is the reason we had to make the second sheet to get those that had been cleared up. Mr. BROOKS. Are there further questions, Mr. Schweiker? or Mr. Wallhauser? Mr. WALLHAUSER. No further questions. Thank you. Mr. BROOKS. We want to thank you for your time. We appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Duncan, for coming down and working up these figures for us. DUPLICATION IN ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES AT WESTERN OFFICES OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE We would like to go now to the duplication and accounting in administrative activities at Western Office of Design and Construction and western regional office of the National Park Service. I believe Mr. Hillary Tolson, Assistant Director, Administration, of the National Park Service is here? Mr. TOLSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. And you are Mr. STRATTON. A. Clark Stratton, Assistant Director, Design and Construction. Mr. BROOKS. Gentlemen, the Western Office of Design and Construction, as I understand it, performs various administrative functions which the western regional office is responsible for and also performs. This duplication of effort results in the use of unnecessary manpower, as we look at it. The duplication existed in accounting functions, contract administration, personnel administration, payrolling, and in purchasing. The subcommittee understands that the officials of these two offices, which are located within 12 blocks of each other in San Francisco, agree that such duplication exists. Our problem is what the National Park Service is doing about the duplication and how much money could be saved by eliminating that duplication, what positions. could be eliminated, what the cost is of each operation separately maintained. I am sure you already may have been concerned about the problems for some time. STATEMENT OF HILLORY A. TOLSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY A. CLARK STRATTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Mr. TOLSON. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman. We had not considered that this was a duplication. That has yet to be determined. We had felt when we set up the Western Office of Design and Construction, just before the Mission 66 program started in 1956, that is, with the 1957 fiscal year, that it would be better to have separate organizations to handle these functions than to expand the functions in the western regional office. We had an extensive recruiting program because our construction program jumped by $20 to $25 million in that fiscal year that started the Mission 66 program, which has been underway since and in which we have accomplished a great deal in the construction field and in expanding the management program throughout the national park system. Mr. BROOKS. Now, Mr. Tolson, I want to refresh your memory with a statement that you made, as you probably well recall, in July of 1960, when you wrote a memorandum to the Chief of the Office of Design and Construction, from yourself as Acting Director. The subject was "Proposal To Establish a Field Finance Office," in the design and construction area and in that on page 6 you said in reference to fiscal records, which is the same subject matter we are talking about, you said: The statement, "This office maintains its own cost finding and cost keeping fiscal records and these are used internally as source data for the preparation of work orders and obligation documents" continuing the letter is very disturbing. I find it equally disturbing, still, in 1962, because you went on to say: While it is understood that you must have a genuine understanding as to the status of your fund as to any given date, you should be able to do so without maintaining a separate set of accounts amd I am inclined to think that you were right in 1960, and so I ask you again, what did you all do about it then, and why it cannot be implemented as you seemed to think essential at that time? Mr. TOLSON. We were discussing there the establishment of a separate field finance office. At the present time, the Service has finance offices located in strategic locations throughout the country. The centralized accounting work is handled out of Washington and through 27 field finance offices. The Western Office, Division of Design and Construction, had asked that a separate field office be established in that office in addition to the one in the western regional office in San Francisco. Mr. BROOKS. You turned it down? Mr. TOLSON. We turned it down. Mr. BROOKS. Because you thought that while you must have a general understanding as to the status of your fund you should be able to do so. Mr. TOLSON. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. That is what I am talking about, "without maintaining a separate set of accounts." Mr. TOLSON. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. We are under the impression that they do maintain this separate set of accounts but not in a separate office. What I mean is, not in two design and construction offices, they have one design and construction office, and within that they maintain a separate set of accounts, which I understood you opposed in 1960 and which seems to be a duplication of the records which are readily available in good, readable, and acceptable usable form in the regional office, 12 blocks away, and with modern communication and good shoe leather, it just is not very far. Mr. TOLSON. We did feel that way about it, yes. Mr. BROOKS. Not being unreasonable with you, it just does not look like it is a good expenditure of moneys, to maintain this separate set of records. Mr. TOLSON. What we have tried to do is to furnish the head of that office, through the field finance office in the western regional office with the fiscal information he needs in order to run his own office; and that was the only question involved there. We have had one of our accountants make a study of that. We expect to make several revisions in that procedure, which is to be effective January 1, 1963, which would give him that information through the field finance office in the western regional office. Mr. BROOKS. You anticipate then that this will result in some increased economy in the operation? Mr. TOLSON. This in and of itself may not, but leading into these other fields, which you have mentioned here, the contracting, personnel, vouchering, and so forth, there is a possibility that we can avoid some duplication of effort. Mr. BROOKS. Which is existent now? Mr. TOLSON. Yes, well, to some extent, and Mr. Beasley has discussed that matter with us. We are ready to cooperate with him and his staff in making this study to see whether or not we can avoid any duplication and effect any economies all along the line. Mr. BROOKS. And particularly in the design and construction area where you have equal and duplicative information readily accessible and available to them? Mr. TOLSON. Yes, sir; I am sure we can do that. Mr. BROOKS. I think Mr. Beasley will be pleased with you and so will I. You will be justified in that letter you wrote in 1960. Do you have any questions on this? Mr. WALLHAUSER. No, sir. Mr. BROOKS. We would appreciate, of course, a report on the personnel that you have saved, and maybe on the increased efficiency with which this information can be provided the Design and Construction Office when you complete the changeover in January. Mr. TOLSON. We will be glad to furnish that. (Subsequently the Department furnished the following statement, exhibit 22:) EXHIBIT 22-NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO The National Park Service in cooperation with the Administrative Assistant Secretary will make a study of administrative operations in the San Francisco area and will report early in 1963 on savings in personnel and efficiency of operations, particularly resulting from the changeover in January 1963. Mr. BROOKS. We operate on the theory that if you do anything right, Lord knows we are for bragging on you and being delighted. You apparently have got the concept of how this can be accomplished and are now in the process of issuing the orders that will implement it. Mr. TOLSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Design and Construction is still going to know all the information that it needs to know; is that right? Mr. TOLSON. That is right. The Design and Construction Office, Mr. Chairman, is not part of the western regional office. It is a field office of our office here in Washington. Mr. BROOKS. It is only 12 blocks away. Some of this information is pretty close at hand for them. Mr. TOLSON. I should point out, I think, that the $62,000 expended annually, as mentioned in the statement, covers all of the administrative positions in the Design and Construction Office in San Fran 89028-62-pt. 3-10 cisco, Obviously, an office of that size is going to require some administrative employees. It has 200 permanent positions and some 220 seasonal so there will need to be some administrative work performed. That is what Mr. Beasley and the rest of us would like to determine, as to what the organization should be. Mr. BROOKS. Do you have any questions? Mr. NEDZI. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. We want to thank both of you gentlemen very much, and you particularly, for making a real effort in implementing your 1960 decision. Mr. TOLSON. Thank you, sir. CONSTRUCTION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE EXCEEDING COST LIMITATIONS Mr. BROOKS. We would like to go now, if we may, to construction of employee housing in National Park Service exceeding cost limitations and ask at this time if perhaps you, Mr. Beasley, are going to handle that? Do you have someone else who will assist you? Mr. BEASLEY. I would be very glad to explain, Mr. Chairman, what the situation is there. Mr. BROOKS. Let me present the problem as we view it so that you will be clear in understanding it. For the past several years, the Appropriations Committees have placed a limitation of $20,000 per unit on the construction of employee housing. The committees directed that any exceptions must first receive advance approval from the committee. I would like to put in the record a summary of the legislative history of this limitation and excerpts from House Report 233, 87th Congress, 1st session, setting forth the standards outlined by the Appropriations Committees on this housing. (The documents, exhibits 23A and 23B, follow:) EXHIBIT 23A-DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, $20,000 CONSTRUCTION LIMITATION ON EMPLOYEE HOUSING The following documents trace the construction limitation from its beginning to the present, which is included in the Appropriation Committee reports. The limitation has not been included in the Appropriation Acts for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. 86th Congress, 1st session Bill H.R. 5915: Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriation bill, 1960, House Report 237, Senate Report 345, and House Report 545. 86th Congress, 2d session Bill H.R. 10401: Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriation bill, 1961, House Report 1264, Senate Report 1203, and House Report 1591. 87th Congress, 1st session Bill H.R. 6345: Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriation bill, 1962, House Report 233, Senate Report 294, and House Report 797. 87th Congress, 2d session Bill H.R. 10802: Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriation bill, 1963, House Report 1446, Senate Report 1490, and House Report 2049. EXHIBIT 23B-HOUSE REPORT No. 233, 87TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 1962, APRIL 14, 1961 EMPLOYEE HOUSING The committee is continuing in fiscal year 1962 its policy of limiting the unit cost of employee housing in the United States, excluding Alaska, to $20,000. The limitation includes engineering and design costs but excludes provision of utilities to the lot line. Any exceptions to this monetary limitation shall continue to be submitted to the committee for its advance review and approval. Employee houses shall not exceed the following standards: (1) Standard materials, millwork, equipment, and fixtures that are readily available at local supply centers will be used in all dwelling construction; (2) design will be simple with no features that increase building costs such as irregularities in rough framing; (3) not to exceed 11⁄2 baths; (4) one-stall garage in areas subject to deep snow or prolonged periods of below-freezing temperatures, carports in warmer climates; (5) sun porches, enclosed patios, or similar features will not be provided; (6) floor area shall not exceed-two-bedroom dwelling, 1,250 square feet; three-bedroom dwelling, 1,300 square feet; exclusive of basement and garage space (or service and storage space in lieu of basement; (7) no four-bedroom dwellings shall be permitted; and (8) fireplaces will not be permitted except where essential for adequate heating. Mr. BROOKS. The subcommittee has been informed that in several parks, employee housing units have been constructed where the cost may exceed the limitation. For example, in Yosemite National Park, at least 11 of the 20 single housing units under construction will probably exceed the limitation by about $2,907 per unit. We understand that nine other houses being constructed in that park were given approval by the committee to exceed the limitation. What I am concerned about is what the Department says about this expenditure above the limitation of $20,000. Are you familiar with the situation on the problem? Mr. BEASLEY. Mr. Chairman, we have been under this limitation of $20,000 for housing units for the last 3 years. During this period of time, there have been authorized 976 housing units. We have asked the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to permit us to build 55 housing units in excess of $20,000, based upon the lowest bid which we could obtain from bids that were advertised, or other conditions which indicated construction could not take place within. the $20,000. Mr. BROOKS. Do I understand you have asked for that authority? Mr. BEASLEY. Nine of which are in the Yosemite National Park area. The committee approved all of those except nine. I think that I can assure this committee that if we can convince the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that we cannot build a house within $20,000, the maximum amount permitted without their specific approval, you may rest assured that we must have ample justification for it. I am not saying that you should necessarily agree with the conclusions reached by these other committees, but this is an extremely difficult clearance to get. I feel Mr. BROOKS. To make it clear, sir, we do not question the judgment of the Appropriations Committees in approving the extension of that limit from $20,000 to $21,000, or whatever was agreed upon by them in accordance with your request. |