[Senate Hearing 113-412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-412
WASTE AND ABUSE IN NATIONAL GUARD SPONSORSHIP AND MARKETING CONTRACTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL AND
CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2014
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-682 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Deputy Staff Director
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Lauren M. Corcoran, Hearing Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL AND CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
MARK BEGICH, Alaska KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Margaret Daum, Majority Staff Director
Rachel Weaver, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator McCaskill............................................ 1
Senator Johnson.............................................. 3
WITNESSES
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Major General Judd H. Lyons, Acting Director, Army National
Guard, National Guard Bureau................................... 4
Kathy A. Salas, Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting,
National Guard Bureau.......................................... 6
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Lyons, Major General Judd H.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Salas, Kathy A.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
APPENDIX
Documents Senator McCaskill, submitted for the Record............ 19
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Lyons.................................................... 84
Ms. Salas.................................................... 186
Mr. Lyons and Ms. Salas from Senator Johnson................. 187
WASTE AND ABUSE IN NATIONAL GUARD SPONSORSHIP AND MARKETING CONTRACTS
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire
McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators McCaskill and Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. Good afternoon. Thank you for being
here.
Before I do anything else, I am going to turn off my phone
because if I do not it will ring.
This hearing will now come to order.
Before I say anything else about the topic that is in front
of us today, I want to state for the Record that I really like
the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR),
and I love the National Guard more than I like NASCAR.
So this hearing is not about demonizing NASCAR or the
National Guard. This hearing is simply about return on
investment of Federal tax dollars, whether or not Federal money
is being used wisely for the intended purpose and getting the
result desired as a result of that investment.
Every year, the Army National Guard (ARNG), like all
military services, sets a recruiting goal before beginning to
recruit thousands of new soldiers to meet its force
requirements. The Army National Guard attempts to meet its
goals, in part, by sponsoring professional sports teams.
This year, the Guard will spend over $56 million on sports
marketing like NASCAR and IndyCar. The Guard's contract with
NASCAR alone amounts to $32 million. The Army National Guard
spends 37 percent of its marketing and advertising budgets on
sports sponsorships.
According to one National Guard recruiting official,
however, not a single National Guard soldier was recruited from
the NASCAR sponsorship program in 2012 and the program
generated fewer than 8,000 leads in 2013. That may sound like a
lot, but it is a far cry from the one million leads the
National Guard has estimated that it needs in order to meet its
recruiting goal.
One reason these sponsorships may not be generated leads is
they may not be reaching the right demographic, which for the
National Guard is primarily young adults between the ages of 18
and 24. Only 10 percent of NASCAR's viewers are between 18 and
24, and the average age of an IndyCar fan is between 35 and 54.
I am a fan of NASCAR myself, but I do not think this is
exactly the demographic that the National Guard is aiming for.
Other sponsors for NASCAR include soda companies, fast food
restaurants and gas stations, but the decision to wear the
uniform is much more complicated than choosing a Coke or a
Pepsi.
Partly for these reasons, the Guard has recently begun to
characterize its sponsorship of NASCAR and IndyCar teams as
``branding'' rather than recruiting.
The National Guard has told the Subcommittee that it relies
on its relationships with NASCAR and IndyCar to promote
awareness and appreciation of the Guard brand, generally.
However, widespread disagreement exists in the marketing
industry over how to value the impressions, meaning the number
of people who view an advertisement and the number of times
they view it that are necessary to build and maintain a brand.
In part, because of this difficulty in tracking the
effectiveness and value of brand advertising, the private
sector trend has been to move away from spending on simply
brand awareness.
The Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard,
all of which used to sponsor NASCAR, have all decided to end
these programs.
The regular Army ended its sponsorship with NASCAR in 2012
after concluding that the program had the highest cost per lead
in the Army's portfolio of sponsorships. The Army also cited
the fact that only a small portion of the NASCAR audience fell
within its target demographic.
The Marine Corps made the same decision in 2006 when it
determined that the cost per impression of sponsoring a NASCAR
team was almost impossible to measure.
The Navy ended its own sponsorship of NASCAR in 2008
because the program was too expensive compared to the marketing
benefit it received.
And the Coast Guard ended their relationship with NASCAR in
2006 due to the cost of the sponsorship and only generating 350
leads for their $9.6 million investment.
As I stated in February, when examining the Guard's
recruiting assistance program, I understand that aggressive
recruiting is the key to maintaining the strength of our
military.
The Congress has a responsibility to ensure that every
taxpayer dollar spent produces measurable results. In this
environment of dwindling recruiting budgets, I want to
understand why the Army National Guard has maintained sports
sponsorships that fail to reach target recruiting demographics
and also provides less value per dollar than other forms of
marketing.
In preparation for this hearing, the Subcommittee received
documents and information related to the National Guard's
marketing and sponsorship contracts and their effectiveness.
I ask unanimous consent that these documents be included in
the public hearing record.\1\ Without objection, they will be
added to the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Documents Senator McCaskill submitted for the Record appears in
the Appendix on page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCaskill. Today, I want to explore the Army
National Guard's rationale for continuing its sponsorship of
professional sports programs and discuss whether spending
solely to promote ``brand awareness'' is an effective use of
taxpayer money.
I also want to discuss how the Guard measures the
effectiveness of its marketing relationships with NASCAR,
IndyCar and other organizations.
And, finally, I want to ask whether officials inside the
Guard may have abused these relationships and the steps the
Guard has taken to prevent any such abuses from occurring.
I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to
their testimony. Senator Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I do not think I can add a whole lot to that.
I think we are all aware of Senator Coburn's 2013
Wastebook, in which this example of sponsoring NASCAR is No. 46
in the Wastebook. It says that not a single person has joined
the Army National Guard as a result of the $136 million spent
sponsoring race legend, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. over the last 5
years of recruiting new members.
I am assuming that Senator Coburn has done a pretty good
job, and that is a true statement.
It goes on to say, with a shrinking defense budget, this is
one case of spending that might be ready for the caution flag.
I agree with that.
And I am hoping at this hearing we are going to hear that
this marketing technique is going to be ended.
And I think what I am primarily going to try and get out of
this hearing is what are we going to be doing to evaluate other
dollars spent to recruit, which--obviously, we have to recruit,
and we want to be supportive of those efforts, but we need to
measure the effectiveness of whatever dollars we do spend.
This is one that I think should really, like I say, get the
caution flag.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
At this time, we will proceed with testimony from our
witnesses. Let me introduce them.
Major General Judd Lyons is the Acting Director of the Army
National Guard. As Acting Director, he guides the formulation,
development and implementation of all programs and policies
affecting the Army National Guard, a force of over 355,000
soldiers across the country. Prior to assuming his position in
January this year, he served as the Deputy Director of the Army
National Guard.
Kathy Salas is the Principal Assistance Responsible for
Contracting for the National Guard Bureau (NGB). In this
position, Ms. Salas executes, oversees and manages all
delegable contracting and grant assistance authority for the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau. Ms. Salas has been a
contracting professional for 30 years and is a veteran of the
U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Reserves.
I would like to thank both of you for your service to our
Nation; we appreciate that.
It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear all
witnesses, if you would stand.
In whatever manner you are comfortable, do you swear that
the testimony you will give before this Subcommittee will be
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; so help
you, God?
General Lyons. I do.
Ms. Salas. I do.
Senator McCaskill. Let the record reflect that both
witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
We are going to be using a timing system today. We are
hopeful that your testimony will be no more than 5 minutes.
But, if it goes over, that will not be a problem, so take all
the time you need.
And we will begin with you, Major General.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL JUDD H. LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, ARMY
NATIONAL GUARD, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
General Lyons. Chairman McCaskill, Ranking Member Johnson,
I appear before you today, representing more than 355,000
soldiers in the Army National Guard. I am here to provide
information on the Army National Guard's marketing programs,
particularly sports-related sponsorships and marketing,
including their history, purpose, costs and effectiveness.
I arrived in July 2013 as the Army National Guard Deputy
Director after having previously served as the Adjutant General
for Nebraska.
I have been the Acting Director since late January. In this
time, it became apparent to me that management controls and
oversight were not where they needed to be. Accordingly, I
initiated actions to improve our acquisition processes, our
organizational structure and accountability. These actions are
applicable to sports sponsorships.
I share the Subcommittee's concerns. They are my concerns,
and I pledge my support to ensuring the utmost fiscal
stewardship of taxpayer monies.
I know the Subcommittee is well aware of the recruiting the
Army National Guard faced in the mid-2000's as well as the
extraordinary gains in accessions. This successful strength
increase cannot be attributed to any single program. However,
the implementation of the Army National Guard's national
marketing and branding coincides with our successes in strength
stabilization, accession and retention of quality soldiers.
The National Guard began sports sponsorships and marketing
programs to increase awareness of the Guard as part of its
overall recruiting strategy. The goal was to reach a large
demographic of those likely to serve in the military.
A key aspect of this population is an interest in sports.
Sixty-seven percent are sports fans. NASCAR, in its base of 77
million fans, is second only to the National Football League
(NFL) in its broad reach of those likely to serve.
However, sports sponsorship is just one component of our
overall branding and marketing strategy. Its impact is not
limited to what happens on the day of a race or at a particular
track.
Activities related to sports marketing take place before
and after the races and hundreds of miles from sports
locations. For example, awareness of the Army National Guard is
amplified by social media, schools' programs and public events
involving demonstration cars.
America's youth who are interested in military service have
many choices. Increasing awareness of the Army National Guard
is important to us.
At its peak, the Army National Guard had six sports
sponsorships but currently has only two--NASCAR and IndyCar.
Programs were terminated for a variety of reasons, including
other budget priorities and feedback from the States.
From fiscal year (FY) 2010 to fiscal year 2014, we reduced
our marketing budget by 35 percent. Specifically, our
professional sports sponsorships were reduced from $71 million
to $44 million, which is a reduction of 38 percent.
In 2014, the Army National Guard spent $32 million on
NASCAR and $12 million on IndyCar sponsorships.
Beyond national media exposure, the NASCAR and IndyCar
Series efforts have other impacts. These programs are projected
to lead to engagements with 35,000 high school students in our
science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) program in
2014.
Demonstration cars from NASCAR and IndyCar, branded with
the National Guard logo, travel to support recruiting events in
local communities across the Nation. Recruiters want these
demonstration cars at their events because they attract our
target demographic.
My staff is currently reviewing all of our marketing
programs, including NASCAR and IndyCar, for effectiveness and
efficiency. Our assessment will include impressions, media
value and engagements, and the relationship between these
professional sports programs and an individual's awareness of
the National Guard.
I also continue to press for more specific data. In March,
we initiated surveys at all 65 of our military entrance
processing stations throughout the country to find out what
influenced new recruits to join the Army National Guard.
We need to continue to explore ways to measure relevancy of
our programs. I will carefully consider programs to ensure that
they generate the intended effect. As a fiscal steward of
taxpayer money, I want to ensure that we are applying our
resources where they will best achieve intended outcomes.
Demographics change frequently; media options change
constantly, and that is why we must review our marketing and
sponsorship programs annually. As the new Acting Director, I
will have the opportunity to do just that.
As I mentioned earlier, our overall processes,
organizational structure and accountability were not where they
needed to be. Because of this, I directed the creation of a new
organizational entity to address these concerns.
The Army National Guard Acquisition Program Management
Office is designed to ensure that programs are appropriately
validated and managed. This initiative ensures that a rigorous
requirement determination process is performed separate and
apart from the contracting process, consistent with law,
regulation and policy.
Additionally, the APMO will ensure proper management and
oversight of contracting officer's representative (COR)
functions. I have mandated additional emphasis on training for
contracting officer's representatives in addition to fiscal law
training and annual ethics training.
In summary, I take very seriously my responsibilities as
the Acting Director of the Army National Guard, and I am fully
aware that the money that Congress authorizes the Guard belongs
to the American taxpayers. That is why since I have been the
Acting Director the due diligence I have applied includes
reviewing and validating all requirements through a transparent
and deliberate process.
In closing, I want to reiterate that I fully understand and
deeply respect the responsibility entrusted to this
Subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, General. Ms. Salas.
TESTIMONY OF KATHY A. SALAS, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT RESPONSIBLE
FOR CONTRACTING, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
Ms. Salas. Thank you, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. Am I pronouncing your name right?
Ms. Salas. Salas, yes, Senator.
Good afternoon, Chairman McCaskill and Ranking Member
Johnson. I am pleased to be here today to discuss this
important issue.
My name is Kathy Salas, and I am the Principal Assistant
Responsible for Contracting for National Guard Bureau. My
responsibility is to provide oversight and administration for
all National Guard Bureau contracts, grants and cooperative
agreements.
I also entered my position in July 2013. My previous
assignment was with the Army Contracting Command as the
Director of Contracting for the Letterkenny Army Depot. I have
also served with the former Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/
Afghanistan (JCC-I/A), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).
I am here today to provide some insight into the National
Guard Bureau acquisition and contracting programs.
When I arrived in this position, I found an organization
that was not structured, staffed or trained to provide optimal
oversight of the contracting functions. As an example, from
2003 to 2011, the operational contracting workload increased in
terms of contract obligations from $190 million per year to
over $1 billion per year without a corresponding increase in
staffing. This and other issues were identified by the Army
Audit Agency in an audit of the contracting organization.
With this report and NGB senior leadership, we have been
able to reshape the organization and chart a way ahead to
ensure proper oversight.
We have replaced leaders in senior contracting positions
and have realigned the contracting command to ensure that
contracting decisions are made independent of undue influence.
We have implemented an annual training plan for the
contracting workforce, and we continue to educate customers on
ways to improve acquisition planning and on contracting
processes.
We have conducted a 100 percent review of contracting
officer warrants to ensure that only qualified personnel with
the proper training, education and experience are warranted.
I hope today you will see that we acknowledge and share
your concerns over reports of wasted abuse. I take my
responsibilities as PARC seriously, and the National Guard
Bureau is committed to the responsible stewardship of taxpayer
dollars. I am confident that our improvements have postured the
National Guard Bureau for better oversight and management of
our contracting enterprise.
And, in closing, I would like to thank the Chairman and the
Ranking Member for the opportunity to be here today to discuss
these important issues. I look forward to your questions.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much.
And I know there has been an effort on contracting.
And there is no question that we exploded contracting
throughout the military without the requisite surge we needed
in acquisition personnel, and we paid a very high price for it
as a country.
Let me start with this; this is about contracting
oversight, so I want to start with specific questions about the
contracting.
I understand that you have a large, full-scale advertising
contract with a company called LM&O. This includes direct
marketing, social media and sports sponsorships. Have I
accurately characterized that?
Ms. Salas. That is correct, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. But the sports sponsorships are done
with a subcontract through Docupak, who was the same contractor
for the now infamous Recruiting Assistance Program (RAP). Is
that correct?
Ms. Salas. That is correct, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. Can you explain why you cannot contract
directly with NASCAR and why we need these middle men?
Ms. Salas. I am not aware that we are capable of
contracting directly with NASCAR.
Docupak--the contracts were awarded through a competitive
process. And, although Docupak was also the subcontractor or
the contractor for G-RAP, we have not found any improprieties
necessarily for Docupak.
So, again, the competitive process was used. And, as the
subcontractor we do not have privity of contract with them, so
we did not determine them to be the subcontractor.
Senator McCaskill. But I am curious as to why. Whenever I
look at contracting and I see layers, I always want to know why
and why is that of value to us, the government that is
contracting.
So why is there a value to have a contract that is supposed
to include sports sponsorship? Where is the value in paying
another layer of contractor under that?
Is that something you need to take for the Record, or can
someone explain to me how that came about--why we would have--
because I guarantee you they are both making money off of it.
Ms. Salas. I do not disagree, Senator.
I will have to take that for the Record. I am not sure what
the process was before I got here, the decisions that were
made, but I would take that for the Record.
Senator McCaskill. Now let's put on the Record how long you
have been in your respective positions because I want to make
sure it is very clear that some of the problems we are talking
about were not your decisions.
General Lyons. Yes, ma'am. I came to National Guard Bureau
in late July 2013. I have been the Acting Director since
January 21, 2014.
Senator McCaskill. OK. And you, Ms. Salas, how long have
you been in your position?
Ms. Salas. I also took my position in July 2013, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. So you all have been there for less than
a year.
General Lyons. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Let's talk about effectiveness.
You need to recruit, I believe, around 50,000 soldiers a
year. Is that correct, General?
General Lyons. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. And, in order to generate those
recruits, you need to generate about a million leads to get to
the 50,000 that will make it across the finish line.
General Lyons. Senator, I do not know where the figure of a
million leads comes from. I would need to come back to you on
that to validate that.
Senator McCaskill. OK. I think we got it from you.
General Lyons. OK.
Senator McCaskill. But please feel free to check it and get
back to us if that is an incorrect number.
How many actual recruits or leads has the NASCAR program
brought in?
General Lyons. Senator, as the relatively new Acting
Director, the sports sponsorships are a new issue for me as
well.
And tying sports sponsorships like NASCAR and IndyCar,
which we view as branding programs that raise awareness of the
National Guard in the communities, trying to tie that awareness
directly down to an individual's --affirmative decision--to
join the National Guard is elusive, and I share your concern
about that.
That is why as I look ahead here I want to evaluate these
programs, all of them, as we look ahead into fiscal year 2015,
to come up with what are the measures of effectiveness and how
can I apply them and the staff do an analysis that they are, in
fact, achieving the intended effect, and I am committed to
doing that.
Senator McCaskill. In fact, I believe I am correct in
saying that there has never been an analysis for alternatives
in this regard since this sponsorship of NASCAR began. Is that
correct?
General Lyons. Not to my knowledge, Senator, not during my
tenure.
I cannot speak for in the past whether any analysis of
alternatives----
Senator McCaskill. We have asked, and we have not been able
to locate any analysis that was ever done, comparing the
relative benefits of this sponsorship versus other marketing.
General Lyons. Yes, ma'am, I can take that for the record--
--
Senator McCaskill. That would be great.
General Lyons [continuing]. And see if we can find that
out.
Senator McCaskill. What is the most effective program you
have in generating leads and recruits?
General Lyons. Senator, we have a variety of programs, as
you alluded to in your statement.
We spend approximately a third of our marketing and
advertising budget in sports sponsorships and sports marketing.
The other two-thirds are in lead-generating activities. So
amongst those, we have national media; we have marketing
support; we have advertising support and then State media.
So, in terms of lead generation in those categories, the
highest number comes from our national media efforts.
Senator McCaskill. And how much do you spend on that
annually--the one that generates the most leads?
General Lyons. Senator, our national media campaign was
about 40 and a half million dollars--$40,005,000.
Senator McCaskill. And what was the total for sports
sponsorships?
General Lyons. Sports sponsorships is $44 million. The
entire sports marketing is $56 million and some change.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Let me ask this; when does the
decision--have you made a decision on this contract yet in your
position, General?
General Lyons. Senator, I----
Senator McCaskill. Do you have this as a decision item
since you have taken command?
General Lyons. No, Senator. My first opportunity to do that
is in the very near future. I have tasked the staff to do an
analysis of all of our programs, including sports sponsorship
programs, and bring that to me so that I can make a decision
about the road ahead.
Senator McCaskill. OK, Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. General Lyons, in total, how much does the
Guard spend on recruitment a year?
General Lyons. Senator, our marketing budget for fiscal
year 2014 is $120 million and about $53,000--$123,053,000.
Senator Johnson. That is marketing.
What do you spend on recruitment?
General Lyons. Senator, I would have to take that for the
Record to get the entire figure for you, if that is all right.
Senator Johnson. You said you were going to evaluate the
effectiveness of the programs. What are you looking for in
terms of metrics for evaluation?
General Lyons. That is an area of interest to me, Senator.
With branding programs, a typical measure of effectiveness is
in terms of impressions and also the media value associated
with those impressions. I am interested in other metrics that
can be gleaned to assess the effectiveness of these programs,
and that is what I have tasked the staff to look at.
Senator Johnson. OK. I saw that, too--the impressions
versus media value. Can you just explain that to me? What do
you mean by impressions and media value?
How is that--in other words, I am seeing here, $11
million--actually, $11 billion impressions, $102 million worth
of media value. Just explain that to me.
General Lyons. Senator, that is what I am interested in. If
a measure of effectiveness in sports marketing or sports
sponsorship is impressions, how many impressions are gained?
In other words, how many times is National Guard shown to
the population--and then what the associated media value is?
I am not----
Senator Johnson. Is media value what you spent?
General Lyons. So media value would be calculated, as I
understand it, on the cost of that same impression if it were
purchased. That is my understanding.
Senator Johnson. So you are spending $120 million on
advertising, and then you are backing into the value of that by
saying how many impressions that is and what the media value
is.
I mean, is the media value what you spend on it?
[No response.]
I am sorry if I sound a little confused here, but----
General Lyons. No, that is fine, Senator.
And that is why as I came into the position I am interested
in evaluating these programs. I would like to know what are
good metrics to use to measure the effectiveness of sports
sponsorship programs, and that is what I am focused in on.
Senator Johnson. My suggestion would be start with the
number of people you have recruited and have a good solid
figure on how many dollars you spend on recruitment. So that is
why I first started out with how much do you spend on
recruitment a year.
And then, have you taken a look at that over time so you
have some level of history in terms of--let's say in 2010 we
spent $100 million and recruited 50,000 people; it cost X
number of dollars per recruit.
I mean, do you have that?
I mean, do you ever see any information like that?
General Lyons. Senator, I will come back to you on that if
I can, please.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Salas, do you have any idea in terms
of what metrics are being used?
How do we measure the effectiveness of past recruitment
programs versus today versus what we would anticipate
effectiveness tomorrow?
Ms. Salas. Senator, that would not be my responsibility--to
measure the effectiveness of a program that is managed by a
requiring activity. So, no, I do not have that information.
Senator Johnson. I am not quite sure where I should be
going from here.
General Lyons. So, Senator----
Senator Johnson. To me, this is--yes, I am an accountant. I
am a business guy. I actually understand marketing.
To me, this is gobbledygook and what you need to be looking
at is pretty basic in terms of measurement of effectiveness.
So it starts with overall what you spend and how much it
costs per recruit. And then you start drilling down on, well,
we are spending X number of dollars in this area, X number in
this, X number in that. And you start figuring out where the
leads are.
So I am just not seeing in any of the briefing material
here in terms of anything I can take a look at to evaluate the
effectiveness of this.
General Lyons. Yes, sir, and I can provide to you the
dollars that we spend in terms of lead generation activities,
the number of leads associated with those activities.
In sports sponsorship, in terms of trying to tie the
awareness of the Guard through these branding programs directly
to an individual's decision to enlist is elusive. And I share
your frustration with that, on how we get at that to assess the
effectiveness of those two programs. So I am in agreement with
you on that.
Senator Johnson. Is there an active program to be able to
elicit the effectiveness of that, though?
I mean, is there actually an attempt to, OK, if we spend
dollars here, what is going to be the measurement on that
spending?
Have you noticed--again, I am not holding you accountable
because you are new here. But, have you ever seen any attempt
to do that, or do we just kind of spend money and go, well, we
are no quite sure what happens after we spend it?
General Lyons. Senator, in terms of the program in the
past, I am not aware of that.
I have, in March, tried to institute some metric-gathering
through our military entrance processing stations, so as
recruits come into those activities to enlist, to try and
garner data on what it is that influenced them to join the
Guard. So that is one measure that I have taken.
Senator Johnson. Describe those efforts to me in greater
detail then. Are the recruiting stations developing a report,
and then are they doing a survey?
Is this done 100 percent? Is it done to 10 percent of the
recruits coming in? Do they take a statistical sampling?
General Lyons. Senator, I can provide you the details on
what that looks like, but generally speaking, it is a
questionnaire that the recruit answers about what influenced
them to their decision to enlist and join. And NASCAR/IndyCar
sports sponsorships are one of those choices. So that does help
us get at that.
So I will provide that to you.
Senator Johnson. Well, first of all, that is a good idea.
Is this really the first time the Guard has ever done that?
General Lyons. Senator, to my knowledge, this is the--I
cannot talk to what has been done in the past.
Senator Johnson. Again, let me make a suggestion then. Find
out whether they have done that in the past because there may
be some good information for you to base future decisions on.
General Lyons. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. I would hope they have done that.
I mean, again, that is Marketing 101. You spend some money.
Do a survey. Find out what did prompt somebody either to buy
your product or walk in your door. OK.
Well, good. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. In looking at this, all of the active
branches have rejected NASCAR over the last several years. Has
there been any reach out to the analysis that the other
branches have done in determining that this was not a good use
of dollars?
General Lyons. Not to my knowledge, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. Is there any joint effort on advertising
for the military?
General Lyons. No, Senator. The Army National Guard does
our own recruiting and advertising program for our enlistment
for men and women to join us.
Senator McCaskill. It seems like to me--do you know why all
the other active military components decided to not recontract
with NASCAR?
General Lyons. I do not, Senator, other than what was
relayed by the Subcommittee.
Senator McCaskill. It is interesting to me because you guys
do not have as much money as the Army has to market. You have
very limited dollars compared to the Army.
So it is interesting to me, and you know we like to preach
joint in terms of cost savings and working together.
It is interesting to me that another branch of the military
with more money finds sponsoring NASCAR is not cost effective,
but no one at the Guard would then look to see maybe we should
look at their analysis.
Are you aware as to whether or not that ever crossed
anyone's desk at the point in time--and when is this decision
made, in what month?
The decision to do the contract for the year--what is the
decision date for that?
General Lyons. I will be undergoing that analysis,
receiving that analysis and reviewing all of these programs in
the next probably month.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So is the contract from June to
June? Is it from July to July? Is it a fiscal year?
Does anybody know?
General Lyons. Senator, it goes from a seasonal basis. So
the end of the racing season, I believe, is in November.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So was the decision made for this
season made last November?
General Lyons. The decision for this current season would
have been made approximately this time last year.
Senator McCaskill. OK.
General Lyons. Relatively speaking, ma'am. I was not here,
but----
Senator McCaskill. OK. I am trying to figure out when the
Army pulled the plug after their analysis, which would have
been full of great data for you to look at, because they
obviously are looking at cost per lead and cost per impression.
And whether or not you are saying it is branding or whether
it is recruiting, the only reason you are doing branding, other
than the fact we want everyone to support the National Guard so
employers are helpful to National Guard members--I mean,
obviously, that is important, but the primary reason you want
to brand it is so that we get 50,000 people who step across the
line and say I am willing to serve.
And it is just interesting to me that there would not be
any cross-pollination, especially when you realize they have
all dropped. All of the branches have dropped, citing costs and
ineffectiveness, and yet, this analysis had not even been
undertaken until you showed up.
Let's talk a little bit about recruiting women. Are you
aware of any of the contracts that you all have that are geared
toward recruiting women to the Guard?
General Lyons. Senator, with regards to recruiting women to
the Guard, on a personal basis, I can say I have done my part.
I recruited my spouse, Amy, to join the Guard in 1994.
Senator McCaskill. Now I hope that was not heavy lifting.
General Lyons. No, it was not.
We actually pride ourselves on being an inclusive
organization and reflective of the communities where we serve,
and so I am happy to report that the number of women serving in
the Army National Guard has actually gone up 40 percent between
2000 and 2014.
In 2000, there were 40,000 women in the Army National
Guard. In 2014, there is 56,000. So, a 40 percent increase.
Within our accessions, in 2000, women represented 18.2
percent of our accession in that year. In 2014, that has gone
up 40 percent to 22.2 percent.
So we are very interested in offering opportunities to all
members of society, and I think our growth in attracting women
to our ranks----
Senator McCaskill. That is terrific, and I am glad to hear
that. I am just curious, as you are developing----
The branch, the command, that actually does this is what,
and who is the leader of that? Who actually does the G-RAP
program and the marketing program? And I know it is a special
bureau within the Guard.
General Lyons. Senator, the marketing and advertising and
the recruiting is, in the Army National Guard, in an
organization called Guard Strength Service (GSS).
Senator McCaskill. Guard Strength, OK.
Within Guard Strength, are you aware of any of the
marketing tools or any of the efforts that have been made in
terms of national media where there has been an emphasis on
trying to get at the women's demographic because, clearly, it
ain't NASCAR or Indy?
General Lyons. Senator, our marketing and advertising
products that we use----
Senator McCaskill. Although I should say 40 percent of
NASCAR fans are women. That is a lot.
General Lyons. That is true, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. So I do not want to diss the women that
love NASCAR because some of them are my family members. So I
would be in big trouble if I let that statement stand.
But, go ahead. I am sorry to interrupt you.
General Lyons. No, that is fine, Senator.
What I was saying was that our marketing tools, print media
or what we would know as public service announcements (PSA),
which we call noncommercial sustaining agreement, our
websites--we are--again, we want to be reflective of society
where we serve. So you will see women in leadership roles,
being reflected in duty positions or specialties that may not
be their traditional specialties that someone may associate.
So we do that.
Senator McCaskill. That is great.
General Lyons. I might also add that we--within the sports
arena, we work with girls' soccer, volleyball and basketball.
And, again, in relation to your question about attracting
women, we do find that in our direct mail campaigns that women
do respond favorably to those efforts.
Senator McCaskill. That is great.
I know that 40 percent of NASCAR fans are women and 28
percent of IndyCar fans are women, and so I am glad that you
are working--and these are through high schools that you are
doing the soccer and volleyball programs?
General Lyons. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. Great. Do the sponsorship programs
include perks for senior Guard officers and officials?
General Lyons. Senator, the sports sponsorship programs in
the past were fairly broad in terms of the execution of the
program and who could participate in the program. That is
something that--when I became the Acting Director, I took an
immediate step to curtail that so that the access to the events
were primarily directed toward potential applicants.
So, in the past, it was within the scope of the contract
and the policy to allow senior leaders to participate, but as
the Acting Director I have made a determination that a better
use of that program is to target it toward potential
applicants.
Senator McCaskill. Have you ever been to one of the NASCAR
or IndyCar races?
General Lyons. I have never attended either.
Senator McCaskill. Do you know what senior officers have
gone and how often?
General Lyons. I do not.
Senator McCaskill. And is that information available?
General Lyons. I will take that for the Record, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. OK. What policies are there in place now
to ensure these programs are not abused by officials who want
the perks associated with the sponsorships?
General Lyons. Senator, that has been a focus of mine--is
improving our management controls and our accountability. So we
have, as I said, issued guidance to the field that restricts
the access to these programs to those applicants, and that went
out in March, shortly after I became the Acting Director.
Senator McCaskill. If you were going to rank professional
sports sponsorships--let's assume for purposes of this
discussion that your budget for this area of recruitment and
marketing was going to be cut by a third. Can you rank what you
spend that money on now as to what would fall off the table at
this hearing today?
General Lyons. Senator, I think my approach toward that is
we need to have awareness of the National Guard. We need to
create that awareness; we need to sustain that awareness of the
National Guard, so that men and women who have a propensity to
serve know that we are an option for them.
So, if these programs were not available, my focus would be
to determine what--some other vehicle that can create that
awareness and sustain that awareness of the National Guard.
So that would be my focus, and I would apply those dollars
toward that.
Senator McCaskill. I guess what I am trying to get you to
do is to look at the list that you spend money on. You have a
list, I know, there in front of you somewhere. And I am asking
you to do your spending priorities.
What do you think that you spend money on now in this
regard that is the most important, and what do you think is the
least important of the money that you spend now and the
activities that you spend it on?
General Lyons. So I think, Senator, generally speaking,
with about a third of the marketing and advertising budget
going toward branding, awareness, those activities, and two-
thirds, approximately, going toward lead generation, that is an
area that I need to analyze specifically to your question. Is
that the appropriate balance between those two activities?
Senator McCaskill. Well, I guess this is getting back to
Senator Johnson's confusion.
You have national advertising, and you have sports
sponsorship.
Now I guarantee you I could get ad people in this room that
say national advertising is branding because you are--while you
are tailoring where the ad is run for a demographic, obviously,
you are getting a wide swath of people, many of whom are not
within your demographic.
So are you calling national advertising, branding, or are
you calling it recruiting?
General Lyons. I think it is ultimately--sports
sponsorships, branding, lead generation, national campaigns--
those are all part of our recruiting strategy. They are all
components of that.
What we characterize sports sponsorships and sports
marketing as is branding and awareness-generating activities.
The other two-thirds, our national campaigns, are lead-
generation activities.
Senator McCaskill. I guess it is hard for a lay person to
see how having your name associated with NASCAR is brand
awareness and an ad on an action show, where young men and
women are maybe watching it--how one is lead-generating and
recruiting and one is just brand awareness.
I mean, they are both intangibles in terms of people seeing
something, getting an impression from it and deciding whether
or not they want to act on it, no different than buying a
product. And that is, of course, why Coca-Cola puts their name
on NASCARs because they want people to buy Coca-Cola. And that
is why other people that sell things put their names on NASCARs
or IndyCars.
So I guess if you are saying that you have a third for
branding and the rest is recruiting, I do not understand how
national advertising gets in the recruiting pot and how NASCAR
does not and how you can justify the fact that nobody is
getting recruited from the NASCAR.
I mean, the facts speak for themselves. The data are very
clear. You are not getting recruits off NASCAR.
And these are data that you gave us. The reason we know
this is because you told us.
So I guess I am curious why you are not willing to say that
if you were forced to spend less that this is not something
that you would immediately look at in terms of deciding this is
not the best use of the money.
General Lyons. Senator, I did not mean to convey that I am
unwilling to say that.
What I was trying to convey was I am trying to analyze
these programs for exactly the reasons you are saying. Are they
achieving the intended effect? Are they the best use of our
taxpayer dollars? And is that the right thing to be doing?
These are things that I am considering right now as the
Acting Director, as a path forward. So I am in agreement with
you on that, that I need to do that, and I am committed to
doing that.
Senator McCaskill. Can you pinpoint the people who made the
decision to do the NASCAR and Indy branding sponsorship in the
first place?
General Lyons. Senator, I mean, it goes back 10-plus years.
So the ultimate decision, though, on these programs rests with
the Director of the Army National Guard.
Senator McCaskill. OK. And through recommendations from the
Guard Strength Services?
General Lyons. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. So they would make a recommendation up,
and then the Director would either acquiesce to that suggestion
or decide not.
General Lyons. I think that would be accurate.
Senator McCaskill. And it would be up to the Director to
ask the questions to determine whether or not this was a good
use of money.
General Lyons. That is absolutely my methodology, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. Right. Or, require analytics to actually
look at how effective the money will actually be.
General Lyons. That is absolutely my methodology and my
focus.
Senator McCaskill. So this contract has been renewed if it
began, I believe, since--2007 was the first year?
General Lyons. I believe, Senator, it was either 2003 or
2005. I apologize. We will come back to you on that.
Senator McCaskill. OK. How many directors have there been
of the Guard since that point in time?
General Lyons. Senator, can I come back to you on that
also?
Senator McCaskill. Is it four or five?
General Lyons. I would say probably four.
Senator McCaskill. I was going to say four. I thought it
was probably four.
And we will correct that exactly for the record, but I want
the record to be clear that you have four predecessors who
would have had the opportunity to ask for analytics, who would
have had an opportunity to do the evaluation that the other
branches have done, who would have had a decision point about
whether or not to continue, and that all four of those decided
that was not important, and they signed off on it.
Is that an unfair characterization of what has occurred?
General Lyons. I think they all would have had the
opportunity to assess the program and make a decision.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Is there anything that you would
like to add to the record that I have not asked you about
today?
General Lyons. Senator, again, as a relatively new Acting
Director, these sports sponsorship programs are relatively new
to me as well. I am keenly interested in trying to determine
the most appropriate course of action for the road ahead. I
want to see metrics. I want to see analytics. I want to be the
most effective steward of taxpayer resources that I can be.
I have taken aggressive measures to institute management
controls in the organization, increase the level of training,
in conjunction with Ms. Salas, of our contracting officers'
representatives and program managers, emphasize fiscal law--
purpose, time and amount--continue to arm our people with the
tools they need to be successful.
That is where I am focused in taking us--and making the
best possible decisions for the organization that continues to
attract men and women to our formations.
Senator McCaskill. And this will be the last question I
ask, but I know you said that you have changed, or in the
process of changing, policies about accessing perks associated
with this program.
Do you believe that one of the reasons there was not a hard
look at this is because the leadership of the Guard enjoyed the
perks associated with the program?
General Lyons. Senator, I do not think I could comment on
what previous leaders thought with respect to that.
I know that the program, as it existed, had a broad range
of parameters for who could participate in the program. It was
part of the contract, part of the policy.
I have chosen to restrict that so that it is focused, in my
opinion, in a better direction, which is toward applicants and
the public.
Senator McCaskill. Have you reviewed the contract that
would indicate to you that there was embedded in the contract
terms the contractual language that would indicate that these
perks were open to anybody in Guard leadership?
[No response.]
Well, you said that the reason this occurred in the past
was because it was in the contract.
Is there specifics in the contract that embrace the notion
that the perks associated with the contract were appropriately
or were envisioned, being, used by Guard leadership?
General Lyons. Senator, I would have to take that for the
record, to look backward at that.
Senator McCaskill. What I would really like to see is, you
have made this statement; it was the policy in the contract
that allowed that. I want to see the specifics of the contract
that have led you to that conclusion.
General Lyons. Senator, what I was trying to articulate was
that in the execution of the program there was broad
characterization of people that could participate in the
program. From centers of influence to Army National Guard
personnel to potential recruits, recruiting and retention
personnel, obviously.
So that is what I was trying to articulate.
Senator McCaskill. OK. If there is anything that is in
writing anywhere that would lay out the parameters of that,
whether it is in the contract or written in any policy
anywhere, that would be really important for our Committee to
see.
If this was just an amorphous policy that was floating out
there, that is one thing. But if there is--that would be
unusual in the military, for there to be something floating out
there and it not be put in writing.
Certainly, this Committee would be very interested in
seeing whatever policy or contractual provisions that would
have led someone to believe that the perks of this contract
were widely available to Guard leadership. OK?
I thank you both for being here very much.
We will look forward to your completing the record based on
the items we have talked about today. And the record will
remain open for a few days in case there are other questions
for the record, and we will be in contact with you about that.
General Lyons. Thank you, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you again, both, for your service.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9682.106