions will require

review by appropriate peers. Permanent,

contingent and temporary appointments

may be used for part-time and full-time

purposes. The contingent and temporary

appointments may not be used to

replace or substitute for work performed

by employees occupying regular

positions required to perform the

mission of the institution, but may be

used to supplement regular positions

work activities. Any position filled

using a temporary appointment for two

consecutive years must be reviewed by

the Personnel Director for more

appropriate designation as a permanent

or contingent appointment position.

3. Modified Probationary Period

For employees in the Academic and

Technical/Specialist career paths, the

current one-year probationary period

does not always provide managers the

time needed to properly assess the

contribution and conduct of new hires

in the higher education environment.

New hires may be involved in extended

training, degree completion and/or

educational assignments away from

their normal institution. A means of

extending the opportunity for

management to review and evaluate the

contribution and potential of new hires

is needed. Expansion of the current oneyear probationary period affords

management better control over the

quality of employees required to meet

mission needs and provide sufficient

opportunity to evaluate contribution

during the beginning of a career.

Permanent employees will fulfill a

maximum of three years probation that

may be decreased to not less than one

year. All newly hired employees may be

subject to an extension of their

probationary period equal to the length

of any educational/training assignment

that places the employee outside normal

supervisory review. The modified

probationary period applies to new

hires or those who do not have

reemployment or reinstatement

eligibility. Aside from extending the

probationary period, all other features of

the current probationary period are

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40919

retained. Probationary employees will

be terminated when they fail to

demonstrate proper conduct, technical

competency, and/or adequate

contribution for continued employment.

When a supervisor decides to terminate

an employee serving a probationary

period because his/her work

contribution or conduct during that

period fails to demonstrate fitness or

qualifications for continued

employment, the supervisor shall

terminate the employee=s services by

written notification thirty days prior to

the effective date of the action.

Probationary employees will receive all

the benefits of the non-probationary

permanent employees, with the

exception that they may be separated

without due cause. After fulfilling the

probationary requirements, an employee

will not be separated without full

substantive and procedural rights.

4. Voluntary Emeritus Program

Under the demonstration project, the

President of HINU has the authority to

offer retired or separated individuals

voluntary assignments in the institution

and to accept the gratuitous services of

those individuals. Voluntary Emeritus

Program assignments are not considered

employment by the Federal Government

(except as indicated below). Thus, such

assignments do not affect an

employee=s entitlement to buy-outs or

severance payments based on earlier

separation from Federal Service. This

program may not be used to replace or

substitute for work performed by

employees occupying regular positions

required to perform the mission of the

institution.

The Voluntary Emeritus Program will

ensure continued quality higher

education by allowing retired

employees to retain a presence in the

HINU education community.

Experienced workers will be available to

enrich the institution=s educational

mission through mentorships and other

service.

To be accepted into the Voluntary

Emeritus Program, a volunteer must be

recommended to the President by one or

more HINU education managers. Not

everyone who applies is entitled to an

emeritus position. The President must

document the decision process for each

applicant (whether accepted or rejected)

and retain the documentation

throughout the assignment.

Documentation of rejections will be

maintained for two years.

To ensure success and encourage

participation, the volunteer’s Federal

retirement pay (whether military or

civilian) will not be affected while the

volunteer is serving in emeritus status.

Retired or separated Federal employees

may accept an emeritus position

without a ‘‘break in service’’ or

mandatory waiting period.

Voluntary Emeritus Program

volunteers will not be permitted to

monitor contracts on behalf of the

Government but may participate on any

contract if no conflict of interest exists.

The volunteer may be required to

submit a financial disclosure form

annually and will not be permitted to

participate on any contracts where a

conflict of interest exists.

An agreement will be established by

the volunteer, the President, and the

Personnel/Human Resources Office. The

agreement must be finalized before the

assumption of duties and shall include:

(a) a statement that the service

provided is gratuitous, does not

constitute an appointment in the Civil

Service, is without compensation or

other benefits except as provided for in

the agreement itself, and that, except as

provided in the agreement regarding

work-related injury compensation, any

and all claims against the Government

because of the service are waived by the

volunteer;

(b) a statement that the volunteer will

be considered a Federal employee for

the purposes of:

(i) Subchapter I of Chapter 81 of Title

5, U.S.C. (using the formula established

in 10 U.S.C. 1588 for determination of

compensation) (work-related injury

compensation);

(ii) Chapter 171 of title 28, U.S.C. (tort

claims procedure);

(iii) Section 552a of Title 5, U.S.C.

(records maintained on individuals);

and

(iv) Chapter 11 of title 18, U.S.C.

(conflicts of interest).

(c) the volunteer’s work schedule;

(d) length of agreement (defined by

length of project or time defined by

weeks, months, or years);

(e) support provided by the activity

(travel, administrative, office space,

supplies, etc.);

(f) a one-page statement of duties and

experience; a statement specifying that

no additional time will be added to a

volunteer=s service credit for such

purposes as retirement, severance pay,

and leave as a result of being a member

of the Voluntary Emeritus Program; a

provision allowing either party to void

the agreement with ten days= written

notice and;

(g) the level of security access

required.

B. Broadbanding

1. Broadband Levels

A broadband system will replace the

current General Schedule (GS) and

Wage Grade structure. Currently, the 15

grades of the General Schedule are used

to classify positions and, therefore, to

set pay. The General Schedule covers all

white-collar work—administrative,

technical, clerical, and professional. The

Wage Grade System covers all bluecollar work—trade, craft, and labor.

Occupations with similar

characteristics will be grouped together

into three career paths with broadband

levels designed to facilitate pay

progression and to allow for more

competitive recruitment of quality

candidates at differing rates. Academic,

Technical/Specialist, and Support

designate career paths as depicted in

TABLE I. Competitive promotions will

be less frequent, and movement through

the broadband levels will be a more

seamless process than under current

procedures. Like the broadband systems

used at the Department of the Navy

(China Lake) and the National Institute

of Standards and Technology (NIST)

permanent demonstration projects,

advancement within the system is

contingent on merit.

40920 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

TABLE I.—BROADBAND CAREER PATHS

Academic:

I II III IV

(GS 4–6) (GS 7–9) GS (10–12) GS (13–15)

Technical or Specialist:

I II III IV

(GS 4–6) (GS 7–9) GS (10–12) GS (13–15)

Support:

I II III

(GS 4–6) (GS 7–9) GS (10–12)

There will be four broadband levels in

the demonstration project, labeled I, II,

III, and IV. Levels I through IV will

include the current grades of GS–01

through GS–15. These are the grades in

which the workforce employees are

currently found. Wage grade

compensation levels were converted to

GS grade, then the GS grade was used

in setting the broadband levels. The

position of President of HINU will be

paid minimally at the GS 15, step 1 pay

rate and will be limited by a maximum

pay rate equivalent to Executive

Schedule Level III.

Generally, employees will be

converted into the broadband level that

includes their permanent GS and WG

grades of record. Each employee is

assured an initial place in the system

without loss of pay. As the rates of the

General Schedule and/or Executive

Schedule are increased, the minimum

and maximum rates of the broadband

levels and the salary range of the

President willalso increase. Individual

employees receive pay increases based

on their assessments under the

Contribution-based Compensation and

Assessment System (CCAS). General

pay increases will be given to all

employees regardless of assessment

scores. Within-Grade Increases will

occur as scheduled under the General

Schedule, subject to attainment of a full

performance assessment score.

Currently no special salary rates are in

effect at HINU. However, if a position is

created that falls under a special salary

rate, that rate will be converted to a

broadband level comparable to the

special salary rate and that special

salary rate will no longer be applicable

to the demonstration project employee.

Employees will receive the locality pay

of their geographical area.

All applicants for employment with,

all eligibles for employment with and

all newly hired employees will be hired

under the HEWP demonstration

program procedures, and will be subject

to the HEWP demonstration program.

All newly hired personnel entering the

system will be employed at a level

consistent with the expected basic

qualifications for the broadband and

level, as determined by rating against

qualification standards. Salaries of

individual candidates will be based on

academic qualifications and/or work

experience. The hiring official will

determine the starting salary based upon

available labor market considerations

relative to special qualifications

requirements, scarcity of qualified

applicants, programmatic urgency, and

education/experience of the new

candidates. In addition to the flexibility

available under the Broadbanding

system, the authorities for retention,

recruitment, and relocation payments

granted under the Federal Employees

Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA)

can also be used.

The use of broadbanding provides a

stronger link between pay and

contribution to the mission of the

institutions. It is simpler, less time

consuming, and less costly to maintain.

In addition, such a system is more easily

understood by managers and employees,

is easily delegated to managers,

coincides with recognized career paths,

and complements the other personnel

management aspects of the

demonstration project.

Academic work requires knowledge

in a field of science or learning

characteristically acquired through

education or training equivalent to a

bachelor’s or higher degree with major

study in or pertinent to the specialized

field, as distinguished from general

education. The Academic provides or

performs the primary mission of the

institution. Technical/Specialist work

involves extensive practical knowledge,

gained through experience and/or

specific training or requires knowledge

pertinent to the occupation typically

acquired by a college degree,

certification or licensing. Work in these

occupations may involve substantial

elements of the work of the Academic

field, but requires less than full

knowledge of the field. Technical/

Specialist work is associated with and

supportive of the mission. Support

Services occupations involve structured

work in support of office or facility. The

work facilitates the program/mission.

2. Simplified Assignment Process

Today’s environment of downsizing

and workforce transition mandates that

the institution have maximum

flexibility to assign individuals.

Broadbanding enables the institution to

have the maximum flexibility to assign

an employee within broad descriptions,

consistent with the needs of the

institution and the individual’s

qualifications. Assignments may be

accomplished as realignments and do

not constitute a position change. For

instance, a technical expert can be

assigned to any project, task, or function

requiring similar technical expertise.

Likewise, a manager could be assigned

to manage any similar function or

institutional component consistent with

that individual’s qualifications. This

flexibility allows broader latitude in

assignments and further streamlines the

administrative process and system.

C. Classification

1. Occupational Series

The present General Schedule

classification system has 434

occupational series that are divided into

22 occupational groups. The present

Federal Wage classification system has

similar groupings. The HEWP currently

covers numerous series in the 22

occupational groups and Federal Wage

System. These occupational series and

groups will be maintained throughout

the demonstration project.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40921

2. Classification Standards

The present system of OPM

classification standards will be used for

identification of proper series and

occupational titles of positions within

the demonstration project. The CCAS

broadband factors and their level

descriptors, as aligned in the three

career paths, will be used for the

purpose of broadband and level

determination. Under the demonstration

project, each broadband level will be

represented by a set of descriptors.

3. Classification Authority

Under the HEWP, the President will

have delegated classification authority

and may re-delegate this authority to

subordinate management levels. Redelegated classification approval must

be exercised at least one management

level above the first-line supervisor of

the position under review, except in the

case of those employees reporting

directly to the President. First-line

supervisors will provide classification

recommendations. The Personnel

Director will provide on-going

consultation and guidance to managers

and supervisors throughout the

classification process.

4. Statement of Duties and

Requirements

Under the demonstration project’s

classification system, a new Statement

of Duties and Requirements (SDR) will

replace the current position description.

The SDR will combine the position

information, staffing requirements, and

contribution expectations into a single

document. The new SDR will include a

description of job-specific information,

reference the CCAS broadband level

descriptors for the assigned broadband

level, and provide other information

pertinent to the job. An automated

computer assisted process to produce

the SDR may be used. The objectives in

developing the new SDR are to: (a)

Simplify the descriptions and the

preparation process through

automation; (b) provide more flexibility

in work assignments; and provide a

more useful tool for other functions of

personnel management, e.g.,

recruitment, assessment of contribution,

employee development, and reduction

in force.

5. Fair Labor Standards Act

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

exemption or non-exemption

determinations will be made consistent

with criteria found in 5 CFR (Code of

Federal Regulations) part 551.

All employees are covered by the

FLSA unless they meet criteria for

exemption. Positions will be evaluated

as needed by comparing the duties and

responsibilities assigned the broadband

level descriptors for each broadband

level, and the 5 CFR part 551 FLSA

criteria.

6. Classification Appeals

An employee may appeal the

occupational series, title, or broadband

level of his/her own position at any

time. An employee must formally raise

the areas of concern to supervisors in

the immediate chain of command in

writing. If an employee is not satisfied

with the supervisory response, he or she

may then appeal to the Haskell

Classification Appeals Panel. Time

periods for case processing under 5 CFR

511.605 apply.

An employee may not appeal the

accuracy of the SDR document, the

demonstration project classification

criteria, or the pay-setting criteria; the

propriety of a salary schedule; or

matters grievable under an

administrative or negotiated grievance

procedure or an alternative dispute

resolution procedure.

The evaluation of classification

appeals under this demonstration

project is based upon the demonstration

project classification criteria. Case files

will be forwarded for adjudication

through the personnel/human resources

office and will include copies of

appropriate demonstration project

criteria.

D. Contribution-based Compensation

and Assessment System

1. Overview

The purpose of the Contributionbased Compensation and Assessment

System (CCAS) is to provide an

equitable and flexible method for

assessing and compensating the higher

education workforce. CCAS allows for

more employee involvement in the

performance assessment process,

increases communication between

supervisors and employees, promotes a

clear accountability of contribution by

each employee, facilitates employee

progression tied to institutional

contribution, and provides an

understandable basis for salary changes.

CCAS goes beyond a performancebased rating system. It measures the

employee’s contribution to the mission

and goals of the institution, rather than

how well the employee performed a job

as defined by a performance plan. Past

experience with the existing

performance appraisal system indicates

that performance plans are often

tailored to the individual’s level of

previous performance. Hence, an

employee may have been rewarded by

salary step increases for accomplishing

a satisfactory level of performance

against a diminishing set of

responsibilities. CCAS promotes salary

adjustment decisions made on the basis

of an employee’s overall annual

contribution when compared to all other

employees and level of compensation.

Therefore, larger-than-average salary

increases are possible for employees

who are determined to be undercompensated, and smaller-than-average

increases are permitted for employees

who are deemed to be overcompensated in relationship to their

institutional contributions.

An employee’s performance is a

synthesis of contributions that

determines the Employee Assessment

Score (EAS). Contribution is measured

by using a set of six factors, each of

which is relevant to the success of the

educational institution. The descriptors

for each factor will have four levels.

Criteria for achieving these levels will

be determined by each organizational

unit, such as an academic department,

within the school. Taken together, these

factors capture the critical content of

jobs in each career path. The factors

may not be modified or supplemented.

These factors are the same as those used

to classify a position at the appropriate

broadband level.

The compensation system is an

important indicator of what an

organization believes is important to its

success. A well designed compensation

system provides a battery of tools to

support organizational goals and

outcomes. The design should be

strategic, flexible, and customerfocused. The current compensation

system, because it was implemented in

a piecemeal fashion for a hierarchical

organization, does not relate to

educational needs and is cumbersome.

The demonstration project will test a

compensation system that is able to

change based on the needs of the entire

organization, of the taxpayer, and of the

student being served.

Employees in all four broadband

levels will have the same factors, with

applications relevant to the SDR. The

six factors are: (1) Primary Duty and

Requirements; (2) Customer/Student

Service; (3) Department and

Institutional Service; (4) Teamwork/

Supervision; (5) Professional

Development Activity; (6)

Communications/Research and

Publications. These factors were chosen

for assessing the yearly contribution of

HINU employees in the three career

paths (1) Academic, (2) Technical/

Specialist, and (3) Support. Each factor

has multiple levels of increasing

contribution corresponding to the

40922 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

broadband levels within the relevant

career paths. These levels will be

delineated in the operations manual.

Factor 1

Primary Duty and Requirements refers

to the activities that relate to the

position description title, such as

Carpenter, relating to levels of

achievement of carpenter duties; or

Instructor, relating to achievement of

levels related to classroom instruction.

The individual factor will relate to the

activity described by the title.

Factor 2

Customer/Student Service pertains to

activities that relate to direct and

indirect contact with customers/

students. Work is timely, efficient and

of acceptable quality. Personal and

organizational interactions enhance

customer relations and actively promote

rapport with customers. Flexibility,

adaptability, and decisiveness are

exercised appropriately.

Factor 3

Departmental and Institutional

Service refers to institutional programs

and department plans that contribute to

the employee’s organizational unit and

the institution as a whole to reflect the

vision, mission and goals.

Factor 4

Teamwork/Supervision refers to nonmanagerial employees (Teamwork) or

managers (Supervision and Teamwork).

Teamwork is a factor that describes any

worker’s contribution to the mission

and goals of the organizational unit,

through interactions with other

employees and departments, including

supervision of employees. Management

of resources is also part of this factor.

Factor 5

Professional Development Activity

refers to any training, academic course

work, instructional conferences, or

activity that contributes to the

employee’s ability to perform duties for

the benefit of the institution of higher

learning.

Factor 6

Communications/Research and

Publications refers to ability to

communicate—both written and oral—

in a clear, concise, and appropriate

manner. Research and Publication refers

to researching relevant sources for

curriculum and instructional topic area

purposes, and in some cases publishing

the results of research.

2. CCAS Pay Ranges

The Contribution-based

Compensation and Assessment System

(CCAS) pay schedule is the same as the

General Schedule and provides a direct

link between increasing levels of

contribution and increasing salary. This

is shown by the graph in Figure 1. The

horizontal axis of Figure 1 represents

the salary range of the General Schedule

from GS–4, Step 1, which is $19,000

(Calendar Year 2000) through GS–15,

Step 10, which is $100, 897 (CY00).

Each employee’s CCAS Pay Range is the

pay range for their GS grade. Locality

salary adjustments are not included in

the CCAS pay ranges, but are

incorporated into the demonstration

participant’s pay.

The vertical axis in Figure 1

represents the scale for assessment

scores in 0.1 increments within each

broadband level. This scale is directly

related to the CCAS pay range for GS

grades, the broadband levels, and the

factor descriptor levels.

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40923

BILLING CODE 4310–02–C

With the exception of the President’s

pay rate, these CCAS pay ranges

encompass all salaries (excluding

locality pay) paid under this

demonstration, from GS–4, step 1,

through GS–15, Step 10, for CY2000.

The salary range for the President’s

position is from GS–15 to Executive

Schedule Level III. The President’s

salary is the only salary that may

increase beyond GS–15, Step 10.

Each year the CCAS pay ranges are

adjusted upward based on the general

pay increase under 5 U.S.C. 5303. All

employees will receive the general pay

increase under 5 U.S.C. 5303 each year.

Within-Grade Increases (WGI’s) will

occur as scheduled under the General

Schedule system, provided the

employee earns an assessment score

equivalent to or higher than the

Expected Contribution Score (ECS) for

their grade and level. The pay schedule

and the CCAS pay ranges are the same

for all three career paths, with the

exception that the Support Broadband

has three levels rather than four levels.

The minimum and maximum numerical

assessment scores and associated base

salaries for each broadband level, by

career path, are provided in TABLE II

(see 3. CCAS Assessment Process).

These minimum and maximum break

points represent the lowest and highest

General Schedule salary rates for the

grades banded together and, therefore,

the minimum and maximum salaries

possible for each broadband level.

Employees whose annual assessment

scores plotted against their base salary

fall within their current pay range are

considered appropriately compensated.

Employees whose scores plotted against

their salaries fall to the left or above

their respective pay ranges are

considered under-compensated.

Employees whose scores plotted against

their salaries fall to the right or below

40924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

of their respective pay ranges are

considered over-compensated. The goal

of CCAS is to make pay consistent with

employees’ contributions to the HINU

mission.

Employees will enter the

demonstration project without a loss of

pay (see Section V, Conversion) and

without an Employee Assessment Score

(EAS). The first assessment score will

result from the first annual CCAS

assessment process. Until the first CCAS

assessment process is completed, no

employee is considered to be

appropriately, over-or undercompensated. Employees may

determine their Expected Contribution

Score (ECS) by locating the intersection

of their salary and GS Grade with the

highest assessment score in each

interval for that grade and pay range.

The highest numerical value in each

interval is the ECS. Future CCAS

assessments may alter an employee’s

position relative to this graph.

3. CCAS Assessment Process

The annual CCAS assessment cycle

begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of

the following year, with the exception of

the first year of the demonstration

project, which will begin at the project’s

inception on October 1, 2000, and end

June 30, 2001. At the beginning of the

annual assessment cycle, the broadband

level descriptors will be provided to

employees so that they know the basis

on which their contribution will be

assessed for their pay pool. (A pay pool

is a group of employees among whom

the CCAS dollars are calculated and

distributed. The President of the

institution determines the pay pool

structure (see Section III D 4)). At that

time, employees will be advised that all

factors are critical. Key terms will be

defined or clarified. Supervisor and

employee discussion of specific work

assignments, standards, objectives, and

the employee’s contributions within the

CCAS framework should be conducted

on an ongoing basis.

Near the end of the annual (July 1 to

June 30) assessment cycle, the

immediate supervisor (assessing official)

meets with employees, requesting them

to summarize their contributions for

each factor in a self-assessment. From

an employee’s inputs and his/her own

knowledge from all available sources,

the assessment official identifies for

each employee the earned level and

interval (low, medium or high) for each

factor.

The assessment officials within each

pay pool (including second-level

supervisors) meet together to ensure

consistency and equity of the

contribution assessments.

To determine the EAS, numerical

values are assigned to each factor, using

the intervals shown in TABLE II.

TABLE II shows each of the three

broadbands divided into levels, along

with the corresponding GS grades, and

the scale for contribution scores. The

highest numerical score in each interval

is the ECS for the Low, Medium, and

High intervals of the level. If the

contribution for a factor is at the lowest

possible score of Level I, an assessment

score of 1.0 is assigned. Higher levels of

contribution correspond to numerical

scores in 0.1 increments up to 4.9. A

factor score of 0.0 can be assigned if the

employee’s contribution does not

demonstrate a minimum Level I

contribution. Likewise, a factor score of

5.9 can be assigned if the employee’s

contribution exceeds the maximum

Level IV contribution. The EAS is

calculated by averaging the numerical

values assigned for each of the six

factors.

TABLE II.—ASSESSMENT SCORE INTERVALS WITHIN BROADBAND LEVELS

[Academic]

I II III IV

Low Med. High Low Med. High Low Med. High Low Med. High

1.0–1.3 1.4–1.6 1.7–1.9 2.0–2.3 2.4–2.6 2.7–2.9 3.0–3.3 3.4–3.6 3.7–3.9 4.0–4.3 4.4–4.6 4.7–4.9

(GS 4–6) (GS 7–9) (GS 10–12) (GS 13–15)

[Technical or Specialist]

I II III IV

Low Med. High Low Med. High Low Med. High Low Med. High

1.0–1.3 1.4–1.6 1.7–1.9 2.0–2.3 2.4–2.6 2.7–2.9 3.0–3.3 3.4–3.6 3.7–3.9 4.0–4.3 4.4–4.6 4.7–4.9

(GS 4–6) (GS 7–9) (GS 10–12) (GS 13–15)

[Support]

I II III

Low Med. High Low Med. High Low Med. High

1.0–1.3 1.4–1.6 1.7–1.9 2.0–2.3 2.4–2.6 2.7–2.9 3.0–3.3 3.4–3.6 3.7–3.9

(GS 4–6) (GS 7–9) (GS 10–12)

The assessing officials (including

second-level supervisors) meet again,

correcting any inconsistencies and

making the appropriate adjustments in

the factor assessments. Then an Overall

Contribution Score (OCS) is calculated

for each employee and employees are

placed in rank order:

O.C.S.=(Expected Contribution Score

(ECS)/Employee Assessment Score

(EAS))x100lll%

The pay pool panel (pay pool manager

and the assessing officials in the pay

pool who report directly to him/her)

meets to conduct a final review of the

OCS and recommends compensation

adjustments for pay pool members. The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40925

pay pool panel has the authority to

make OCS adjustments, after discussion

with the initial assessing officials, to

ensure equity and consistency in the

ranking of all employees. Final approval

of OCS rests with the pay pool manager.

The OCS approved by the pay pool

manager becomes the final OCS.

Assessment officials will communicate

the factor scores and OCS to each

employee and discuss the results by July

15.

If on June 30, the employee has served

under CCAS for less than six months,

the assessment official will wait for the

subsequent annual cycle to assess the

employee. The first CCAS assessment

must be rendered within 18 months

after entering the demonstration project.

When an employee cannot be

evaluated readily by the normal CCAS

assessment process due to special

circumstances that take the individual

away from normal duties or duty station

(e.g., long-term full-time training, active

military duty, extended sick leave, leave

without pay, union activities, etc.), the

assessment official will document the

special circumstances on the assessment

form. The assessment official will then

determine which of the following

options to use:

(a) Re-certify the employee’s last OCS;

or

(b) Presume the employee is

contributing consistently with his/her

pay level and will be given minimally

the full general increase and any withingrade increase that may be due.

Pay adjustments will be made on the

basis of the OCS or substitute

determination and the employee’s rate

of basic pay. Pay adjustments are subject

to payout rules discussed in section III.

D. 4. Final pay determinations will be

made by the pay pool manager. OCS

scores can only be adjusted after

discussion with the assessment official.

Pay adjustments will be documented

by SF–50, Notification of Personnel

Action. For historical evaluation and

analytical purposes, dates on the

effective date of OCS assessments,

actual assessment scores, the actual

salary increases, amounts contributed to

the pay pool, and applicable bonus

amounts and/or awards will be

maintained for each demonstration

project employee.

4. 360-degree Feedback and Learning

Contracts

HINU will establish a performance

feedback system using a 360-degree

feedback process. The system will use

360-degree feedback, or input from

several sources, including: (a) an

employee’s manager, (b) peers, and (c)

customers. Performance feedback will

provide all employees with information

on their contribution to the

organization’s performance. It will also

help them identify their training and

developmental needs for the yearly

cycle by pinpointing areas of strength

and items needing improvement.

The results of the 360-degree

performance feedback will go only to

the employee, with group or area results

being summarized for the manager. In

areas with a single employee, the results

will be provided to the manager. If an

employee appeals his/her rating, the

employee may use 360-degree

supporting information in the appeal of

the original assessment. Training in the

use of the performance feedback system

will be provided to all employees.

This information contributes to

Learning Contracts, which are written

agreements between supervisors and

employees identifying manangement or

employee skill blocks. Skill blocks are

skills or abilities that allow a manager

or employee to succeed and excel at

their job. Every employee will have a

Learning Contract that will consider

needs identified by employee

development measures, the performance

feedback system, and a degree/

certification/recertification system.

This is especially important in the

development of managers. One item

identified in ‘‘A Study of Management

and Adminitstration: The Bureau of

Indian Affairs’’ by the National

Academy of Public Administration, is

the need for a management development

program. One of the primary

management objectives recommended

by NAPA was management

development. To accomplish this

objective requires a committment to

provide the planning and resources

necessary to support this training and

development. The creation of a

management learning contracts with the

associated knowledge and skill blocks

for manageers will support this

objective.

5. Pay Pools

The pay pool structure and allocated

funds are under the authority of the

President. The following minimal

guidelines will apply to pay pool

determinations: (a) a pay pool(s) is

based on the institution’s organizational

structure and should include a range of

salaries and contribution levels; (b) a

pay pool must be large enough to

include a second level of supervision,

since the CCAS process uses a group of

supervisors in the pay pool to determine

OCS and recommended salary

adjustments; and (c) neither the pay

pool manager nor the supervisors within

a pay pool will recommend or set their

own individual pay levels.

The amount of money available in the

pay pool fund is determined by the

President. An Incentive amount (I),

made up of money that would have

been available for quality step increases,

within-grade increase amounts not

awarded because of inadequate

contribution, promotions between

grades encompassed in the same

broadband level, and other appropriate

incentive factors. The amount of ‘‘I’’

will be determined each year by the

President and will be at a minimum of

1 percent based on a percentage of the

base pay salaries of all employees as of

September 30. The amount of ‘‘I’’ may

be adjusted as necessary each year to

maintain cost discipline. Though not all

funds within a pay pool must be

distributed each year as pay or bonuses,

a pool of funds are to be set aside for

pay purposes and may not be used for

other purposes before annual pay

calculations are made. Justification for

altering the amount of money in the pay

pool fund must be made to the

President, who has final authority. The

President, if provided sufficient

justification, has the authority to alter

the amount of money in the pay pool

fund.

6. Salary Adjustment Guidelines

After the initial conversion into the

CCAS, employees’ yearly contributions

will be determined by the CCAS process

described above, and their OCS versus

their current rate of base pay will be

plotted on a graph. Refer back to Figure

1. The position of those points relative

to the CCAS pay ranges (GS grade) gives

a measure of the employee’s

compensation (salary) versus

contribution (Employee Assessment

Score). Employees fall into one of three

categories: over-compensated—to the

right or below the pay range;

appropriately compensated—within the

pay range; or under-compensated—to

the left or above the pay range.

Depending on the category into which

an employee falls on the graph, he/she

may be eligible for three forms of

additional compensation (all employees

will receive the annual general pay

increase regardless of contribution

score): (1) Within-Grade Increases

(WGI’s) will occur as scheduled under

the General Schedule system provided

the employee earns an assessment score

equivalent to or higher than the ECS for

their grade and broadband level. Failure

to obtain an adequate assessment score

will result in the denial of the WGI. If

the employee is in a two-year or a threeyear waiting cycle for the receipt of a

WGI, and does not obtain an adequate

40926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

assessment in one of the annual

assessment cycles, an average

assessment score for the WGI waiting

period must be calculated to determine

eligibility for receipt of the WGI when

it occurs. The average assessment score

would be calculated by adding all

annual assessment scores that have

occurred and dividing by the number of

years (two or three) of the waiting

period. Subsequent decisions on receipt

of WGI’s when in a one, two, or three

year waiting period will be based on an

average of the last two or three

assessment scores as applicable; (2) The

pay pool panel has the options of giving

an employee a base salary increase and/

or a contribution bonus (a lump-sum

payment that does not affect base

salary). An employee on retained pay in

the demonstration project will receive

pay adjustments in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 5363 and 5 CFR part 536; (3) The

pay pool panel has the option of giving

an employee an incentive award (a

lump sum payment that does not affect

base pay).

An employee receiving a retained rate

may be eligible for a base pay increase,

since such increases are limited by the

maximum salary rate for the employee’s

broadband level.

An employee identified as

appropriately compensated may receive

a contribution base pay increase

provided the increase does not exceed

the maximum salary for the employee’s

current broadband level pay range. An

employee identified as overcompensated will receive no additional

contribution base pay increase, no

contribution bonus and no incentive

award. An employee identified as

under-compensated would be eligible

for a base pay increase. The contribution

base pay increase may not exceed the

maximum salary for the current level.

Employees who are appropriately

compensated and under-compensated

are eligible for contribution bonuses up

to $10,000 with the approval of the pay

pool manager. Contribution bonus

amounts exceeding $10,000 require the

President’s approval.

Employees whose OCS would result

in a base pay increase such that the

salary exceeds the maximum salary for

their current broadband level will

receive a contribution bonus equaling

the difference. This bonus will be paid

as a lump sum payment and will not

add to base pay.

In general, those employees who fall

in the under-compensated category

should expect to receive greater salary

increases than those in the overcompensated category. Over time, all

employees in the over- and undercompensated categories will migrate

closer to the appropriate CCAS pay

ranges and receive a salary appropriate

for their level of contribution.

Each pay pool manager will set the

necessary guidelines for pay

adjustments in the pay pool. Decisions

will be consistent within the pay pool,

reflect cost discipline over the life of the

demonstration project, and be subject to

administrative review. The maximum

available base pay rate under this

demonstration project will be the rate

for a Executive Schedule Level III.

7. Incentive Awards Budget

The President will establish an

Incentive Awards Budget (IAB) for the

institution each year. The IAB will be

set at not less than 1 percent of the

institution’s total salary budget

calculated on September 30 of each

year. For the first year of the project, the

total IAB will be set at a minimum of

1.0 percent of total salaries. The IAB is

separate from the funds available for

base pay increases and contribution

bonuses. The IAB includes funds

formerly spent for performance awards

and incentive awards. The IAB will be

available for use as incentive awards for

employee contributions and all other

incentive awards (i.e. Special Act or

Service). The President may adjust the

annual budget proportions of

performance awards and incentive

awards in the IAB. This will allow

adequate funds for incentive awards not

related to CCAS contributions. IAB

funds will be paid as lump sum

amounts and will not add to base pay.

The IAB funds will be under the Pay

Pool Manager for each pay pool. The

Pay Pool Manager will give final

approval for all Incentive Awards.

8. Movement Between Broadband

Levels

It is the intent of the demonstration

project to have career growth

accomplished through the broadband

levels. Movement within a broadband

level will be determined by contribution

and salary increases following the CCAS

process. Movement to a higher

broadband level is a competitive action.

Movement to a lower broadband level

may be voluntary or involuntary.

Broadband levels derive from salaries

of the banded GS grades and equivalent

Wage Grades. The lowest salary of any

given broadband level is that for step 1

of the lowest GS grade in that

broadband level. Likewise, the highest

salary of any given broadband level is

that for step 10 of the highest GS grade

in that broadband level. There is a

natural overlap in salaries in the GS

grades that also occurs in the broadband

system. Since the OCS is directly related

to salaries, there is also an overlap

between OCS across broadband levels.

Under the demonstration project,

managers are provided greater flexibility

in assigning duties by moving

employees among positions within their

broadband level. If there are vacancies

at higher levels, employees may be

considered for promotion to those

positions in accordance with

competitive selection procedures.

Under competitive selection

procedures, the selecting official(s) may

consider candidates from any source

based on job-related, merit-based

methodology. Similarly, if there is

sufficient cause, an employee may be

demoted to a lower broadband level

position according to the contribution

reduction-in-pay or removal procedures

discussed in section III E 2.

9. Implementation Schedule

The 2000 employee annual appraisal

will be done according to the

performance plan rules in effect at the

time of the 2000 close-out. Employees

will be moved by personnel action into

the demonstration project and into the

appropriate broadband level on October

1, 2000, or as specified in the

institution’s implementation plan. The

first CCAS assessment cycle will run

from October 1, 2000 to July 30, 2001.

Overall assessment scores and pay

adjustments resulting from the 2001

assessment cycle will be paid out the

first full pay period of January 2002.

10. CCAS Grievance Procedures

Bargaining unit employees who are

covered under a collective bargaining

agreement may grieve CCAS pay

determinations under the grievancearbitration provisions of the agreement.

Other employees not included in a

bargaining unit may utilize the

appropriate administrative grievance

procedures to raise a grievance against

CCAS pay decisions (5 CFR Part 771),

with supplemental instructions as

described below.

An employee may grieve the

assessment scores. If an employee is

covered by a negotiated grievance

procedure that includes grievances over

assessment or appraisal scores, then the

employee must use that procedure. If an

employee is not in a bargaining unit, or

is in a bargaining unit but grievances

over appraisal or assessment scores are

not covered under a negotiated

grievance procedure, then the employee

may use the administrative grievance

procedure (5 CFR Part 771) with

supplemental actions described below.

The employee will submit the

grievance initially to the first line

supervisor, the assessment official, who

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40927

will submit a recommendation to the

pay pool panel. The pay pool panel may

accept the assessment official’s

recommendation or reach an

independent decision. In the event that

the pay pool panel’s decision is

different from the assessment official’s

recommendation, appropriate

justification will be provided. The pay

pool panel’s decision is final unless the

employee requests reconsideration by

the next higher official to the pay pool

manager. The pay-pool manager will

render the final decision on the

grievance.

11. Contribution-based Reduction-inPay or Removal Actions

CCAS is an assessment system that

goes beyond a performance-based rating

system. Contribution is measured

against the CCAS factors for the three

career paths, each having multiple

levels of increasing contribution. (For

the purposes of this section, these

factors are considered critical and are

synonymous with critical elements as

referenced in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43.) This

section applies to reduction-in-pay or

removal of demonstration project

employees based solely on inadequate

contribution. Inadequate contribution in

any one factor at any time during the

assessment period is considered

grounds for initiation of reduction-inpay or removal action. The following

procedures replace those established in

5 U.S.C. 4303 pertaining to reductions

in grade or removal for unacceptable

performance, except with respect to

appeals of such actions. The statutory

authority for appeals of contributionbased actions appears in 5 U.S.C.

4303(e). As is currently the situation for

performance-based actions taken under

5 U.S.C. 4303, contribution-based

actions shall be sustained if the decision

is supported by substantial evidence

and the Merit Systems Protection Board

shall not have mitigation authority with

respect to such actions. The separate

statutory authority to take contributionbased actions under 5 U.S.C. 75, as

modified in the waiver section of this

notice (section IX), remains unchanged

by these procedures.

When an employee’s contribution in

any factor is at or less than the midpoint of the next lower broadband level

(or a factor score of zero for broadband

level I employees), the employee is

considered to be contributing

inadequately. In this case, the

supervisor must inform the employee,

in writing, that unless the contribution

increases to a score above the midpoint

of this next lower broadband level

(thereby meeting the standards for

adequate contribution) and is sustained

at this level, the employee may be

reduced in pay or removed. For

broadband level I employees, a factor

score that increases to the midpoint and

is sustained at that level is determined

to be adequate.

The written notice that informs an

employee that he/she may be reduced in

pay or removed affords the employee a

reasonable opportunity (a minimum of

60 days) to demonstrate acceptable

contribution with regard to identifiable

factors. As part of the employee’s

opportunity to demonstrate adequate

contribution, he or she will be placed on

a Contribution Improvement Plan (CIP).

The CIP will state how the employee’s

contribution is inadequate, what

improvements are required,

recommendations on how to achieve

adequate contribution, assistance that

the agency shall offer to the employee

in improving inadequate contribution,

and consequences of failure to improve.

Additionally, when an employee’s

contribution plots in the area to the

right or below the upper rail of the

normal pay range, the employee is

considered to be contributing

inadequately. In this case, the

supervisor has two options. The first is

to take no action but to document this

decision in a memorandum for the

record. A copy of this memorandum

will be provided to the employee and to

higher levels of management. The

second option is to inform the

employee, in writing, that unless the

contribution increases to, and is

sustained at, a higher level, the

employee may be reduced in pay or

removed.

These provisions also apply to an

employee whose contribution

deteriorates during the year. In such

instances, the group of supervisors who

meet during the CCAS assessment

process may reconvene any time during

the year to review the circumstances

warranting the recommendation to take

further action on the employee.

Once an employee has been afforded

a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate

adequate contribution but fails to do so,

a reduction-in-pay (which may include

a change to a lower broadband level

and/or reassignment) or removal action

may be proposed. If the employee’s

contribution increases to an acceptable

level and is again determined to

deteriorate in any factor within two

years from the beginning of the

opportunity period, actions may be

initiated to effect reduction in pay or

removal with no additional opportunity

to improve. If an employee has

contributed acceptably for two years

from the beginning of an opportunity

period, and the employee’s overall

contribution once again declines to an

inadequate level, the employee will be

afforded an additional opportunity to

demonstrate adequate contribution

before it is determined whether or not

to propose a reduction in pay or

removal.

An employee proposed for a

reduction-in-pay or removal is entitled

to a 30-day advance notice of the

proposed action that identifies specific

instances of the employee’s inadequate

contribution upon which the action is

based. The employee will be afforded a

reasonable time to answer the notice of

proposed action.

A decision to reduce in pay or remove

an employee for inadequate

contribution may be based only on those

instances of inadequate contribution

that occurred during the two-year

period ending on the date of issuance of

the proposed action. The employee will

be issued written notice at or before the

time the action will be effective. Such

notice will specify the instances of

inadequate contribution on which the

action is based and will inform the

employee of any applicable appeal or

grievance rights.

All relevant documentation

concerning a reduction-in-pay or

removal that is based on inadequate

contribution will be preserved and

made available for review by the

affected employee or a designated

representative. At a minimum, the

records will consist of a copy of the

notice of proposed action; the written

answer of the employee or a summary;

and the written notice of decision and

the reasons thereof, along with any

supporting material including

documentation regarding the

opportunity afforded the employee to

demonstrate adequate contribution.

E. Special Situations Related to Pay

1. Change in Assignment

The CCAS concept, using the

broadbanding structure, provides

flexibility in making changes in

assignments. In many cases an

employee can be reassigned, without

change in their rate of basic pay, within

broad descriptions, consistent with the

needs of the institution and

commensurate with the individual’s

qualifications. Subsequent institutional

assignments to projects, tasks, or

functions requiring the same level and

area of expertise and the same

qualifications would not constitute an

assignment outside the scope or

coverage of the current level descriptors.

In most cases, such assignments would

be within the factor descriptors and

could be accomplished without the

40928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

need to process a personnel action.

Assignment resulting in series change,

broadband level change, or change to

KSAs shall be accomplished by official

personnel action. Thus, this approach

allows for broader latitude in

institutional assignments and

streamlines the administrative process.

Rules for specific types of assignments

under CCAS follow:

(a) Promotions. When an employee is

promoted to a higher broadband level,

the salary upon promotion will be at

least 6 percent, typically not more than

20 percent, greater than the employee’s

current salary. However, if the

minimum rate of the new broadband

level is more than 20 percent greater

than the employee’s current salary, then

the minimum rate of the new broadband

level is the new salary. The employee’s

salary may not exceed the salary range

of the new broadband level. When an

employee receiving a retained rate is

promoted to a higher broadband level, at

a minimum the employee’s salary upon

promotion will be set in the higher

broadband level at 6 percent higher than

the maximum rate of the employee’s

existing broadband level; or at the

employee’s existing retained rate,

whichever is greater.

(b) Competitive Selection for a

Position with Higher Potential Salary.

When an employee is competitively

selected for a position with a higher

target broadband level than previously

held (e.g., Upward Mobility), upon

movement to the new position the

employee will receive the salary

corresponding to the minimum of the

new broadband level or the existing

salary, whichever is greater.

(c) Voluntary Change to Lower

Broadband Level/Change in Career Path

(except RIF). A provision exists today

for an employee to request a change to

lower grade. If that request is totally the

employee’s choice, then the employee’s

salary is lowered accordingly. To handle

these special circumstances, employees

must submit a request for voluntary pay

reduction or pay raise declination

during the 30-day period immediately

following the annual payout and show

reasons for the request. All actions will

be appropriately documented. Although

the rationale behind such a voluntary

request varies under CCAS, a voluntary

request for a pay reduction or a

voluntary declination of a pay raise

would effectively put an overcompensated employee’s pay closer to

or within the employee’s contribution

level. Since an objective of CCAS is to

properly compensate employees for

their contribution, the granting of such

requests is consistent with this goal.

Under normal circumstances, all

employees should be encouraged to

advance their careers through increasing

contribution rather than trying to be

under-compensated at a fixed level of

contribution. When an employee

accepts a voluntary change to lower

broadband level or different career path,

salary may be set at any point within the

broadband level to which appointed,

except that the new salary will not

exceed the employee’s current salary or

the maximum salary of the assigned

broadband level, whichever is lower.

(d) Involuntary Change to Lower

Broadband Level Without Reduction in

Pay Due to Contribution-based Action.

Due to inadequate contribution, an

employee’s salary may fall below the

minimum rate of basic pay for the

broadband level to which he/she is

assigned. When an employee is changed

to a lower broadband level due to such

a situation, this movement is not

considered an adverse action.

(e) Involuntary Reduction in Pay, to

Include Change to Lower Broadband

Level and/or Change in Career Path Due

to Adverse Action. An employee may

receive a reduction-in-pay within his/

her existing broadband level and career

path; be changed to a lower broadband

level; and/or be moved to a new

position in a different career path due

to an adverse action. In these situations,

the employee’s salary will be reduced

by at least 6 percent, but will be set no

lower than the minimum salary of the

broadband level to which assigned.

Employees placed into a lower

broadband due to adverse action are not

entitled to pay retention.

(f) Reduction-in-Force (RIF) Action

(including employees who are offered

and accept a vacancy at a lower

broadband level or in a different career

path). The employee is entitled to pay

retention if all Title 5 conditions are

met.

(g) Return to limited or light duty

from a disability as a result of

occupational injury to a position in a

lower broadband level or to a career

path with lower salary potential than

held prior to the injury. The employee

is entitled indefinitely to the salary held

prior to the injury and will receive full

general and locality pay increases.

2. Academic Ethics

According to the Ethics Reform Act of

1989, Federal employees may not accept

outside salaries, stipends, and/or

honoraria directly related to work

duties. This prevents conflict of interest

for employees who would use

information acquired through federal

employment to seek outside gain.

However, normal academic activities

fall outside the restrictions of usual

government employment. The 1991

Ethics Manual for federal employees

clarifies acceptable guidelines for

outside employment:

The Committee has determined that the

following types of compensation are not

honoraria: Compensation for activities where

speaking, appearing, or writing is only an

incidental part of the work for which

payment is made (e.g., conducting research)

* * *.

Haskell employees may engage in outside

employment or activities that relate to their

official duties and responsibilities and accept

outside salaries, stipends, and/or honoraria.

Employees must inform their supervisor

prior to engaging in such activities.

F. Revised Reduction-In-Force (RIF)

Procedures

RIF shall be conducted according to

the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 and

BIA procedures except as otherwise

specified below.

Displacement means the movement

via RIF procedures of an employee into

a position held by an employee of lower

retention standing.

Employees are entitled to additional

years of retention service credit in RIF,

based on assessment results. This credit

will be based on the employee’s three

most recent annual overall contribution

scores (OCSs) of record received during

the four-year period prior to the

issuance of RIF notices. However, if at

the time RIF notices are issued, three

CCAS cycles have not yet been

completed, the annual performance

rating of record under the previous

performance management system will

be substituted for one or more OCSs, as

appropriate. An employee who has

received at least one but fewer than

three previous ratings of record shall

receive credit for performance on the

basis of the value of the actual rating(s)

of record divided by the number of

actual ratings received. Employees with

three OCS or performance ratings shall

receive credit for performance on the

basis of the value of the actual ratings

of record divided by three. In cases

where an individual employee has no

annual OCS or performance rating of

record, an average OCS or performance

rating will be assigned and used to

determine the additional service credit

for that individual. (This average rating

is derived from the current ratings of

record for the employees in that

individual’s career path and broadband

level within the competitive area

affected by a given RIF.)

When a competing employee is to be

released from his/her position, the

activity shall establish separate master

retention lists for the competitive and

excepted services, by type of work

schedule and (for excepted service

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40929

master retention lists) appointing

authority. Within the above groups,

competing employees shall be listed on

the master retention list in compliance

with 5 CFR part 3551 and BIA

procedures.

Employees will be ranked in order of

their retention standing, beginning with

the most senior employee. This

employee may displace an employee of

lower retention standing occupying a

position that is at the same or lower

broadband level and that is in a series

for which the senior employee is fully

qualified, to include a series in a

different career path. The undue

interruption standard of 5 CFR

351.403(a)(1) shall serve as the criterion

to determine if an employee is fully

qualified. In addition, to be fully

qualified. (However, statutory waivers

shall continue to apply) The displaced

employee must be appointed under the

same authority, if excepted service, and

in the same work schedule. Offer of

assignment shall be to the position that

requires no reduction or the least

possible reduction in broadband. Where

more than one such position exists, the

employee must be offered the position

encumbered by the employee with the

lowest retention standing.

Displacement rights are normally

limited to 2 GS grades below the

employee’s present position. However, a

preference-eligible employee with a

compensable service-connected

disability of 30 percent or more may

displace up to 5 grades below the

employee’s present position level.

Employees covered by the

demonstration are not eligible for grade

retention. Pay retention will be granted

to employees downgraded by reduction

in force whose rate of basic pay exceeds

the maximum salary range of the

broadband level to which assigned.

Such employees will be entitled to

retain the rate of basic pay received

immediately before the reduction for a

period of one year or the completion of

one assessment cycle whichever is

longer. The employee will then receive

the pay level or bonus equivalent to

their CCAS rating. If the CCAS rating

indicates a pay level lower than the

current pay level then the CCAS level

becomes the employees new pay level.

Under the demonstration project, all

employees affected by a reduction-inforce action, other than a reassignment,

maintain the right to appeal to the Merit

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) if

they believe the process/procedures

were not properly applied.

Prior to RIF, employees may be

offered a vacant position in the same

broadband as the highest broadband

available by displacement. Employees

may also be offered placement into

vacant positions for which management

has waived the qualifications

requirements. If the employee is not

placed into a vacant position and cannot

be made an offer of assignment via

displacement, the employee shall be

separated.

G. Academic and Certificate Training

Trained and educated personnel are a

critical resource in a higher education

institution. This demonstration

recognizes that training and

development programs are essential to

improving the performance of

individuals in the higher education

workforce, and thereby raising the

overall level of performance of the

higher education workforce, and that a

well-developed training program is a

valuable tool for recruiting and retaining

motivated employees. The HEWP

authorizes degree and certificate

training for HINU employees, and may

contribute payment for these degree and

certificate training programs. HINU will

continue to seek funds from grants and

internal budget to facilitate continuous

acquisition of advanced, specialized

knowledge essential to the higher

education workforce, and provide a

capability to assist in the recruiting and

retaining of personnel critical to the

present and future requirements of the

higher education workforce.

H. Sabbaticals

The President of HINU will have the

authority to grant sabbaticals without

application to higher levels of authority.

These sabbaticals will permit employees

to engage in study, research, or work

experience that contributes to their

development and effectiveness. The

sabbatical provides opportunities for

employees to acquire knowledge and

expertise that cannot be acquired in the

normal working environment. These

opportunities should result in enhanced

employee contribution. The spectrum of

available activities under this program

is limited only by the constraint that the

activity contribute to the institution’s

mission and to the employee’s

development. The program can be used

for advanced education; employee

development; or training with industry

or on-the-job work experience with

public, private, or nonprofit

organizations. It enables an employee to

spend time in an academic or work

environment or to take advantage of the

opportunity to devote full-time effort to

technical, academic, or managerial

research.

The HEWP sabbatical program will be

available to all demonstration project

employees who have seven or more

years of service in the institution. Each

sabbatical will be of three to twelve

months’ duration and must result in a

product, service, report, or study that

will benefit the higher education

community as well as increase the

employee’s individual effectiveness. A

process for application for a sabbatical

will be established by the mechanism to

recommend sabbaticals to the President,

who has final approval authority, and

who must ensure that the program

benefits both the higher education

workforce and the individual employee.

Funding for the employee’s salary and

other expenses of the sabbatical is the

responsibility of the institution.

IV. Training

The key to the success or failure of the

proposed demonstration project will be

the training provided for all involved.

This training will provide not only the

necessary knowledge and skills to carry

out the proposed changes, but will also

lead to participant commitment to the

program.

Training prior to of implementation

and throughout the demonstration will

be provided to supervisors, employees,

and the administrative staff responsible

for assisting managers in effecting the

changeover and operation of the new

system.

The elements to be covered in the

orientation portion of this training will

include: (1) A description of the

personnel system; (2) how employees

are converted into and out of the

system; (3) the pay adjustment and/or

bonus process; (4) the new position

requirements document; (5) the new

classification system; and (6) the

contribution-based compensation and

assessment system.

A. Supervisors

The focus of this project on

management-centered personnel

administration, with increased

supervisory and managerial personnel

management authority and

accountability, demands thorough

training of supervisors and managers in

the knowledge and skills that will

prepare them for their new

responsibilities. Training will include

detailed information on the policies and

procedures of the demonstration project,

as well as skills training in using the

classification system, position

requirements document, and

contribution assessment software

developed for use in the project.

B. Administrative Services Staff

The Vice President for

Administration, the Director of

Personnel and the HEWP administrative

40930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

staff will play a key role in advising,

training, and coaching supervisors and

employees in implementing the

demonstration project. This staff will

receive training in the procedural and

technical aspects of the project.

C. Employees

Prior to implementation, all

employees covered under the

demonstration project will be trained

through various media. This training is

intended to fully inform all affected

employees of all significant project

policies procedures, and processes.

V. Conversion

A. Conversion to the Demonstration

Project

Initial entry into the demonstration

project for covered employees will be

accomplished through a full employeeprotection approach that ensures each

employee’s initial placement into a

broadband level without loss of pay.

There will be no change or adjustment

for General Schedule employees. They

will remain at their current grade and

step. Automatic conversion from the

permanent Wage Grade into the new

broadband system will be

accomplished. Wage Board employees

will be converted to a GS grade

corresponding to the pay rate equal to

or greater than their WG rate. They will

then be placed into the new broadband

system at that GS level.

Adverse action and pay retention

provisions will not apply to the

conversion process, as there will be no

decrease in base pay rate. If the

employee’s rate of basic pay exceeds the

maximum rate of basic pay for the

broadband level corresponding to the

employee’s GS grade, the employee will

remain at that broadband level and will

receive a retained rate.

B. Conversion Back to the Former

System

For demonstration project employees

who were originally in the Wage Board

System and are either moving to a Wage

Grade (WG) position not under the

demonstration project, or if the project

ends and the employee must be

converted back to their original Wage

Grade system, the following procedure

will be used to convert the employee’s

GS grade and step to the corresponding

WG rate of pay. The position will

convert to its original WG classification

and grade. The employee will have their

converted Wage Grade and WG rate of

pay determined before movement or

conversion out of the demonstration

project and any accompanying

geographic movement, promotion, or

other simultaneous action. For

conversions upon termination of the

project and for lateral assignments, the

employees pay will be equal to the

original pay level upon entering the

demonstration project. If they currently

receive a rate of pay greater than their

original rate they will be moved to the

pay level nearest their demonstration

project rate but not less than their

current rate. If their current rate exceeds

pay level five of their previous WG rate

they will retain pay at the rate received

in the demonstration project.

For GS schedule employees there will

be no change from their project based

pay since it is the GS system. Their

current GS grade and rate will become

the employee’s actual GS grade and rate

after leaving the demonstration project

(before any other action). For transfers,

promotions, and other actions, the

current GS grade and rate will be used

in applying any GS pay administration

rules applicable in connection with the

employee’s movement out of the project

(e.g., promotion rules, highest previous

rate rules, pay retention rules) as if the

GS-converted grade and rate were

actually in effect immediately before the

employee left the demonstration project.

3. Employees Receiving a Retained Rate

Under the Project

If an employee is receiving a retained

rate under the demonstration project,

the employee’s GS-equivalent grade is

the highest grade encompassed in his or

her broadband level. The institution

will confer with the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) to prescribe a

procedure for determining WGequivalent pay rates for employees

receiving retained rates.

4. Years of Retention Service Credit and

Contribution Provisions

Employees leaving the demonstration

project will be assigned ratings of record

that conform with pattern E of 5 CFR

430.208(d) based on the years of credit

accumulated for the 3 most recent years

during the last 4 years while under the

demonstration project. Since the

demonstration project does not make

use of summary level designators (e.g.,

Outstanding, Level 5. Highly Successful,

Level 4; Fully Successful, Level 3; or

Unacceptable, Level 1) used in the

appraisal system and programs

constructed under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43

and 5 CFR part 430, the retention

service credit that is based on the OCS.

A score of 100%, Full Performance, or

higher will convert to a satisfactory

rating in the current Federal appraisal

system for the purpose of retention

service credit.

5. Within-Grade Increase—Equivalent

Increase Determinations

Service under the demonstration

project is creditable for within-grade

increase purposes upon conversion back

to the GS pay system. CCAS base salary

increases (including a zero increase)

under the demonstration project are

equivalent increases for the purpose of

determining the commencement of a

within-grade increase waiting period

under 5 CFR 531.405(b).

VI. Project Duration

The project evaluation plan addresses

how each intervention will be

comprehensively evaluated for at least

the first five years of the demonstration

project. Major changes and

modifications to the interventions can

be made through announcement in the

Federal Register. At the five-year point,

the entire demonstration project will be

reexamined for: (a) Permanent

implementation; (b) modification and

additional testing; (c) extension of the

evaluation period; or (d) termination.

VII. Evaluation Plan

Demonstration-authorizing legislation

(Public Law 105–337) mandates

evaluation of the demonstration project

to assess the effects of project features

and outcomes. The overall evaluation

will consist of three phases—baseline,

formative, and summary evaluations.

The evaluation for the HEWP will be

overseen by the Secretary, Department

of the Interior, and Office of Indian

Education Programs (OIEP). The main

purpose of the evaluation is to

determine the effectiveness of the

personnel system changes to be

undertaken. To the extent possible,

strong direct or indirect relationships

will be established between the

demonstration project features,

outcomes, and mission-related changes

and personnel system effectiveness

criteria. The evaluation approach uses

an intervention impact model that

specifies each personnel system change

as an intervention, the expected effects

of each intervention, the corresponding

measures, and the data sources for

obtaining the measures.

During the development of the Higher

Education Workforce Project an

observation was made that while

previous demonstrations had used

similar employee assessments, there

appeared to be no study to show that the

results achieved in the projects derived

from the link between assessment and

compensation. It was suggested that the

outcomes may have resulted from the

change in the work environment when

the new assessment system was

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40931

implemented. Therefore, it was decided

during the evaluation design process

that there should be an internal control

group that would participate in the

assessment process without it affecting

their compensation other than the

current system does. There would still

be an external control group, hereafter

referred to as the comparison group.

With these three groups the effect of the

link between assessment and

contribution could be more closely

examined. The experimental, control

and comparison groups should be as

similar in composition as possible.

However, since the demonstration will

be applied to a diverse group of

employees throughout the institution

and given the size of the participant

pool it may be difficult to evaluate the

comparison group as a whole.

Therefore, the comparison group

members may be selected from the nonparticipant group that most closely

matches the functions performed by the

participant group. Baseline data and

comparisons among the three groups

will be made and the information

recorded and monitored over time.

After completing training on

demonstration project procedures,

employees will be asked to respond

with a decision of their choice to

participate. Once these individuals have

been identified, final selection of the

comparison group will be

accomplished.

The specific measures to be collected

using the different methods are

determined from the goals and

objectives stated for each intervention.

Both qualitative and quantitative

measures will be obtained. Most of the

potential measures can be grouped

around three major effectiveness

criteria: speed, cost, and quality.

Collectively, the outcomes of the

interventions are hypothesized to lead

to institution personnel management

improvements, as reflected by

timeliness, cost effectiveness, and

quality.

Baseline measures will be taken prior

to project implementation. Then,

repeated post-implementation

measurements will be taken to allow

longitudinal comparisons by

intervention within HINU To compare

the effects of the intervention on the

institution, two groups will be used to

evaluate the effects on the personnel

system, a control group located within

the HINU and a comparison group

comprised of employees external to the

institution. These two groups will be

selected and compared to the

experimental group to determine the

effects and outcomes of the project.

The effectiveness of each intervention

and of the demonstration project as a

whole in meeting stated objectives will

be addressed using a multi-approach

method. Some methods will be

unobtrusive in that they do not require

reactions to inputs from employees or

managers. These methods include

analysis of archival workforce data and

personnel office data, review of logs

maintained by site historians

documenting contextual events, and

assessments of external economic and

legislative changes. Other methods,

such as periodic attitude surveys,

structured interviews, and focus groups,

will be used to assess the perceptions of

employees, managers, supervisors, and

personnel regarding the personnel

system changes and the performance of

their institution in general. Evaluation

activities will also take into account the

unique nature of this project in terms of

institutional diversity.

In addition to the intervention impact

model, a general context model will be

used to determine the effects of

potential intervening variables (e.g.,

annual budget, regionalization of the

personnel function, and the general

state of the economy). Potential

unintended outcomes will also be

monitored, and an attempt will be made

by the evaluation team to link the

outcomes of demonstration project

interventions to institutional

effectiveness. In addition to assessing

the impact of the individual

demonstration project features, the

evaluation will also assess the impact of

the project as a whole, along with

possible in-context effects and effects of

intervening variables.

The evaluation will also monitor

impact on veterans and EEO groups,

adherence to the Merit Systems

Principles and avoidance of prohibited

personnel practices. In addition, the

evaluation will attempt to link the

demonstration project effects and

outcomes to institutional outcomes such

as mission accomplishment and

productivity.

The initial evaluation effort will

consist of three main phases—baseline,

formative, and summary evaluation

covering five (5) years. Baseline will

collect workforce data to determine the

‘‘as-is’’; state. The formative evaluation

phase will include baseline data

collection and analyses, implementation

evaluation, and interim assessments.

Periodic reports and annual summaries

will be prepared to document the

findings. The summary evaluation

phase will focus on an overall

assessment of the demonstration project

outcomes, looking initially at the first

four (4) years, with a follow-on report

covering the first five (5) years. The

rationale for summary evaluation after

the first four years is to assess whether

the demonstration will continue after

the fifth year. If the analysis indicates

that the interventions show a positive

effect towards meeting the goals of the

demonstration, then documentation will

be generated to support a request that

the demonstration progress further. If

the analysis indicates that the

interventions do not meet the stated

objectives, or if HINU does not wish to

continue in the demonstration, then

documentation and planning for

conversion back to the existing

personnel system must be prepared. The

fifth-year summary evaluation, used in

reporting to Congress, will provide

overall assessment of all initiatives

individually and as a whole. It will also

provide recommendations on broader

Federal Government application.

VIII. Demonstration Projects Costs

A. Wage Grade to General Schedule

Conversion Buy-Ins

Under this demonstration project,

implementation of the broad banding

pay structure based on the GS pay

structure will incur a conversion cost in

moving Wage Grade employees to the

General Schedule. To facilitate

conversion to this system without loss

of pay, employees will receive a basic

pay increase necessary to bring them

into the General Schedule. As under the

current system, supervisors will be able

to withhold these pay adjustments if the

employee’s performance has fallen

below fully successful.

B. Out-Year Project Costs

The overall demonstration cost

strategy will be to balance projected

costs with benefits of the demonstration

to bring about the projected

improvements to the institution. The

project evaluation results will be used to

ensure that out-year project costs will

not outweigh the derived benefits to the

demonstration. A baseline will be

established at the start of the project,

and salary expenditures will be tracked

yearly. Implementation costs, including

the WG conversion costs detailed above,

will not be included in the cost

evaluations, but will be accounted for

separately.

The amount of money available for

contribution increases in the out-years

will be determined as part of the annual

project evaluation process, starting with

a review of the prior year’s data for

HINU by the Personnel Policy Board,

and then will be reported to the

President of the institution. The funds

determination will be based on a

40932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices

balancing of appropriate factors,

including the following: (1) Historical

spending for WGI, quality step

increases, and in-level career

promotions; (2) labor market conditions

and the need to recruit and retain a

skilled workforce to meet the business

needs of the institution; and (3) the

fiscal condition of the institution. Given

the implications of base pay increases

for long-term pay and benefit costs, the

compensation levels will be determined

after cost analysis with documentation

of the mission-driven rationale for the

amount. As part of the evaluation of the

project, HINU will track the base pay

costs (including average salaries) under

the demonstration project and compared

to the base pay costs under similar

demonstration projects and under a

simulation model that replicates

General Schedule spending. These

evaluations will balance costs incurred

against benefits gained, so that both

fiscal responsibility and project success

are given appropriate weight.

C. Personnel Policy Boards

It is envisioned that HINU shall

establish a Personnel Policy Board for

the demonstration project that will be

representative of the employee

population and chaired by the President

of the institution or delegated

representative. The board is tasked with

the following:

(a) Overseeing the pay budget;

(b) Determining the composition of

the CCAS pay pool in accordance with

the established guidelines and statutory

constraints;

(c) Reviewing operation of the

Institution’s CCAS pay pools;

(d) Providing guidance to pay pool

managers;

(e) Administering funds to CCAS pay

pool managers;

(f) Reviewing hiring and promotion

salaries;

(g) Monitoring award pool

distribution by pay pool; Assessing the

need for changes to the demonstration

project, procedures or policies.

D. Developmental Costs

Costs associated with the

development of the demonstration

system include software automation,

training, and project evaluation. Sitespecific costs for follow-on training,

employee salary conversion, and any inhouse software automation will be

borne by the institution from such

additional sums as may be necessary for

the operation of HINU pursuant to

Public Law 105–337. The projected

annual expenses for each area are

summarized in Table III. Project

evaluation costs will continue for at

least the first five (5) years and may

continue beyond that point. TABLE III

is an example of the format used. Costs

will be determined once an actual plan

is selected.

TABLE III.—PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT COST

[Then year dollar ($K) by fiscal years]

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Personnel Costs ................................................................... 150,000 425,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000

Travel and Per Diem ............................................................ 25,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Training ................................................................................ 25,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Project Evaluation ................................................................ 0 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Automation ........................................................................... 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Data Systems ....................................................................... 0 75,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

IX. Required Waivers to Law and

Regulations

A. Waivers to Title 5, United States

Code

Chapter 5, Section 552a: Records

maintained on individuals. This section

is waived only to the extent required to

clarify that volunteers under the

Voluntary Emeritus Program are

considered employees of the Federal

Government for purposes of this section.

Chapter 31, Section 3111: Acceptance

of volunteer service. This section is

waived only to the extent required to

allow volunteer service under

provisions of the voluntary emeritus

program.

Chapter 33, Section 3308: Competitive

service; examinations; education

requirements prohibited; exceptions (to

the extent necessary to accommodate

the Scholastic Achievement

Appointment’s requirement for a college

degree).

Chapter 33, Section 3317 (a):

Competitive service; certification from

registers (insofar as ‘‘rule of three’’ is

eliminated under the demonstration

project).

Chapter 33, Section 3318 (a): Insofar

as ‘‘rule of three’’ is eliminated under

the demonstration project. Veterans’

preference provisions remain

unchanged.

Chapter 41, Section 4107 (a):

Prohibition of training for academic

degrees.

Chapter 43, Sections 4301–4305

except for 4303 (e) and (f): Related to

performance appraisal. In turn, 4303 (3)

and (f) are waived only to the extent

necessary to (a) substitute ‘‘broadband’’

for ‘‘grade’’ and (2) provide that moving

to a lower broadband as a result of not

receiving the full amount of a general

pay increase because of inadequate

contribution is not an action covered by

the provisions of section 4303.

Chapter 51, Sections 5101–5102 and

Sections 5104–5107: Related to

classification standards and grading.

Chapter 53, Sections 5301; 5302 (8)

and (9); and 5303–5305 and 5331–5336:

Related to special pay and pay rates and

systems (Sections 5301, 5302 (8) and (9),

and 5304 are waived only to the extent

necessary to allow demonstration

project employees to be treated as

General Schedule employees and to

allow basic rates of pay under the

demonstration project to be treated as

scheduled rates of basic pay).

Chapter 53, Section 5362: Grade

retention.

Chapter 53, Section 5363: Pay

retention. This waiver applies only to

the extent necessary to: (1) allow

demonstration project employees to be

treated as General Schedule employees;

(2) provide that pay retention provisions

do not apply to conversions from

General Schedule special rates to

demonstration project pay, as long as

total pay is not reduced; and (3) replace

the term ‘‘grade’’ with ‘‘broadband

level.’’ Chapter 71, to the extent its

provisions (e.g. 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(12) and

7116) would prohibit management or

the union from unilaterally terminating

negotiations over whether the project

will apply to employees represented by

the union.

Chapter 75, Sections 7512(3): Related

to adverse action (but only to the extent

necessary to exclude reductions in

broadband level not accompanied by a

reduction in pay and replace ‘‘grade’’

with ‘‘broadband level’’) and 7512(4):

Related to adverse action (but only to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Notices 40933

the extent necessary to exclude

conversions from a General Schedule

special rate to demonstration project

pay that do not result in a reduction in

the employee’s total rate of pay).

B. Waivers to Title 5, Code of Federal

Regulations

Part 300, Sections 300.601 through

300.605: Time-in-grade restrictions.

Part 308, Volunteer service: Waived to

allow volunteer service under the

provisions of the voluntary emeritus

program.

Part 315, Sections 315.801 and

315.802: Probationary period.

Part 316, Section 316.303: Tenure of

term employees (to the extent that term

employees may compete for permanent

status through local merit promotion

plans).

Part 316, Section 316.305: Eligibility

for within-grade increases.

Part 332, Section 332.402: ‘‘Rule of

three’’ will not be used in the

demonstration project.

Part 332, Section 332.404: Order of

selection is not limited to highest three

eligible.

Part 351, Sections 351.402 through

351.403: Competitive Area and

Competitive Levels; Section 351.504(a)

and (c): Credit for Performance; and

Section 351.601 through .608:

References to competitive levels are

eliminated.

Part 351, Sections 351.701 (b) and (c):

Assignment rights (bump and retreat):

To the extent that the distinction

between bump and retreat is eliminated

and the placement of demonstration

project employees is limited to one

broadband level below the employee’s

present level, except that a preferenceeligible employee with a compensable

service-connected disability of 30

percent or more may displace up to two

broadband levels below the employee’s

present position (or the equivalent of

five General Schedule grades) below the

employee’s present level.

Part 410, Section 410.308(a):

Prohibition of training for academic

degrees.

Part 430, Subpart A and Subpart B:

Performance management; performance

appraisal.

Part 432, Sections 432.101, 432.102,

432.106 and 432.107: (Only to the extent

necessary to (a) substitute broadband for

grade and (2) provide that moving to a

lower broadband as a result of not

receiving the full amount of a general

pay increase because of inadequate

contribution is not an action covered by

the provisions of section 4303).

Part 432, Section 432.103 through

432.105: Performance-based reductionin-grade and removal actions.

Part 451, Sections 451.106(b) and

451.107(b): Awards.

Part 511, Section 511.201: Coverage of

and exclusions from the General

Schedule (To the extent that positions

are covered by broadbanding.) Part 511,

Subpart A; Subpart B; subpart F,

Sections 511.601 through 511.612:

Classification within the General

Schedule; and Subpart G: Effective

Dates of Position Classification Actions

or Decisions.

Part 530, Subpart C: Special salary

rates.

Part 531, Subpart B, Subpart D,

Subpart E: Determining rate of pay;

within-grade increases and quality step

increases.

Part 536, Grade and Pay Retention

(only to the extent necessary to

eliminate grade retention and to provide

that, for the purposes of applying pay

retention provisions: (1) Demonstration

project employees are to be treated as

General Schedule employees; (2) grade

is replaced by Broadband level; and (3)

pay retention provisions do not apply to

conversions from General Schedule

special rates to demonstration project

pay, as long as total pay is not reduced).

Part 550, Sections 550.703: Severance

Pay, definition of ‘‘reasonable offer’’ (by

replacing ‘‘two grade or pay levels’’ with

‘‘one broadband level’’ and ‘‘grade or

pay level’’ with ‘‘broadband level’’).

Part 575, Sections 575.102(a)(1),

575.202(a)(1), 575.302(a)(1), and

Subpart D: Recruitment and relocation

bonuses, and retention allowances, and

supervisory differentials (only to the

extent necessary to allow employees

and positions under the demonstration

project to be treated as employees and

positions under the General Schedule

positions).

Part 752, Sections 752.401(a)(3):

Reduction in grade and pay (but only to

the extent necessary to exclude

reductions in broadband level not

accompanied by a reduction in pay and

to replace grade with broadband level)

and 752.401(a)(4) (but only to the extent

necessary to exclude conversions from a

General Schedule special rate to

demonstration project pay that do not

result in a reduction in the employees’

total rate of pay).

Part 2635, (only to the extent

necessary to allow outside employment

and activities that may conflict with

their official duties and

responsibilities.)

[FR Doc. 00–16430 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P