[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40912-40933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16430]



[[Page 40911]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part VIII





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Bureau of Indian Affairs



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Higher Education Workforce Project; Notice

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

[[Page 40912]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected].

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

[[Page 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 non-academic 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 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.

    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 high-achieving 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

[[Page 40914]]

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 third-party 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

[[Page 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. Two-thirds 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 e-mail 
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) Institution-controlled 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

[[Page 40916]]

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 re-engineered 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-

[[Page 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 pass-
over or objection procedures.
    The on-site Personnel Director will serve as a consultant during 
the hiring

[[Page 40918]]

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 one-year 
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

[[Page 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 
blue-collar 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.

[[Page 40920]]



                                                            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.

[[Page 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. Re-delegated 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 Contribution-based 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 performance-based 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 under-compensated, and smaller-than-average increases are 
permitted for employees who are deemed to be over-compensated 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 customer-focused. 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

[[Page 40922]]

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 non-managerial 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

[[Page 40923]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JN00.060

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

[[Page 40924]]

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 
under-compensated. 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))x100______%

    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

[[Page 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 
within-grade 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 three-year waiting cycle for the receipt of a WGI, and 
does not obtain an adequate

[[Page 40926]]

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 over-compensated 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 over- compensated category. Over time, all employees in the 
over- and under-compensated 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 
grievance-arbitration 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

[[Page 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-in-Pay 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-in-pay 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 contribution-based 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 contribution-
based 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 mid-point 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

[[Page 40928]]

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 over-compensated 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

[[Page 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-in-force 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

[[Page 40930]]

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 employee-protection 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 WG-equivalent 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

[[Page 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 non-participant 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

[[Page 40932]]

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. Site-
specific costs for follow-on training, employee salary conversion, and 
any in-house 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

[[Page 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 preference-eligible 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 
reduction-in-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