New Handbook

General Discussion for SMART Scholarship Recipients
empty

New Handbook

Post by empty »

Is anyone else disconcerted by some items in the new handbook?

Specifically, I am concerned by:
Based on the availability of funds, SMART funds the total cost of full-time tuition and approved related educational fees during the academic year (fall through spring). The academic year does not include summer terms. SMART scholarships are tenable at any regionally accredited U.S. college or university. There is no cap on tuition and the amount of a SSPP’s tuition does not affect the length of the service commitment. Approved related educational fees generally include mandatory fees such as student activity and student government fees.
I probably wouldn't have signed a contract that was so wishy washy. What happens if they don't have funds or decide not to pay me or my tuition? Are they still going to try and enforce our obligation or repayment?

Guest

Re: New Handbook

Post by Guest »

I really like how almost every paragraph now starts with "Based on the availability of funds..."

Don't worry, I'm sure our service commitment will remain unchanged regardless of the "availability of funds".

Guest

Re: New Handbook

Post by Guest »

I believe that particular clause was in the handbook before the revisions anyways.

smart_hopeful

Re: New Handbook

Post by smart_hopeful »

Guest wrote:Don't worry, I'm sure our service commitment will remain unchanged regardless of the "availability of funds".
I'd have the opposite worry. Based on the DoD's financial situation and hiring freeze status, it's actually pretty difficult for anyone to be hired at all. I'd rather not finish Phase 2 and be told "That job you thought you had? Hiring freeze killed it. Good luck out there." My SF has a great track record with the program and they're going to do their best, but it's hard to finesse the DoD bureaucracy during these kinds of budget crunches.

empty

Re: New Handbook

Post by empty »

Guest wrote:I believe that particular clause was in the handbook before the revisions anyways.
That wording wasn't in the 2012 version of the handbook I have.

I like the SMART Program (something others can't say), I just wish they'd stop trying to make me not like the SMART Program.

I understand fiscal realities, I just want to be a free agent if they're not going to uphold their portion of the contract. It feels as though their making slight changes so when they do breach the original contract, we don't have a legal recourse.

empty

Re: New Handbook

Post by empty »

P.S. Did anyone else realize that the new handbook also is much more morally flexible on the 1:1 ratio of scholarship-to-service? It is written so that they can decide how many years you owe for every year of scholarship.

If this was a new contract, you'd have to be crazy to sign it.

math_PhD
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:40 pm
Contact:

Re: New Handbook

Post by math_PhD »

They definitely can't make us do an increased ratio of post-graduation service. It says very clearly in the award letter (the document we actually signed), that it's 1:1 (in 2012).

However, I'm concerned about the new handbook as well. First of all, in Section 1: Applicability, it states that the handbook is a transitional document, but new versions always apply to ALL cohorts. So they can just keep changing the rules and we have to abide by them? It doesn't seem like they can actually do that. Obviously the rules are just going to get more and more unfavorable towards the scholars as they lose money. Also, they are transferring the running of SMART to DoD components; that's worrisome. More new rules.

It never says what happens to you if your SF isn't able to hire you, not because of your non-compliance but because they don't have a position. This is something they have to address, as it's obviously going to be a problem.

upsetSMART

Re: New Handbook

Post by upsetSMART »

math_PhD wrote:They definitely can't make us do an increased ratio of post-graduation service. It says very clearly in the award letter (the document we actually signed), that it's 1:1 (in 2012).

However, I'm concerned about the new handbook as well. First of all, in Section 1: Applicability, it states that the handbook is a transitional document, but new versions always apply to ALL cohorts. So they can just keep changing the rules and we have to abide by them? It doesn't seem like they can actually do that. Obviously the rules are just going to get more and more unfavorable towards the scholars as they lose money. Also, they are transferring the running of SMART to DoD components; that's worrisome. More new rules.

It never says what happens to you if your SF isn't able to hire you, not because of your non-compliance but because they don't have a position. This is something they have to address, as it's obviously going to be a problem.
In my copyright law for engineers class, we did a few weeks on contract law. IIRC, unlimited unilateral contract changes are invalid. Otherwise, nothing would be stopping them from just saying "It's now a 10:1 ratio or 100:1 ration for payback", and keep us for life. I know cell phone companies do unilateral changes often, which creates a 30 day window where you can sever the contract without repercussions by simply contesting the changes. With funds tight, I would be surprised if they are actually checking to see if what they are doing is even legal. Going off the SMART programs coercive tactics for those in the Army Core of Engineers (Forcing people to sign longer contracts to fulfill a shorter contract is blatantly illegal, and highly immoral).

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer myself, but personally I'm not too worried about crazy handbook clauses impacting me. If something really insane rule change that hurt me financially or career wise was published, I'm fairly confident a lawsuit action would out in my favor.

smart_hopeful

Re: New Handbook

Post by smart_hopeful »

Obligatory "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer.

Here is a link to the actual, no-kidding, congressionally-passed black letter law govorning the SMART program: 10 USC 2192a.

The bad news (as I interpret it):
For the purposes of this subsection, the period of obligated service for a recipient of financial assistance under this section shall be the period determined by the Secretary of Defense as being appropriate to obtain adequate service in exchange for such financial assistance. The period of service required of a recipient may not be less than the total period of pursuit of a degree that is covered by such financial assistance. The period of obligated service is in addition to any other period for which the recipient is obligated to serve in the civil service of the United States.
Ie, the 1:1 ratio is not actually set by the law. It's at the discretion of the SecDef. I assume that the document we signed represents his determination of an appropriate service period and follows the usual rules of contracts in that it can't be unilaterally changed by one party. But take it as you will.

The good news (as I interpret it):
The Secretary of Defense—(1) may, without regard to any provision of title 5 governing appointment of employees to competitive service positions within the Department of Defense, appoint to a position in the Department of Defense in the excepted service an individual who has successfully completed an academic program for which a scholarship or fellowship under this section was awarded and who, under the terms of the agreement for such scholarship or fellowship, at the time of such appointment, owes a service commitment to the Department; and (2) may, upon satisfactory completion of 2 years of substantially continuous service by an incumbent who was appointed to an excepted service position under the authority of paragraph (1), convert the appointment of such individual, without competition, to a career or career conditional appointment.
Ie, all the usual rules of hiring freezes, billet limitations, and so on can be overriden by the SMART program. This is provided, of course, that the SecDef does not object. But it's my understanding that "The Secretary of Defense may..." in practice means "This is the way it will happen unless he specifically vetoes it".

I'm very interested to hear from people who're more familiar with the law and the inner workings of the program, but I'm hopeful the text of the law will give us some insight.

empty

Re: New Handbook

Post by empty »

I have relatives who are corporate lawyers and looked at both the 2012 and 2013 iterations of the handbook. Without going into too many details, here are some take home points:

1. If you signed a document saying they can edit the contract at any time as long as they give you notice, then they can in fact modify the contract at any time and you need to abide those changes (this was surprising to me).

Sub-note 1: Courts tend to rule in favor of a "highly disadvantaged" side on a contract dispute in cases where major changes are made. I was told that based on our relatively lucrative benefits for the SMART program that it would be unlikely that a judge would rule we had been "highly disadvantaged" by the contract (I know some of you will disagree with that assessment, but it was their opinion as corporate lawyers).

2. The 2012 handbook was likely written by a policy person or well-intentioned civil servant. The 2013 handbook has gone through vetting or writing by someone with Law experience.

3. The updates are designed to protect the DoD and they are preparing for the possibility of dissolving the program if it becomes necessary. This is not to say that they will, but the conditional language is designed to protect them against an eventuality.

Guest

Re: New Handbook

Post by Guest »

Empty, your post seems like the most likely explanation for the handbook verbiage changes. Thanks for posting!

Post Reply