U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness

Classification Appeals and FLSA Programs

Washington Oversight Division

1900 E Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20415

Linda Kazinetz

Classification Appeals Officer

June 22, 2000 Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, this decision constitutes a classification certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government. The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision. There is no right of further appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under the conditions and time limits specified in title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, sections 511.605, 511.613, and 511.614, as cited in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Decision sent to:

[appellant]

Ms. Carolyn Cohen

Director of Personnel

Department of the Interior

Mail Stop 5221

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

[regional personnel officer]

Mr. Lynn Smith

Chief Personnel Officer

National Park Service

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

Introduction

On March 17, 2000, the San Francisco Oversight Division of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) accepted a position classification appeal from [appellant], who is employed as a Park Manager (Superintendent), GS-025-14, at [park], [region], National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior, in [city and State]. (The appeal was subsequently reassigned to the Washington Oversight Division.) [Appellant] requested that his position be classified as GS-025-15. This appeal was accepted and decided under the provisions of section 5112 of title 5, United States Code.

Telephone interviews were conducted by a Washington Oversight Division representative with the appellant on June 8, 2000, and with the appellant's first-line supervisor, [name], on June 20, 2000. This appeal was decided by considering the audit findings and all information of record furnished by the appellant and his agency, including his official position description, number 8121-001, most recently certified by the servicing personnel office as Park Manager (Superintendent), GS-025-14, on October 5, 1999.

General Issues

The appellant makes various statements about his agency's actions in evaluating his position. In adjudicating this appeal, our only concern is to make an independent decision on the proper classification of the position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, 5112). Therefore, we have considered the appellant's statements only insofar as they are relevant to making that comparison.

The appellant also compares his position to certain other park superintendent positions. Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant's position to others as a basis for deciding his appeal.

Position Information

The appellant, as the superintendent of [park], directs and supervises the overall management and operation of the park, including natural resources management, visitor protection, interpretation, visitor services, cultural resources management, maintenance, concession management, administration, land acquisition, research, planning, and facility development. [Identifying information about park.]

Series Determination

The appellant's position is properly assigned to the Park Ranger Series, GS-025, which covers positions the primary duties of which are to supervise, manage, and/or perform work in the conservation and use of Federal park resources. Neither the appellant nor the agency disagrees.

Title Determination

The appellant's position is correctly titled as Park Manager, which is the authorized title for positions of the park general manager who directs personnel, controls and guides the use of funds and resources, and performs important public relations activities. Neither the appellant nor the agency disagrees.

Grade Determination

The position classification standard for the GS-025 series does not provide grade-level criteria for Park Manager positions, and instructs that such positions be evaluated by use of other standards covering comparable management and administrative work, such as the Forestry Series, GS-460, Part II (Administration). However, because that standard provides grade-level criteria to the GS-14 level only, it is not useful in this case.

The appellant's position was evaluated using the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). This is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory positions in the General Schedule. The GSSG has six evaluation factors, each with several factor level definitions and corresponding point values. Positions are evaluated by crediting the points designated for the highest level met under each factor, and converting the total to a grade by using the grade conversion table provided in the guide.

The evaluation submitted for the appellant's position in connection with this appeal was originally prepared by a contract classifier and supported the requested GS-15 classification. When it was forwarded to the [region] Personnel Office for approval, the Personnel Officer did not agree with its conclusion and revised the evaluation of Factor 5. The appellant disagrees with the agency's factor level assignment for that factor. We concur with the agency's evaluation of Factor 5, and in addition disagree with the contract classifier's evaluation of Factors 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect

The element Scope addresses the complexity and breadth of the program directed and the services delivered. The geographic and organizational coverage of the program within the agency structure is included under this element.

Under Scope, the position exceeds Level 1-2 in terms of the complexity of the work directed (i.e., administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable work.) An illustration provided at that level is a position responsible for directing the budget, staffing, payroll, supply, maintenance, protective, or library services supporting a typical national park. The appellant is responsible for directing overall park operations which include a range of administrative, technical, protective, and professional functions, which is more aligned with Level 1-3 complexity (i.e., technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work.)

The position also exceeds Level 1-2 in terms of the breadth of the work (i.e., where the services provided have limited geographic coverage and support the activities of a typical agency field office, area office, small to medium military installation, or comparable activities within an agency structure.) This level is illustrated by the following examples:

- Directing budget, management, staffing, supply, maintenance, protective, library, payroll, or similar services supporting a small military base, typical national park, hospital, or nondefense agency field office of moderate size and limited complexity. The services provided directly impact other functions and activities throughout the organizations supported and/or a small population of visitors or users. This illustration applies principally to positions that provide services internal to the organization supported and thus is not applicable to the appellant's position.

- In a field office providing services to the general public, furnishes a portion of such services to a small population of clients, equivalent to all of the citizens or businesses in a portion of a small city (either concentrated or spread over a wider geographic area.) Since the appellant directs overall park operations rather than just specific administrative functions, and his work consequently encompasses the park's overall public mission rather than merely supporting its internal operations through the provision of administrative services, this illustration provides a more valid basis for comparison.

The position exceeds Level 1-2 breadth in that park visitation, estimated at over half a million annually, exceeds figures that would be considered typical for a field office providing services to the general public in a portion of a small city.

The element Effect addresses the external impact of the program.

Under Effect, the position likewise exceeds Level 1-2, where services are provided to a moderate, local, or limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city or rural county. The position meets Level 1-3, where, at the field activity level, it relates to large, complex, multimission organizations and/or very large serviced populations comparable to the below example:

In providing services directly to the general public, furnishes a significant portion of the agency's line program to a moderate-sized population of clients. The size of the population serviced by the position is the equivalent of a group of citizens and/or businesses in several rural counties, a small city, or a portion of a larger metropolitan area. Depending on total population serviced by the agency and the complexity and intensity of the service itself, however, the serviced population may be concentrated in one specific geographic area, or involve a significant portion of a multistate population, or be composed of a comparable group.

The external impact of the appellant's program is comparable to the illustration above, as the appellant's work encompasses the full range of the agency's traditional line program operations, furnished to a population of visitors comparable in numbers to a small city, drawn primarily from throughout [State].

Level 1-3 is credited.	550 points

Factor 2, Organizational Setting

This factor considers the organizational situation of the supervisory position in relation to higher levels of management.

The appellant reports directly to the [region] Deputy Regional Director, a GS-15 position, who in turn reports to the Regional Director (SES). This is consistent with Level 2-2, in that the appellant is accountable to a position that is one reporting level below the first SES position in the direct supervisory chain.

Level 2-2 is credited.	250 points

Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised

This factor covers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities exercised on a recurring basis.

The appellant's delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities fully meet Level 3-3b in its description of various second-level (or higher) supervisory functions. Level 3-4 requires that, in addition to those criteria, positions meet the criteria in either paragraphs a or b.

The position does not meet Level 3-4a, which involves the exercise of delegated authority to oversee the planning, direction, and execution of a program or several program segments. (The GSSG defines a program as the mission, functions, and activities which an agency is authorized and funded by statute to administer and enforce, usually of such magnitude that they must be carried out through a combination of line and staff functions.) This is program management work that includes such functions as approving multiyear and longer work plans, overseeing the revision of long-range goals and objectives, managing the development of policy changes, managing organizational changes or major changes to the structure and content of the programs directed, and exercising discretionary authority to approve the allocation and distribution of funds. This level applies to managerial positions responsible for broad programs or functions at higher organizational levels than the appellant's position. The appellant works at the lowest organizational level of the agency. He is not responsible for managing an overall program as that term is intended in the GSSG, but rather for directing the execution of program activities at the field level.

The position also does not meet Level 3-4b, which involves exercising final authority for the full range of personnel actions and organization design proposals recommended by subordinate supervisors. The Deputy Regional Director indicated that all proposed selections for division chief positions within the parks, regardless of grade level, must be submitted to the Regional Office for approval. This is not a simple clearance procedure but rather a complete review of the recruitment process by the Deputy Regional Director, including the recruitment efforts, the merit promotion certificate, the finalists identified by the appellant, and the appellant's selection justification. Recommending selections for subordinate supervisory positions, which accurately characterizes this arrangement, is included at Level 3-3b. Level 3-4b is the highest level of supervisory authority described, intended for those situations where supervisors have virtually full personnel management authority for their units. These controls on the selection of division chief positions in effect limit the appellant's authority in filling the top management jobs in his park. Further, Level 3-4b applies to supervisors over very large organizations whose size and complexity would allow for organizational redesigns by subordinate supervisors. Most of the divisions under the appellant are not large enough to permit any significant flexibility in the way the work is structured and organized.

Level 3-3 is credited.	775 points

Factor 4, Personal Contacts

This is a two-part factor which assesses the nature and purpose of the personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of the contacts, credited under subfactor 4A, and the purpose of those contacts, credited under subfactor 4B, must be based on the same contacts.

Subfactor 4A, Nature of Contacts

To be credited under this subfactor, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, and require direct contact.

The appellant's contacts meet Level 4A-3, where contacts are with high ranking managers at agency headquarters; key staff of public interest groups; journalists of influential city or county newspapers or radio and television coverage; Congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants; contracting officials of large industrial firms; local officers of regional or national public action groups; or State and local government managers. These contacts normally take place in meetings and conferences and often require extensive preparation of briefing materials. The appellant has recurring contacts with higher-level bureau management, officials of other Federal agencies within the same geographic area, State and local government officials, staff of various conservation groups, and representatives of the local media.

The position does not meet Level 4A-4, where there are frequent contacts with regional or national officers of public action groups; key staff of congressional committees and principal assistants to senators and representatives (e.g., majority and minority staff directors or chief counsels); elected or appointed representatives of State and local governments; journalists of major metropolitan, regional, or national newspapers, magazines, television, or radio; or heads of bureaus and higher level organizations in other Federal agencies. These contacts take place in meetings, conferences, briefings, speeches, presentations, or oversight hearings and may require extemporaneous response to unexpected or hostile questioning. Preparation typically includes briefing packages or similar presentation materials, requires extensive analytical input by the employee and subordinates, and/or involves the assistance of a support staff. This is the highest level of contacts described in the guide.

There is no evidence that the appellant has any contacts of this nature. Although he may occasionally meet with some of these individuals, such as elected officials or journalists of large newspapers, the issues discussed would not be of the magnitude or importance as to require the degree of preparation described at this level. He may have intermittent contact with the local congressional representatives, but he does not have contacts with key congressional staff. Overall, his contacts are more local than regional/national in scope. If he does have any contacts indicative of this level (e.g., accompanying the Director, NPS, to a congressional hearing), he serves in a support capacity to higher-level management rather than as the principal agency representative.

Level 4A-3 is credited.	75 points

Subfactor 4B, Purpose of Contacts

This subfactor covers the purpose of the personal contacts credited under subfactor 4A.

The purpose of the appellant's contacts are consistent with Level 4B-3, where the purpose of the contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the organizational unit directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, or hearings involving problems of considerable consequence or importance.

The position does not meet Level 4B-4, where the purpose of the contacts is to influence, motivate, or persuade persons or groups to accept opinions or take actions related to advancing the fundamental goals and objectives of the program directed, or involving the commitment or distribution of major resources, when intense opposition or resistance is encountered due to significant organizational or philosophical conflict, competing objectives, major resource limitations or reductions, or comparable issues. The organizational level of the appellant's position (i.e., field level) does not permit regular involvement in the types of broad program issues expected at this level of contacts.

Level 4B-3 is credited.	100 points

Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed, and that constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload of the organization.

The appellant argues that his position should be credited with a GS-12 base level under this factor. To support this argument, he contends that several of his subordinates should be credited with performing higher-graded work for the percentage of time spent acting for others (for example, that the GS-13 branch chiefs who report directly to him should be credited as GS-14 for the percentage of time that they act for him as specified in their position descriptions, and that the GS-12 employees who report to those branch chiefs should in turn be credited as GS-13 for the percentage of time that they act for them.) However, time spent in acting for higher-graded employees cannot be credited for base level purposes. The objective of Factor 5 is to determine the percentage of the unit's overall workload at various grade levels under the supervision of the position in question. Acting for another employee does not increase a unit's basic workload, it merely distributes it among more than one employee. Crediting time spent in an acting capacity would have the effect of double-crediting the same work. Further, it would be incorrect to assume that acting employees are truly performing higher-graded work, since those grades are usually predicated on the exercise of certain supervisory or programmatic authorities that are not delegated to others for short acting periods. These considerations are in addition to the basic premise that Factor 5 excludes from base-level crediting all supervisory work, regardless of the capacity in which it is carried out.

The appellant also contends that certain of his subordinates are performing higher-graded work than is credited in the classification of their positions. Specifically, he claims that the Chief of Interpretation and the Chief Ranger, both classified at the GS-13 level, are performing nonsupervisory work at the GS-14 level. Our review of their position descriptions does not reveal any obvious basis for this assertion. The work cited by the appellant, that these employees perform certain representational functions (the Chief Ranger) and may be required to occasionally perform assignments for the NPS Washington Office (the Chief of Interpretation), is not in itself sufficient to support a GS-14 classification. The appellant also argues that the Administrative Officer, currently classified at the GS-12 level, should be classified at GS-13, even though his request to upgrade this position was denied by the Regional Personnel Office. Our review of their rationale confirms the current classification and, in the absence of any further supporting documentation, we cannot credit this position at higher than its current grade. Lastly, the appellant contends that the Chief of Cultural Resources Management, currently classified at the GS-12 level, should be classified at GS-13, and that he is revising the position description for proposed reclassification by the Regional Personnel Office. Again, we cannot credit a position for performing work beyond its current grade level without any substantiating documentation, including verification by the servicing personnel office exercising original classification authority for the position. In summary, no credit was given for any of these positions for work beyond their current grade levels.

The appellant argues that three research-oriented positions (GS-14 Ecologist, GS-13 Marine Research Ecologist, and GS-12 Terrestrial Research Ecologist) that were excluded from base level consideration by the Regional Personnel Office should be credited. The GS-14 Ecologist serves as the Marine Research Manager. Although the appellant observes that this employee serves as a full member of his management team and is under his administrative control, the position description clearly states that the employee works with technical and programmatic independence in managing the park research programs, receiving program guidance from the Regional Chief Scientist and other coastal park superintendents. The GSSG excludes from base level consideration work that is graded based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision. The GS-12 and GS-13 positions are employees of the U.S. Geological Service, duty-stationed at [park]. Although they may be treated as park employees for many administrative purposes (e.g., procurement, personnel, travel, timekeeping, and property management), the appellant does not have full administrative supervisory control over these employees. He provides input to any personnel decisions affecting these employees, but he does not have final authority for their selection, promotion, performance appraisal, or any required disciplinary actions. Therefore, they are properly excluded from consideration.

The appellant, in his evaluation of his own position, excluded from consideration all of the Federal Wage System (FWS) positions under his supervision, except for the Small Craft Operator Supervisor, WG-5788-12 (Chief of Transportation), which he credited as a GS-12. First, the GSSG explicitly states that Federal Wage System employees should be included in the workload calculation. Second, a direct correspondence cannot be made between GS and FWS grades. Rather, FWS grades must be converted to their GS equivalent by comparing the duties performed to related GS classification standards. This is addressed in more detail below.

The appellant also contends that all subordinate positions below the GS-9 level should be excluded from the workload calculation as "support" positions. The GSSG excludes from consideration "the work of lower level positions that primarily support or facilitate the basic work of the unit." This refers to positions that involve the performance of general support work where the employee has no responsibility for carrying out the mission-oriented work of the unit in which the position is located, i.e., the workload that the unit is essentially established to perform. This support work may be clerical in nature, or it may consist of low-graded manual labor work. In either case, the work does not require any of the specialized knowledges and skills associated with the basic substantive work of the unit. Within this context, the GS-7 Personnel Assistant and Purchasing Agent positions clearly involve the performance of specialized functions associated with their respective administrative fields, and those administrative fields represent the basic work of the Administration Division. Likewise, the GS-5 Biological Technician positions (and the Archeological Technician positions) involve the performance of certain technical processes directly associated with the mission-oriented work of their respective units. Therefore, these positions are properly included in the workload calculation.

The below listing shows the positions we included in the appellant's basic (mission-oriented) nonsupervisory workload and the grade levels at which they were credited. Supervisory positions were credited only for that portion of time spent on nonsupervisory work as documented in their position descriptions. (Some of these figures may not withstand close examination as the time percentages spent on supervision seem artificially low given the size of the subordinate staffs. Any possible overestimation of time spent on nonsupervisory work would tend to pull the base level upward and thus serve to the appellant's advantage.) For the sake of argument, we gave the appellant's position the maximum benefit of the doubt by assuming that all nonsupervisory employees are spending 100 percent of their time on work classifiable at their actual grade levels, although as a practical matter most positions spend at least a portion of their time on lower-level work.

The listing also shows subordinate Federal Wage System positions with their adjusted GS-equivalent grades. Generally, FWS positions would rarely exceed the GS-7 level when compared to related General Schedule classification standards. This is because the GS-9 level is normally indicative of the various two-grade interval professional and administrative series. These series are characterized by the performance of work that requires either professional education and training, or a high order of analytical ability combined with a comprehensive knowledge of the functions, processes, and principles of management, and the methods used to gather, analyze, and evaluate information. Administrative positions do not require specialized education, but they do require the type of skills (analysis, research, writing, judgment, and oral communication) typically gained through college level education or through progressively responsible experience. In contrast, the various one-grade interval series, which generally do not exceed the GS-7 level, cover support or technical work. This type of work involves following established methods and procedures related to the individual assignment or immediate work unit. The work can be performed based on a practical knowledge of the purpose, operation, procedures, and techniques of the specific functional assignment, and may be learned through many years of experience or specific training courses. The nature of FWS work is more closely aligned with this lower-graded technical work in terms of the skills utilized and the means by which those skills are acquired.

As a general measurement, the appellant's FWS subordinates graded at WG-9 and above were considered equivalent to GS-7, whereas those at WG-7 were considered equivalent to GS-5.

We included in the workload calculation temporary or term positions that are long-term or that appear to be continuing assignments.

GS-13

.85 Supervisory Park Ranger, GS-025

.60 Supervisory Park Ranger, GS-025

.45 Supervisory Natural Resources Management Specialist, GS-401

.25 Facility Manager, GS-1640

2.15

GS-12

1.0 Contract Specialist, GS-1102

.50 Administrative Officer, GS-341

.80 Historian, GS-170

.75 Supervisory Natural Resources Management Specialist, GS-401

.75 Supervisory Natural Resources Management Specialist, GS-401

3.80

GS-11

1.0 Personnel Management Specialist, GS-201

1.0 Budget Analyst, GS-560

1.0 Education Coordinator, GS-1701

1.0 Archaeologist, GS-193

5.0 Park Ranger, GS-025

1.0 Biologist, GS-401

1.0 Ecologist, GS-408

1.0 Wildlife Biologist, GS-486

1.0 Marine Biologist, GS-401

1.0 Botanist, GS-430

2.0 Natural Resources Management Specialist, GS-401

1.0 Information Management Student Trainee, GS-399

.75 Supervisory Park Ranger, GS-025

17.75

GS-9

10.0 Park Ranger, GS-025

GS-8

1.0 Biological Science Technician, GS-404

GS-7

1.0 Personnel Assistant, GS-203

1.0 Purchasing Agent, GS-1105

2.0 Maintenance Mechanic, WG-4749-9

3.0 Engineering Equipment Operator, WG-5716-11

1.0 Carpenter, WG-4607-9

5.0 Small Craft Operator, WG-5706-12

1.0 Deckhand, WG-5708-9

14.0

GS-6

1.0 Biological Science Technician, GS-404

GS-5

1.0 Archaeological Technician, GS-102

4.0 Biological Science Technician, GS-404

1.0 Maintenance Worker, WG-4749-7

1.0 Ranch Hand, WG-4701-7

7.0

GS-4

1.0 Archaeological Technician, GS-102

Total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload: 57.70

Percentage of nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload at each grade level:

GS-13: 4%

GS-12: 7%

GS-11: 31%

GS-9: 17%

GS-8: 2%

GS-7: 24%

GS-6: 2%

GS-5: 12%

GS-4: 2%

The base level of work supervised by the appellant is GS-11, that being the highest grade constituting 25 percent or more of the workload of the unit.

The GSSG recognizes that for second (and higher) level supervisors, sometimes "heavy supervisory or managerial workload related to work above the base level may be present." In those cases, the GSSG permits using the "highest level of nonsupervisory work directed which requires at least 50 percent of the duty time of the supervisory position under evaluation" for this factor. However, this alternative method is not appropriate for the appellant's position. First, the appellant does not supervise a heavy nonsupervisory workload above the GS-11 base level (only 11% of the total unit workload, or approximately six man-years, with this figure being inflated as it relates to nonsupervisory work being performed by subordinate supervisors.) Second, the relative freedom from supervision inherent in the GS-12 and GS-13 level positions undermines the likelihood that the appellant would devote 50 percent of his time to overseeing this small workload.

Level 5-6 is credited.	800 points

Factor 6, Other Conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities. If the level selected under this factor is either 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, and if three or more of the eight Special Situations described are met, the original level selected is increased by one level. If the level selected is either 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations do not apply, and the original level selected is credited.

The appellant's position meets Level 6-4, where supervision requires substantial coordination and integration of major work assignments of professional, scientific, technical, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-11 level.

The position does not meet any of the three conditions required for Level 6-5. Level 6-5a is not met because the work coordinated and integrated by the appellant is not equivalent to the GS-12 level, and Level 6-5b is not met because the work directed by the appellant is not equivalent to GS-13. Level 6-5c involves managing work through subordinate supervisors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-11 level. While GS-11 is the base level of work directed by the appellant, his subordinate supervisors do not individually direct substantial workloads of GS-11 work. Of the appellant's seven subordinate supervisors, one has seven nonsupervisory GS-11 staff members, three have three nonsupervisory GS-11 staff members, one has one GS-11 nonsupervisory staff member, and two have none. Thus, the majority of the GS-11 workload resides in one division. Further, the subordinate supervisors do not expend a significant amount of time actually supervising GS-11 work or any other work of the unit. Several of them supervise rather small staffs and, according to their position descriptions, the majority of their time is spent on personally performed work rather than on supervision. (This work was credited toward the base level under factor 5.)

Level 6-4 is credited.	1120 points

Summary

Factors	Level	Points

Program Scope and Effect	1-3	550

Organizational Setting	2-2	250

Supervisory/Managerial Authority	3-3	775

Personal Contacts

Nature of Contacts	4A-3	75

Purpose of Contacts	4B-3	100

Difficulty of Work Directed	5-6	800

Other Conditions	6-5	1120

Total	3670

The total of 3670 points falls within the GS-14 range (3605-4050) on the grade conversion chart provided in the GSSG.

Decision

The appealed position is properly classified as Park Manager, GS-025-14.