[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1530-E1533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
______
speech of
HON. STEVE C. LaTOURETTE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 24, 1997
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2203) making
appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other
purposes:
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it has recently come to my attention
that the Army Corps of Engineers is planning to restructure its Great
Lakes and Ohio River Division by first severely reducing the number of
employees, particularly those with decision-making authority, at its
Chicago office and eventually closing it down entirely. This plan is
documented in an internal Army Corps memo that I have obtained from the
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local
777. This plan would leave the Great Lakes region with only one office,
in Cincinnati, and would obliterate the institutional memory that is so
vital to Army Corps operations in this region. Losing the Chicago
division office to Cincinnati will mean that the Great Lakes will most
likely lose resources, funds, and priority consideration for projects
in this region.
Last year, when this Congress passed the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the Army Corps was directed to
reduce its divisions to no less than six and no more than eight. The
Department of the Army's Office of Civil Works submitted a plan to the
Congress which detailed the restructuring plan, approved by the
Secretary. This plan stated that, ``The Great Lakes districts of the
North Central Division will be combined with the districts of the Ohio
River Division to form the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.
Division headquarters will remain in both Chicago and Cincinnati, each
with a regional deputy commander and SES.''
The closure of the Chicago office would affect my State as well as
the entire Great Lakes region, and I am troubled by this action on the
part of the Army Corps. When the Appropriations Committee wrote the
language directing the Army Corps to reduce its overall division
structure, I do not believe that it was the Committee's intention that
a region with projects as important as those in the Great Lakes should
suffer disproportionately. The operations directed at the Chicago
office are vital to projects conducted on the Great Lakes, and its
closure would impede progress on many projects that my colleagues in
the Great Lakes and I consider important.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record two documents
that are the basis for my concern. The first is a January 22, 1997,
outline of the plan submitted by the Army Corps and approved by the
Secretary of the Army to reorganize its division structure pursuant to
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of fiscal year
1997. This plan clearly indicated that the Army Corps intended to
maintain dual Division headquarters offices in both Chicago and
Cincinnati, each with decision-making staff. The second document that I
am submitting for the Record was provided by the International
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 777 in
Chicago, IL. It includes an internal Army Corps memorandum from the
Commander of the Great Lakes and Ohio Division regarding Division
restructuring dated May 27, 1997. This memo states clearly the Army
Corps' intention to severely reduce and eventually to close the Chicago
Division office of the Great Lakes and Ohio Division. Mr. Speaker,
thank you for allowing me this opportunity to bring this matter to my
colleagues' attention.
Department of the Army, Office of the Secretary of the
Army,
Washington, DC.
Information for Members of Congress
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of
fiscal year 1997 (PL 104-206) requires that the Secretary of
the Army develop a plan that reduces the number of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers divisions to no less than six and no more
than eight, with each division responsible for at least four
district offices. The Secretary has approved such a plan; the
purpose of this paper is to inform you of its provisions.
An outline of the plan is attached. The key elements of
this plan are as follows:
1. The Corps will convert New England Division to district
status and assign it under the North Atlantic Division.
2. The Alaska District will be transferred from the North
Pacific Division to the Pacific Ocean Division (POD). POD
headquarters will remain in Honolulu.
3. The Great Lakes districts of the North Central Division
(NCD) will be combined with the districts of the Ohio River
Division to form the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.
Division headquarters offices will remain in both Chicago and
Cincinnati, each with a regional deputy commander and SES.
4. The districts of the North Pacific Division (less
Alaska) will be combined with the districts of the Missouri
River Division to form the Northwestern Division. Division
headquarters offices will remain in both Portland and Omaha,
each with a regional deputy commander and SES.
5. Two districts located along the Mississippi River
(currently assigned to NCD) will be combined with the
districts currently assigned to the Lower Mississippi Valley
Division. The division will be renamed as the Mississippi
Valley Division.
6. One district will be transferred from the Southwestern
Division to the South Pacific Division.
A briefing on the components of this plan will be provided,
if desired. Please contact the Director of Civil Works,
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (202) 761-0108
to request such a briefing.
Furnished by: Office, Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION RESTRUCTURING PLAN, Jan. 22, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current alignment Final configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering and Support Center, No change.
Huntsville, Alabama.
Transatlantic Programs Center, Winchester, No change.
VA..
Transatlantic Programs Center
(Europe).
South Atlantic Division...................
Mobile, Jacksonville, Savannah, No change.
Charleston, Wilmington.
North Pacific Division....................
Alaska, Portland, Seattle, Walla North Pacific and Missouri
Walla. River divisions combined to
form the Northwestern
Division. Alaska District
transferred to POD.
Division HQ offices
retained in Omaha and
Portland, each with
regional deputy commander
and SES.
Missouri River Division...................
Omaha, Kansas City. Omaha, Portland, Seattle,
Kansas City, Walla Walla.
Pacific Ocean Division....................
Honolulu, Far East (Korea), Japan. Pacific Ocean Division.
Honolulu, Far East (Korea),
Japan, Alaska.
New England Division...................... Division functions
eliminated; renamed New
England District (office
remains in Waltham).
Assigned to North Atlantic
Division.
North Atlantic Division...................
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, North Atlantic Division: New
Norfolk. York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Norfolk, New
England.
Southwestern Division.....................
Little Rock, Albuquerque, Fort Worth, Southwestern Division:
Galveston, Tulsa. Albuquerque District
transferred to South
Pacific Division. Little
Rock, Fort Worth,
Galveston, Tulsa.
South Pacific Division....................
San Francisco, Sacramento, Los South Pacific Division: San
Angeles. Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Albuquerque.
North Central Division....................
Chicago, St. Paul, Rock Island, Ohio River and North Central
Detroit, Buffalo. divisions combined to form
the Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division. St. Paul
and Rock Island districts
transferred to Mississippi
Valley Division. Division
HQ offices retained in
Chicago and Cincinnati,
each regional deputy
commander and SES.
Ohio River Division.......................
Louisville, Huntington, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Chicago,
Nashville. Pittsburgh, Nashville,
Buffalo, Huntington,
Detroit.
Lower Mississippi Valley Division.........
Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans, St. Mississippi Valley Division:
Louis. Memphis, Vicksburg, New
Orleans, St. Louis, Rock
Island, St. Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____
International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers,
Chicago, IL, July 21, 1997.
Ms. Rochelle Sturtevant,
Great Lakes Task Force, Office of Senator J. Glenn, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Sturtevant: The employees of the former North
Central Division are extremely grateful for the support
provided by Senator Glenn and the other representatives
within the Great Lakes Region. We are remiss in not passing
that sentiment on sooner. We waited because many feared what
General Ballard outlined was not what would occur.
Unfortunately, this appears to be the case.
I want to share with you some correspondence with
significant implications for any continued presence, let
alone a full service, functional and decision making Great
Lakes Regional Office in Chicago.
The first is a memo from the Chief of Engineers Lieutenant
General Joe Ballard, dated 27 May 1997, which approved the
Chicago Division Office as the Great Lakes Regional Office
under the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD). It
includes a request that the LRD Commander personally contact
LTG Ballard on designation of functional chiefs (where the
functional chiefs, i.e., Planning, Engineers, Construction
who will
[[Page E1531]]
have most decision-making authority, will be located). Note
that the Chief made at least two of the decisions himself.
The second item is Permanent Orders No. 29-1, from the
Headquarters Chief of Staff, dated 10 June 1997, which
directs that LRD will INITIALLY maintain two Division
Regional Headquarters, one of which is Chicago (emphases
added). Note that the Great Lakes Regional Office has its own
Unit Identification Code (UICs) while the Ohio River Regional
Headquarters has the same UICs as the Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division Office. That identifies that the Ohio River
Regional Headquarters and the Division Office are one and the
same.
The third item is a memo from Colonel Jasen, the Acting
Commander of LRD, dated 23 June 1997. This memo formalizes
his decision designating the division POC's. Thirteen of the
functional chiefs are Cincinnati employees. Only two are
Chicago employees, Mr. Dwight Beranek and Mr. Mike Lee. Mr.
Beranek is an SES and could be transferred on short notice.
Mr. Lee is the contract administrator and does not make
decisions approving studies or projects. We question the
legality of creating a new division office and staffing it
non-competitively, with the only apparent qualification being
the state of residency.
The last item is a May 7 e-mail memo from General Jeo
Ballard to General Albert Genetti in response to my May 2 e-
mail message. Note that one month after implementation, the
Chief of Engineers already identifies that the two regional
office concept ``would not last forever.''
Despite what we have been told, it appears that all future
decisions will be stacked against the Chicago office. The
decision making for the LRD will be controlled from
Cincinnati, and our ability to influence decisions on Great
Lakes projects and funding diminished. The number of Great
Lakes Regional Office employees will be reduced to 20-25. It
is questionable if we can be effective as such a small staff,
and it is probable that the Chicago Division office will
ultimately close. The new LRD Commander, General Van Winkle,
assumes command this week. He could reverse or at least
postpone the decision made by Colonel Jansen.
We believe that the whole dual Regional Office concept was
simply a sham to allow the Chief of Engineers to transfer
half of our workload, and slash our budget allotment. It also
allowed time to drive employees out of our office with cash
incentives to retire or take early retirements. These actions
were taken before any consideration was given to what mission
this office would accomplish or what competencies would be
required. Our staff is being used to reduce the impact to
Ohio employees caused by the loss of Ohio's military
workload. By the time the truth becomes obvious to others,
the destruction of this office's capability to function will
be destroyed to the point that it will be irreversible. Of
course, the true intentions are more obvious to those of us
that see the continual indications of betrayal.
For several years, the Great Lakes Region has fought to
keep this office open. Congress has rejected earlier plans
prepared by General Williams and his deputy, General Genetti,
as well as others. Congressional representatives were duped
into acceptance of a plan that had no facts to substantiate
it other than ``trust me'' we'll do what's right. At our
Townhall meeting, General Ballard proudly proclaimed that he
had no Corps experience. He was briefed on this issue by
General Williams and other HQUSACE staff members that had
long supported our closure. He made his decision in about one
month. General Genetti is currently General Ballard's Deputy
and is still available to continue to influence decisions.
General Genetti is also a former Ohio River Division
Commander and an excellent conduit to Colonel Jansen his
former deputy. General Van Winkle also has no Corps
experience and was briefed by his predecessor Colonel Jansen.
The deck was stacked from the start.
We are looking to Senator Glenn, the Great Lakes
Congressional Task Force and Great Lakes Commission for
counsel on how we should proceed. Perhaps the Corps should be
asked to brief certain Representatives or staff, perhaps
slowing down the process while we collectively develop
language to be added to the next COE appropriations. The
language could note that the intention of Congress is to
preserve a functional, full service, decision making Corps
Division-level presence in Chicago to service the Great
Lakes.
Thank you for your time.
Duane A. Kowalski,
President.
____
CECG, 27 May 1997.
Memorandum for Commander, Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division.
Subject: Division restructuring.
1. Reference:
a. Public Law 104-206.
b. HQUSACE CECG memo dated 31 March 1997; Division
Restructuring Implementation Guidance.
c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division Implementation Plan for Division Restructuring,
dated 2 May 1997.
2. This headquarters has completed its review of the
restructuring plan submitted in reference 1c. Your plan is
approved for execution consistent with the comments which
follow.
3. General comments for all division commanders:
a. The pace of change. Each commander has presented a
timeline which aggressively implements the new organizational
structure. I appreciate the work that went into developing
your plans and commend all of you for the personal support
you are investing to ensure the plan becomes a reality.
However, I want to emphasize that there is no need to rush
into this restructuring. It is my intent that the pace of
transition to this new structure be deliberate and measured.
I want you to ensure we are properly taking care of our
people who may be impacted by these changes as well as keep
interested parties informed of our progress. So pace yourself
to do this right; it is more important that we do this smart
rather than fast.
b. Resourcing. I also want to make it clear that I expect
real savings in General Expenses (GE) funding, GE full time
equivalent (FTE) staffing, and Operations and Maintenance,
Army (OMA) funding to emerge from this restructuring. Some
commanders have asked for staff increases. I am willing to
consider modest increases in specific situations where
individual division staff workload has truly been increased.
But these increases will be made in a zero-sum environment,
achieved through cross leveling throughout the Corps. There
will be no net increase in overall Corps staffing levels. You
need to understand and plan for the fact that division staffs
will likely decrease in size even more over the next few
years. Further guidance is provided in paragraph 4 below.
c. Information management. The alignment of our automated
information systems (AIS) within the new organizational
structure is the most complex aspect of this restructuring.
We have identified 36 separate, Corps-wide systems that
require changes. Many of these are interconnected, sharing
data with external Department of Army systems and other Corps
systems. Converting these systems to the new EROC, UIC, and
office symbols will be time consuming and will directly
impact your execution timelines. I have appointed a taskforce
to determine the best way to accomplish this. This task force
will publish a detailed conversion schedule by mid-June.
Other AIS issues:
(1) The CEAP cap and billing algorithm will remain as
currently structured for the remainder of FY97. The FY98
guidance will align billing with the new Division structure.
CEAP circuit relocations and upgrades will be based on
individual requirements of impacted Divisions.
(2) For distress transferring from one division to another,
the transfer of FY97 AIS data and other electronic records
will be made to the gaining division. For divisions giving up
districts, plans must be developed to archive prior year AIS
data and electronic records at the current location (to
include the regional Omaha and Chicago offices). These plans
will be submitted along with the plan for records management
as requested in CEIM-IR memo, dated 4 April 1997, subject:
Division Restructuring Implementation--Records Management
Impact.
(3) POC for information management issues is Ms. Cathy
Sheridan, CEIM-L, (202) 761-0468.
d. FY99 Civil Works Operations and Maintenance roll-up. AIS
systems will not be converted to the new structure in time to
meet the FY99 Civil Works O&M Budget submittal suspense of 20
June. Consequently, districts who now report to a new
division headquarters will prepare their submittals in
coordination with that new division. Submittals will be made,
however, according to the old MSC structure. District and MSC
offices are currently engaged in putting their budget
submittals into the O&M Automated Budget System (ABS). The
budget will be arranged according to the new MSC
organizational structure by HQUSACE after the division budget
submittals have been received.
4. Resourcing:
a. Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA): Fiscal Year 1997
OMA funds for division office staffing were distributed to
the MSCs at the beginning of the fiscal year. There are no
funds remaining in the headquarters for that purpose, nor
were any additional OMA funds appropriated specifically for
MSC restructuring. Further, Fiscal Year 1998 budget guidance
issued earlier this year depicts a 20 percent overall
reduction in funding compared with Fiscal Year 1997. Every
effort must be made to constrain operating costs within
current budgetary guidance. Any requirements over and above
the current budgetary guidance must be accommodated through
the Unfinanced Requirement (UFR) process through Resource
Management channels.
b. General Expenses (GE): Fiscal Year 1998 GE funding and
staffing guidance has been developed based on headquarters
review of division restructuring plans, the President's
Budget request of $148 million, and projected outyear funding
levels. This FY 98 funding guidance as well as a five-year
resourcing plan will be provided under separate cover.
c. Restructuring Costs ($000): Restructuring implementation
costs totaling $2.6 million Civil (GE) and $1 million
Military (OMA) were submitted. In some cases, requests for
funds duplicated or referred to requirements identified in
the joint GE/OMA Mid-Year Review. In other cases,
requirements were not clearly related to the restructuring
effort, and will require further review and coordination with
your staff to determine the appropriate source and level
funding needed as events unfold. The amounts shown for FY 97
will be allocated shortly, any additional requirements for FY
97 and FY 98 will require further justification incrementally
as funds
[[Page E1532]]
are needed, such as the actual number and cost of approved
VERA/VSIPs, prior to allocation of funds. However, to the
extent funds are available, valid restructuring and related
costs will be funded. Additional requests should be presented
to the Directorate of Resource Management. ATTN: CERM-B, for
review and coordination.
d. LRD specific GE and OMA staffing and restructuring
funding guidance:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 97 FY 98
-------------------------------
FTE $000 FTE $000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested GE N/A 209 145 650
Approved GE ...... \1\ 16
0 121 \1\ 65
0
Requested other civil N/A ...... 20 ......
Approved other civil ...... ...... TBD ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs for ADP upgrades, new equipment purchases in FY 97 totaling
$149K and $500K for VERA/VSIPs in FY 98 need further review and
justification prior to funding. FY 97 amount excludes $97.3K requested
for HR VSIP/VERA actions, which are to be funded as part of the Mid-
Year Review.
e. The lead for coordinating FY98 FTE allocations to
districts being transferred to a new division is the
commander of the gaining division in coordination with the
commander of the losing division. Responsibility for
reallocation transfers to the gaining commander.
f. POC for resourcing issues is Mr. Bronel Jerrell, CERM-B,
(202) 761-1104.
5. Division specific issues.
a. Dam safety: The plans do not discuss the activities
required for the transfer of division level Dam Safety
responsibilities. Since dam safety is an important function a
detailed dam safety transfer plan should be developed at the
earliest possible date and a copy of the plan furnished to
the HQUSACE Dam Safety Officer for information. The detailed
plan should address the 11 dams in the former North Central
Division that are being transferred to this division. A
portion of the plan should also address the 60 dams in the
St. Paul and Rock Island Districts that are being transferred
from the former North Central Division to the Mississippi
Valley Division. CECW-EP is available to assist as required.
POC is Mr. Charles Pearre, (202) 761-4531, or Mr. Robert
Bank, (202) 761-1660.
b. Functional office chiefs. We have discussed the issue of
how and when to designate chiefs for your various functional
areas. Request you contact me personally to review your plans
for operating as one staff located in two locations.
c. The Director of Resource Management will coordinate and
integrate the timing and structure of EROC code changes to
reflect the future division. Our short term policy will be to
retain separate EROC codes for each of the regional
headquarters. Our long term policy will be to move toward one
EROC code per commander for division headquarters. The AIS
team will recommend a time line which will coordinate and
integrate these changes with all of the other interrelated
AIS systems.
6. POC, this headquarters, MG Russ Fuhrman, (202) 761-0099
or COL Rick Mogren, (202) 761-0108.
Joe N. Ballard,
Lieutenant General, USA,
Commanding.
____
Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, June 10, 1997.
Permanent Orders
No. 29-1
Restructure within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Following organization/unit action directed:
1. Action: Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD) LTCs;
CEW072AA and CEW2SMAA. restructure will initially maintain
two Division Regional Headquarters: Great Lakes Regional
Headquarters (located in Chicago). UICs; CEW02208 and
CEW2SM08 and, Ohio River Regional Headquarters (located in
Cincinnati, UIC, CEW072AA and CEW2SMAA.
Assigned to: Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
2. Action: Northwestern Division (NWD) UICs; CEW071AA and
CEW2SJAA restructure will initially maintain two Division
Regional Headquarters: North Pacific Regional Headquarters
(located in Portland), UICs; CEW071AA and CEW2SJAA and,
Missouri River Regional Headquarters (located in Omaha),
UICs; CEW07107 and CEW2SJ08. Assigned to: Northwestern
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mission: Not Applicable
Effective Date: 2 June 1997
Military Structure Strength: NA
Military Authorized Strength: NA
Civilian Structure Strength: NA
Civilian Authorized Strength: NA
Accounting Classification: as provided by separate
directive.
Authority: Public Law 104-206 and SECARMY approval of
Division Restructuring Plan.
Special Instructions: EROCs and UICs will remain as
assigned in the initial implementation guidance until
conversion to one EROC and UIC for the division.
Format: 740
For the Commander.
Otis Williams,
Colonel Corps of Engineers,
Chief of Staff.
____
June 23, 1997.
Memorandum for Record.
Subject: Commander's action on VSIP/VERA for CELRD regional
offices, June 1997.
1. The following records the Division Commander's decisions
and guidance related to granting of VSIP and VERA to
employees of the division regional offices in Chicago and
Cincinnati, and related matters as made in a meeting with key
staff on 12 June 1997.
2. Decisions on VSIP and VERA.
a. The effective date for all approved NLT 3 October 1997
unless otherwise indicated. Extension of effective dates for
those approved for VERA to 3 October 1997 is made under the
delegation of this authority.
b. HQUSACE. CEHR-E memorandum, 5 April 1995 subject: DOD
Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA).
b. Specific actions.
(1) Great Lakes Regional Office. Chicago.
AITLAND, Esther: VSIP approved. Effective date not later
than 3 January 1998, earlier if possible. Mr. Beranek to
attempt to negotiate earlier date. Aitland's position is to
be abolished.
BOCHANTIN, Bernard: VSIP and VERA approved. Bochantin's
position is to be abolished.
CAVINESS, Marie: VSIP approved. Caviness's position is to
be abolished.
CHIN, Bing: VSIP approved. Effective date not later than 3
January 1998, or earlier on Mr. Beranek's decision. Chin's
position is to be abolished.
GILLILAND, Betty: VSIP approved. Mr. Beranek to determine
position to be abolished from within GL DETS. Surplus HR
employee is not to be placed in GL DETS or elsewhere in GL
Regional Office as a result of this VSIP; need to get total
numbers down, not moved around internally. See additional
guidance below.
HAIDINYAK, Julie: VSIP approved. Haidinyak's position is to
be abolished.
KANDL, Gregory: VSIP and VERA approved. Kandl's position is
to be abolished.
KOWALKOWSKI, Lorraine: VSIP approved. Kowalkowski's
position is to be abolished.
Subject: Commander's action on VSIP/VERA for CELRD Regional
Offices, 1998.
LATORUNEY, Paul: VSIP approved. Latourney's position is to
be abolished.
LEINTZ, Barbara: VSIP and VERA approved. Leintz's position
is to be abolished.
LEONARD, Donald: VSIP approved. Mr. Beranek to make
recommendation to division commander on how to structure
Chicago office for future end-state structure. However, the
Chief of DETS Engineering Division will be in OR Regional
Office, Mr. Beranek will be the division Director of
Engineering and Technical Services.
LISUZZO, Gactano: VSIP and VERA approved. Lisuzzo's
position is to be abolished.
METZ, Anada: VSIP and VERA approved. Metz's position is to
be abolished.
MUELLER, Jewell: VSIP approved. Mueller's position is to be
abolished.
OKONSKI, Jerome: VSIP approved. Effective date not later
than 3 January 1998. Okonski's position is to be abolished.
Director of Program Management to make recommendation of
division commander on future end-state structure. Director of
Program Management will be in OR Regional Office and will be
director for division.
ORDONEZ, Jose: VSIP approved. Ordonez's position is to be
abolished.
PRITCHARD, Barry: VSIP approved. Pritchard's position is to
be abolished. Mr. Steiner will be the Planning Division Chief
for the division.
SMITH, Robert: VSIP approved. Smith's position is to be
abolished.
SORENSON, Rosa: VSIP and VERA approved. Sorenson's position
is to be abolished.
WESTALL, William: VSIP approved. Westall's position is to
be abolished.
(2) Ohio River Regional Office, Cincannati.
EBERHARDT, Berry Mae: VSIP approved. Eberhardt's position
is to be abolished.
EMMERICH, John: VSIP approved. Emmerich's position is to be
abolished.
GOLLADAY, Walter: VSIP and VERA approved. IM staff (between
two offices, to be reduced by one.)
GREGORY, Phyllis: Disapproved. Key position as CEFMS
coordinator, cannot afford to lose her expertise at this
critical time.
HUGENBERG, Thomas: VSIP and VERA approved. Effective date
not later than 21 November 1997. Hugenberg's position is to
be abolished.
JAMES, Jackie: Disapproved. Chief of Audit position will be
in end-state structure in all likelihood. As both Chief
Auditors have applied, under DOD policy the one with the
senior Service Computation Date must be approved first.
Therefore VSIP and VERA were approved for Mr. Batburney and
disapproved for Mr. James.
PERRY, Norman: VSIP approved. Mr. Mello's position is to be
abolished and be reassigned to Mr. Perry's position.
Effective date to be not later than 3 January 1998.
STRACHN, Donna: VSIP and VERA approved. Effective date to
be not later than 3 January 1998. Strachn's position is to be
abolished and duties to be combined with Executive Liaison
position, to include supervision over Public Affairs
Specialists in both regional offices.
SUPPLE, Mary: VSIP approved. Ms. Rosario's position in
Resource Management is to be abolished. Messrs. Basham,
Gibson, and White to decide how duties being performed by Ms.
McAlister, Rosario and Supple to be combined into remaining
positions in the trade directorates.
TOWNSEND, John: VSIP and VERA approved. Townsend's position
is to be abolished.
3. Other commander's decisions guidance:
a. As the above actions are effected, the remaining staff
principles will be designated as
[[Page E1533]]
the division staff officer for both regions and all seven
districts. This includes the following directors/office
chiefs: (RM action to officially designate)
Programs Management--Mr. Michael White (pending assignment/
selection of an SES to the position).
Engineering and Technical Services--Mr. Dwight Beranek;
Planning Division--Mr. Daniel Steiner, Engineering Division--
To be recruited with duty location in Ohio River Regional
Office, Cincinnati, Real Estate Division--Mr. Dominick Lijoi.
Audit--Mr. Jackie James.
Contracting--Mr. Michael Lee (Chicago).
Division Counsel (approved by the Chief of Engineers)--Mr.
Terry Kelley.
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer--Ms. Juleana Frierson.
Human Resources--Mr. William St. John.
Information Management--Mr. Walter Golladay.
Logistics Management--Mr. Gary Thomson.
Provost Marshal/Inspector General--MAJ Joanne Dewberry.
Public Affairs--Ms. Donna Strachn (until retirement, then
combined as indicated above).
Resource Management (as approved by the Chief of
Engineers)--Mr. Paul Gibson.
c. I previously made the decision to abolish all Human
Resources (HR) positions in the former NCD operating HR
office and conduct a Reduction in Force (RIF); HR employees
in that office will be afforded bump and retreat rights under
RIF to occupied positions only. All positions in the Great
Lakes Regional Office which are not presently permanently
encumbered by an employee will be officially abolished along
with those indicated above.
d. Mr. Michael Loesch from GL Regional Office is to be
offered the position in OR DETS, Construction-Operations
Division vice Sherm Gee.
e. Mr. Timothy Monteen is to be offered a management
directed reassignment to the OR DETS, Construction-Operations
position vice Dave Patuson.
Alexander R. Jansen,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
Commanding.
____
General Ballard: I am writing regarding a problem that has
developed during the writing of the Corps' division
restructuring plans. The problem is the perception that
Regional Offices in Chicago and Omaha are subservient to
their co-regional office.
The perception is caused by a general lack of information
or communication to the divisions, and HQUSACE staff. The
staff in Cincinnati has not had a Town Hall meeting to
explain the dual regional office concept or the transition
plan. One staff member was reported as saying something to
the effect of ``We have 90 new employees and don't know what
to do with them''. The transition teams have worked together
to prepare a plan that should be acceptable to all.
However our sense of well being falters when we hear
statements that are opposite of what we heard from you. What
is even worse, is receiving correspondence from HQUSACE that
does not exhibit the intent of the restructuring plan. One
such example was the 31 Mar 1997 memo on Restructuring
Implementation Instructions which identified Office Symbols,
EROC's and UIC's for Corps offices. There was no
organizational element identified as the Ohio River Regional
Office. We understand that those concerns were heard,
understood and being acted upon.
The worst example of HQUSACE insensitivity to this issue is
the Corps' Home Page on the Internet. Again, there is a Great
Lakes Regional Office in Chicago. But, no mention of a
Regional Office in Cincinnati, only the Great Lakes Ohio
River Division Office.
We have taken you at your word and hope that these are only
errors of ignorance, and that the Home Page has not been
corrected due to other IM efforts required to implement your
restructuring plan. Perhaps a few words to the HQUSACE Chief
of Information Management would clarify the perception the
Home Page gives to all that see it, and identify it as a high
priority item.
Thank you for your assistance.
Duane A. Kowalski,
President,
Local 777, IFPTE.