Harvard must revise by August 1 more than 20 deficiencies cited by the Federal Government in its rejection of Harvard's non-discriminatory hiring plan.

Walter J. Leonard, special assistant to President Bok, said yesterday that he is "certain" Harvard will be ready with its revisions of the affirmative action program within the prescribed time-limit.

The major factor in the rejection of the University's affirmative action plan was the absence of a departmental breakdown of goals and timetables in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the hiring of women and minority group members.

President Bok early this week received projections from the Faculty's department chairmen regarding how many faculty and staff positions will become available in each department during the next two years, and estimates of the numbers of women and minority group members who may fill these posts.

Bok also requested utilization analyses from each of the department chairmen. These statistics on women and minority group members holding appointments, and on the available labor pool, are used to locate areas of apparent "underrepresentation" and to substantiate the departments' projections.

In addition to its objections to the subdivision of goals and timetables, HEW on June 13 also outlined its dissatisfaction with the following:

* the University's present nepotism policy;

* the status and authority of the office of Walter J. Leonard, special assistant to President Bok and coordinator of the University's affirmative action program;

Salary Review

* the existing procedures for employee salary review;

* the composition and powers of the University Equal Employment Opportunity Committee;

* the lack of job descriptions for the various categories of administrative employees exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for the faculty; and,

* the lack of a clear organizational chart for the University.

In one of its most lengthy objections to the plan, which was submitted on May 1, the HEW review stated that Leonard "does not have sufficient authority to effectively impelment, coordinate or monitor the affirmative action plan," as demanded by HEW regulations.

Leonard said yesterday his office does not have a large enough staff to implement and administer the affirmative action plan readily throughout the University.

He explained yesterday that his office "does not dictate [University] policy, but initiate ideas and plans." "I try persuasion and some cajoling," Leonard said, but he added that he does not have final say in the formulation of policy.

He suggested that each of the large faculties ought to have at least one person with central and designated authority to insure equal opportunity and the implementation of the plan itself, with final coordination and overseeing responsibility resting in his office.

Leonard said that he returned a five page memorandum to HEW's regional office explaining "how I spend my time," since there was some question in HEW's rejection notification letter concerning his status.

In response to the HEW call for expansion of job description. Leonard said that the assignment of certain descriptions of jobs such as those of faculty members would be "nothing more than an exercise in futility."

The University's nepotism policy, which the HEW reviewer described as "obscure" and apparently operating "in a discriminatory fashion against women." will be rewritten to conform with the policy of the American Association of University Professors.

"All we want is a system where candidates are judged fairly on their merits," Leonard said. "No one's application should be weighted by family connections to the exclusion of other applicants with similar or superior qualifications."

Leonard said that although the present policy could be "construed" to be discriminatory against women, he does not know exactly what HEW "wants" with regard to a nepotism policy. But he speculated that "what they want is no policy at all." which he said would "open up possibilities for abuse."

Some of HEW's objections to Harvard's most recent affirmative action plan have already been ironed out in verbal discussions with agency representatives, Leonard said yesterday.

These questions included:

* whether goals in various job categories were fair and how the projections were arrived at;

* how many special interest groups--minority and women--were consulted during the formulation of the plan;

* whether documentation existed showing that all union agreements with the University contain no discriminatory clauses; and.

* whether the maternity leave policy violates Federal rulings by setting time limits for paid leaves of absence