Reduction In Force In The Bia

Author : U S Government Accountability Office (G
Publisher : BiblioGov
ISBN 13 : 9781289097035
Total Pages : 38 pages
Book Rating : 4.0/5 (97 download)

DOWNLOAD NOW!

Download or read book Personnel Practices written by U S Government Accountability Office (G and published by BiblioGov. This book was released on 2013-06 with total page 38 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) personnel practices and policies and selected personnel actions involving 12 employees to determine the propriety of: (1) a waiver of BIA rules requiring Indian preference in reassignments occurring due to reductions-in-force (RIF); (2) personnel details under Indian preference law and under BIA and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rules; and (3) the noncompetitive appointment of a non-Indian to a Senior Executive Service (SES) position. GAO found that: (1) Indians represented 96 percent of BIA employees in grades 1 through 7, compared to 65 percent in grades 13 and up; (2) 72 percent of BIA central office employees were Indians, compared to 82 percent at its area offices; and (3) as of December 1987, non-Indian employees occupied 33 key positions, 18 were appointed as best qualified with no qualified Indians available, 7 were selected based on tribes granting waivers of Indian preference, 5 were reassigned due to RIF, and 3 were detailed. GAO also found that BIA improper personnel actions against 5 of the 12 employees included: (1) an improper waiver of BIA rules requiring Indian preference in reassignments; (2) 1 detail that violated Indian preference law; (3) 5 instances in which details did not comply with applicable rules; and (4) 1 instance of nonadherence to the unwritten policy of advertising an SES position before the Department of the Interior filled the position with a non-Indian. In addition, GAO found that: (1) in 1984, the annual report on internal controls identified BIA noncompliance with its internal rules and procedures and BIA failure to routinely conduct personnel evaluations in its area offices; and (2) although OPM suggested that BIA conduct a personnel management evaluation, as of March 1988, BIA did not plan to do so.