Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564324
label
Press Releases - 02/01/1972-02/09/1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564324
contentType
document
title
Press Releases - 02/01/1972-02/09/1972
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Press Releases
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564324
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c44460585d2b67ee
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Press Releases -
02/01/1972-02/09/1972
Box: P13
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
MEMO TO THE RESS
Sacramento, Californ
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
2-1-72
The Salaries and Wages supplement to the
1972-73 budget is now available to the Capitol
Press Corps in the Governor's Press Office.
# # #
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#61
Governor Ronald Reagan acted today to gather all state forces
concerned with earthquake preparedness and research under a single
banner with the appointment of a 32-member Governor's Earthquake Council.
The council, which includes experts from all levels of government,
the universities and the private sector, will coordinate preparedness
and research programs, recommend and evaluate legislation, propose
action to reduce the toll of lives and property damage, and work to
develop an earthquake warning system.
"While we cannot prevent earthquakes, we know that much can be
done to reduce the loss of life and property damage," Governor Reagan
pointed out. "But we must also explore every avenue that can lead to
a system that will help us to predict when and where earthquakes are
likely to occur and their magnitude."
In announcing the formation of the council, the governor commended
the legislature's Joint Committee on Seismic Safety for its "excellent
progress in the development of earthquake legislation."
He also noted that the week of February 7 has been designated as
"Seismic Safety Week" by the legislature in memory of the victims of
the San Fernando earthquake of 1971.
"I believe that we can best honor those who suffered in that
disaster by resolving to use all the knowledge we can acquire to pre-
pare for and prevent future tragedies," he said.
The governor also endorsed a simulated earthquake exercise
scheduled during Seismic Safety Week throughout Southern California
by the State Office of Emergency Services in cooperation with local
governmental agencies. The exercise will test responses and techniques
learned during the 1971 earthquake.
Participants will include the University of Southern California's
School of Business Administration and agencies of the City of
Los Angeles and the counties of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange,
San Diego and Riverside.
The earthquake council, which will hold its organizational meeting
later this month, will be headed by James G. Stearns, director of the
State Department of Conservation, as chairman.
-1-
#61
Col. Herbert R. Temple, Jr., director of the Office of Emergency
Services, will serve as vice chairman and State Geologist Wesley G.
Bruer will act as secretary.
Following are representatives and alternates named to the
Governor's Earthquake Council:
Representative
Alternate
Dr. Leroy R. Alldredge
Dr. S. Theodore Algermissen
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Clarence R. Allen
Rodney J. Diridon
California Legislature Joint
San Jose
Committee on Seismic Safety
Pasadena
Art Arthur
none
Public Member
Beverly Hills
Richards D. Barger
Lawrence C. Baker, Jr.
State Department of Insurance
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Gene Block
Mary W. Henderson
League of California Cities
Redwood City
Claremont
Professor Bruce A. Bolt
Professor Joseph Penzien
University of California
Berkeley
Berkeley
Dr. Frank R. Bowerman
Dr. Orville L. Bandy
University of Southern California
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Dr. James N. Brune
Professor J. Freeman Gilbert
University of California
Professor Richard A. Haubrich
San Diego
San Diego
Ralph D. Burns
Terence S. Meade
Office of Emergency Preparedness
San Francisco
San Francisco
Lloyd S. Cluff
Jay L. Smith
Association of Engineering Geologists
Long Beach
Oakland
Robert J. Datel
Arthur L. Elliott
State Department of Public Works
Sacramento
Sacramento
Mrs. Frances K. Dias
Allen E. Wilmore
Office of Civil Defense, U.S. Depart-
Santa Rosa
ment of the Army
Santa Rosa
Art Dreyer
Calvin Jepsen
State Department of Housing
Sacramento
and Community Development
Sacramento
Dr. Jerry P. Eaton
Dr. Robert E. Wallace
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Depart-
Menlo Park
ment of the Interior
Menlo Park
-2-
#61
Greer W. Ferver
Jack S. Barrish
American Society of Civil Engineers
Sacramento
San Diego
Kenneth H. Hack
James S. Brigham
California Savings and Loan League
North Hollywood
San Francisco
Dr. Roy E. Hanson
Dr. Charles C. Thiel
National Science Foundation
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Dr. George W. Housner
none
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena
Fred Hummel
William R. Vick
State Department of General Services
Sacramento
Sacramento
Professor Richard H. Jahns
Professor Robert L. Kovach
Stanford University
Stanford
Stanford
Robert B. Jansen
Laurence B. James
State Department of Water Resources
Sacramento
Sacramento
Willard F. Libby
Dr. Leon Knopoff
University of California
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Daniel D. Mikesell
Edward E. Bernard
County Supervisors Assn. of Calif.
St. Helena
San Bernardino
Thomas J. Nolan
Richard D. Carlson
State Department of Real Estate
Sacramento
Sacramento
Melville Owen
none
Public Member
San Francisco
John B. Passerello
John Tooker
State Office of Planning and Research
Sacramento
Sacramento
William F. Ropp
H. Robert Hammill
Structural Engineers Association
San Francisco
of California, Los Angeles
G. Richard Schermerhorn
Dale James
U.S. Department of Housing and
San Francisco
Urban Development, San Francisco
Karl V. Steinbrugge
none
State Mining and Geology Board
San Francisco
Ronald S. Thacker
Fielding McDearmon
California Bankers Association
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Mrs. Carol Walker
none
Council on Intergovernmental
Relations, Sacramento
Charles A. Zahn
none
American Institute of Planners,
California Chapter
Martinez
# # #
-3-
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: Imi liate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#62
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Mrs. Rachel Ayers of
Pasadena and Sister Helene Marie Sauers of Burlingame to four-year terms
on the Board of Nursing Education and Nurse Registration in the
Department of Consumer Affairs.
Mrs. Ayers, Director of Nursing for the City of Hope Medical Center
in Duarte, has served on the board since 1968. She lives at 1155 East
Del Mar Street, Pasadena. She is a Republican.
Sister Helene, Health Services Education Coordinator for the Sisters
of Mercy Convent in Burlingame, has served on the board since 1969.
She is a Republican.
Board members receive $25 per diem while on official duty.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#63
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed three members to
four-year terms on the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners in the
Department of Consumer Affairs.
They are Richard A. Battaglia of South San Francisco, Mrs. Pearle
H. Miller of San Diego and Dr. Rosalio F. Munoz of Los Angeles.
Battaglia, office manager of a chemical firm, lives at 371 Valencia
Drive, South San Francisco. He has represented the public on the board
since 1969. He is a Republican.
Mrs. Miller, Director of Medical Social Service for the Department
of Medical Institutions, San Diego, has represented registered social
workers on the board since 1969. She lives at 3075 Malaga, San Diego.
She is a Republican.
Dr. Munoz, coordinator of District Pupil Services and the attendance
section of the Los Angeles City Board of Education, has represented
registered social workers on the board since 1969. Dr. Munoz, who lives
at 6164 Mt. Angelus Drive, Los Angeles, is a Democrat.
Board members receive $25 per diem while on official duty.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: Imi. liate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#64
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today appointed Dr. Joseph N. Fields
of Chula Vista to the Podiatry Examining Committee in the Department
of Consumer Affairs.
Dr. Fields, a past president of the California Podiatry Association
and a past trustee of California College of Podiatric Medicine, is
president of the Arthritis Foundation of San Diego County and a member
of the National Advisory Council for Health Professions Education
Assistance of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
He succeeds Dr. Donald W. Field of San Leandro, whose term has
expired.
Dr. Fields, a Republican, lives at 344 Kimble Terrace, Chula Vista.
Members of the committee receive $25 per diem while on official
duty.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: Imi liate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#65
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Camille M. Shaar of
Hope Ranch and William A. DeGroot, Jr., of Venice to four-year terms on
the Navigation and Ocean Development Commission, subject to Senate
confirmation.
Shaar, director of the General Motors Corporation Defense Research
Laboratory in Goleta, has served on the commission since 1969. He lives
at 1124 Estrella, Hope Ranch.
DeGroot, a yachtsman and businessman, has also been a commissioner
since 1969. He lives at 5205 Ocean Front, Venice.
Both men are Republicans.
Commissioners receive necessary expenses.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE:
nediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#66
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Martin M. Cooper,
Mt. Shasta businessman and rancher, and Ralph R. Turk, Happy Camp
cattleman, to four-year terms on the board of the 10th District
Agricultural Association (Siskiyou County Fair).
Cooper, who lives at 303 Adams Drive, Mt. Shasta, and Turk, whose
address is Box 497 Happy Camp, have served on the board since 1968.
Both are Republicans.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: Im diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#67
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Norman T. R. Heathorn,
an Oakland contractor, to a four-year term on the Contractors' State
License Board in the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Heathorn, who lives at 4834 Haley Drive, Castro Valley, has
served on the board since 1968. He is a Republican.
Board members receive $25 per diem while on official duty.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#68
Acting Governor Ed Reinecke today announced the appointments of
Dr. Philip H. Pope of San Bernardino and Dr. Leo J. Poxon of Palos
Verdes Estates to four-year terms on the Board of Dental Examiners of
California in the Department of Consumer Affairs. Both are Republicans.
Dr. Pope, who lives at 1414 East Citrus, San Bernardino, will
succeed Dr. Lewis E. Martin of Downey, whose term has expired.
Dr. Poxon, who practices in Redondo Beach and lives at 5375 Rolling
Ridge Road, Palos Verdes Estates, will succeed Dr. Robert D. Lawson of
Upland who did not seek reappointment.
Members of the board receive $25 per diem while on official duty.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#69
Governor Ronald Reagan today sent the following telegram to Senator
Russell B. Long, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in Washington,
D.C.:
"I again want to express my deep appreciation to you and the
members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to urge that the
kind of welfare reform we have pioneered in California be adopted as a
model for the entire nation.
"The fact there are 176,000 fewer people on welfare in California
today than there were nine months ago when previously our welfare
rolls were growing at the fantastic rate of 40,000 a month simply
has to remove any doubt that our tried and proven approach to welfare
reform really works.
"On the basis of the success we have achieved, I am more convinced
than ever before that Congress must act to assure that the states have
the statutory and regulatory elbow room they need to adopt the welfare
reforms best suited to their own particular needs
unhindered by the
stultifying red tape and abuses of discretion so often imposed on us
by the welfare bureaucracy at HEW.
"The modifications of federal law and welfare regulations which I
proposed to your committee yesterday can provide the states all the
tools they need to effectively overhaul and reform welfare. With your
help and the support of the members of your committee, Congress can and
must see to it that this is done at the earliest possible time. Thank
you very much for all you are doing to help us succeed.
"Very sincerely, Ronald Reagan, Governor of California."
#####
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RELEASE: Immediate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#70
Governor Ronald Reagan today requested the legislature to expand
the 1972-73 budget by approximately $4 million to enable California to
qualify for an anticipated $60 million in the state's share of federal
anti-crime funds.
The Governor said it would be necessary to increase the General
Fund level by $4,085,000 to meet a "state buy-in" provision which will
be required next year under the federally-backed Omnibus Crime Control
Program.
Since the federal block grant program began in mid-1969, the
California Council on Criminal Justice has funded more than 525 projects
to improve the police, courts, and correctional system with grant awards
in excess of $45 million from the federal Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration. At present, the bulk of the projects are funded on a
ratio of 75 percent federal funds, and 25 percent in local matching
funds from cities and counties.
The governor said, "Beginning with 1972-73 funding under the
Omnibus Crime Control Act, the State of California will be required
to 'buy in' to the program by providing not less than one-fourth of
the non-federal funds required for each of the crime-fighting projects
funded throughout the state."
The governor also stated that by the end of this year, federal
block grants to the California Council on Criminal Justice will have
totaled nearly $100 under the LEAA program. Seventy-five percent of
these funds are funneled directly to cities and counties for a variety
of crime reduction programs and to foster long-range planning in the
criminal justice system. Major statewide programs include establishment
of regional criminal justice training centers, creation of a statewide
system of crime labs, use of electronic data processing to speed
operations of the courts, and training of law enforcement personnel in
riot control.
# # #
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: Im diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-2-72
#71
Earl Coke, a member of the governor's cabinet and secretary of the
State Agriculture and Services Agency, today sent the following letter to
members of the Select Labor Management Factfinding Committee for the State
Division of Industrial Safety.
The committee was formed January 24 to examine the operations of the
State Division of Industrial Safety and to make appropriate recommendation
to Earl Coke for whatever corrective action might be necessary within
the division. The committee members are:
Warren Mendel, Executive Vice President, Engineering and Grading
Contractors' Association
Thomas Richards, California Farm Bureau Federation
Emmons McClung, California Manufacturers' Association
James Lee, President, Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO
Frank Farrell, Teamsters Union
Kenneth Larson, Chairman, State-wide AFL-CIO Safety Committee
Coke forwarded with his letter copies of a "Management Review" of
the Division of Industrial Safety which was prepared independently by
Department of Finance auditors, at the request of the governor (attached).
Here is the text of Mr. Coke's letter:
"I want to thank you very much for serving on this important fact-
finding task force and for accepting the responsibility for examining
the operations of the Division of Industrial Safety, Department of
Industrial Relations.
"To assist you in your efforts, I am enclosing copies of a management
review of the Division which was prepared independently by Department of
Finance auditors at the request of the governor. Before the review was
completed, the auditors' preliminary findings were forwarded to the
governor's office.
"As you know, the governor has accepted the resignation of Jack Hatto
as chief of the division and named Roy J. Bell as acting chief.
"In addition, the findings of a thorough internal investigation by
Director Hern also are being turned over to you for your evaluation.
"Governor Reagan carefully read the preliminary findings and is
deeply concerned that the Division of Industrial Safety meet its
responsibilities. He has asked me to assume full responsibility for
whatever corrective action may be necessary within the division.
- 1 -
#71
"Let me stress that the objective of this administration has been,
and continues to be, the protection of the health and safety of
California workers through a balanced program of education and
enforcement.
"Budgeting for this program has been complicated by the uncertain
aspects of federal funding---available under provisions of the new
Occupational Safety and Health Act. These uncertainties are not yet
completely resolved. However, it now appears thatat least $2 million in
additional federal funds can reasonably be expected during fiscal
1972-73. Thus, plans for more definitive budgeting can now be undertaken
in the Division of Industrial Safety.
"In addition to the indications of ineffective internal
communications and other management deficiencies within the Division of
Industrial Safety, the enclosed management review outlines several areas
of special concern to which I am directing the immediate attention of
Acting Chief Roy Bell.
"First, the report points out some areas where manpower may be
inadequate to handle the workload of the division most efficiently and
expeditiously. Several professional positions within the division are
now vacant and I am asking Mr. Bell to fill them immediately. The effort
of some employees might well be redirected toward field examinations and
Mr. Bell tells me that he is already working on that problem.
"Second, the report points out that travel funds are inadequate.
Not all travel funds budgeted for the division were utilized last year
or it could be that not all are being utilized during the current year.
I have asked Mr. Bell to ensure that all appropriations for travel
purposes be fully utilized.
"Third, the report discusses the inadequacy of equipment. Although
many vouchers may not be in, it appears possible that only a small
portion of the equipment money budgeted for the current year actually
has been used. Mr. Bell is being asked to immediately expend available
funds to bring equipment up to an acceptable level.
"I want to urge that you assess the information contained in this
management review along with the findings of Director Hern's investigatio
and make appropriate recommendations to me for corrective action at the
earliest possible time. The governor has assured me that your
recommendations will be given full and careful consideration and will
have a substantial impact on whatever decisions we reach.
- 2 -
#71
"We will take whatever steps are necessary, working with the
legislature, to see that the Division of Industrial Safety fulfills its
vital role of protecting the health and safety of California workers.
"Despite the shameful, politically motivated statements of some
so-called legislative leaders, let me assure you that this administration
will not compromise the integrity of the division's obligations for
providing safe working conditions for the citizens of California.
Sincerely,
Earl Coke
Agency Secretary"
#####
EJG
- 3 -
MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF
DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
JANUARY 1972
Audits Division
Department of Finance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
i
Introduction
1
Administration
9
Construction
12
Electrical
24
Elevators
29
Industrial
33
Pressure Vessels
43
We express:
Our appreciation to the employees of the Division
of Industrial Safety for their courteous attitudes,
their frank and open discussion with our auditors
and their willingness to participate on their own
time and at their own homes.
Our thanks to Director Hern for the information,
reports and cooperation he furnished us.
R.J.Ardaling
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coverage
Professional employees below the level of Chief were interviewed as follows:
Section
Potential
Interviewed
Percent
Administration
16
15
94%
Construction
48
46
96%
Electrical
10
10
100%
Elevators
20
15
75%
Industrial
67
58
87%
Pressure Vessels
53
48
91%
Total
214
192
90%
FACTS REGARDING STUDY METHODOLOGY
All data collection was done through employee interviews. No records, except
the Governor's Budget, were reviewed. Solid data, supported by specific ex-
amples were hard to come by and in most instances lacking. Thus, this can be
considered an opinion survey rather than a systematic program review.
Nevertheless, the size of the sample interviewed, the frequency of many
responses and the convictions evidenced by the employees lead us to believe
that the conclusions are sound and indicate that improvement is needed.
Symbols used throughout the Executive Summary are as follows:
A - Adequate
E - Excellent
InA - Inadequate
NR - No Response
S - Satisfactory
T - Total
UnS - Unsatisfactory
-i-
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
There is a Need for Improved Program Management
Employee responses relating to program management are
summarized below:
Section
E
S
UnS
NR
T
Administration
4
4
3
4
15
Construction
6
10
30
46
Electrical
2
5
3
10
Elevator
10
2
2
1
15
Industrial
10
30
12
6
58
Pressure Vessels
10
34
1
3
48
Total Employee
Responses
42
85
51
14
192
Of the total employee responses, 27% felt the need for
improved program management.
In the Construction Section, 65% of employee responses
(30 out of 46) and in the Industrial Section, 21% of
employee responses (12 out of 58) indicated the need for
improved program management.
In the other sections, there were some indications of the
need for improved program management.
The Role of the Division is Not Well Defined
There is a conflict between educational and enforcement
activities.
Employees feel management stresses education.
Management feels employees stress enforcement.
Communications With Employees Needs Improvement
Many employees feel a lack of policy direction from
top management.
Safety codes are not current.
Application of safety requirements are not uniform.
Deviations from safety requirements are permitted by higher
levels with no feedback to employees as to why.
Supervisory personnel spend little or no time in field.
Employee training to update and refresh their skills is
totally inadequate.
Employee Morale Needs Improvement
The large number of adverse employee responses concerning
Division management indicates low employee morale.
Administrative and supervisory personnel are not responsive
to the needs of employees, who, in the main, are dedicated to
their jobs.
In the Construction Section particularly, morale is extremely
low. The apparent lack of management support for enforcement
has taken its toll.
In the Electrical and Industrial Sections, morale is below
average. It would appear that the most significant con-
tributing factor is insufficient employees to make needed
inspections on a reasonable cycle.
In the Elevator and Pressure Vessels Sections, morale is
somewhat higher. This may be due to the fixed workload and
the better defined programs of their sections.
Management Support of Safety Engineers Needs Strengthening
The following is a summary of employee responses regarding the
level of management support:
Section
E
S
UnS
NR
T
Administration
10
3
2
15
Construction
11
15
19
1
46
Electrical
3
4
3
10
Elevator
14
1
15
Industrial
20
34
1
3
58
Pressure Vessels
19
27
2
48
Total Employee
Responses
77
83
23
9
192
-iii-
Of the total employee responses, 12% felt that management
support was unsatisfactory.
In the Construction Section, 41% of the employee responses
(19 out of 46) rated management support as unsatisfactory.
In the other sections, most employees felt that management
support was fairly reasonable.
There was a general feeling, however, among employees that
all unsafe conditions are not always reported. This was
due to their anticipated lack of management support.
Few recommendations to prosecute are upheld.
Inspection reports no longer provide for a prosecution
recommendation.
Many employees feel that management's approach is "don't
rock the boat".
There Were Some Indications of External Pressure
A summary of employee responses concerning employers getting
unwarranted favorable treatment follows:
Section
Yes
No
NR
T
Administration
2
11
2
15
Construction
18
28
46
Electrical
5
4
1
10
Elevator
2
12
1
15
Industrial
5
47
6
58
Pressure Vessels
2
42
4
48
Total Employee
Responses
34
144
14
192
The possibility of external pressure was indicated in 18% of
the total employee responses.
In the Construction Section, 39% of the employee responses
(18 out of 46) indicated the possibility of external pressure.
In the other sections, there was some concern over the
possibility of external pressure.
Many employees felt that failure to prosecute was indicative
of external pressure.
-iv-
Additional Staffing is Needed
A summary of employee responses concerning staffing follows:
Section
A
InA
NR
T
Administration
4
8
3
15
Construction
19
26
1
46
Electrical
9
1
10
Elevator
1
14
15
Industrial
15
42
1
58
Pressure Vessels
23
24
1
48
Total Employee
Responses
62
123
7
192
Of the total employee responses, 64% felt that staffing was
inadequate.
In all sections, 50% or more of the employee responses in-
dicated that staffing was inadequate.
Many employees felt that additional staffing was needed for
enforcement.
Some geographical areas are too large to be adequately covered
with present staff.
There are inspection backlogs.
Workload is increasing.
Paperwork ties up professionals, more clerks are needed.
Travel Funds are Inadequate
Employee responses relating to travel funds are summarized below:
Section
A
InA
NR
T
Administration
12
1
2
15
Construction
27
19
46
Electrical
1
9
10
Elevator
14
1
15
Industrial
45
10
3
58
Pressure Vessels
28
16
4
48
Total Employee
Responses
127
55
10
192
Of the total employee responses, 29% felt that travel funds
were inadequate.
Employee responses indicated that travel funds were inadequate,
except in the Administration and Elevator Sections.
Lack of travel funds restricts needed reinspections, especially
where jobs are dispersed over large geographical areas.
All jobs that should be inspected cannot be inspected due to
inadequate travel funds.
Insufficient Equipment is Provided to Safety Engineers
The following is a summary of employee responses regarding
equipment.
Section
A
InA
NR
T
Administration
5
8
2
15
Construction
26
18
2
46
Electrical
2
8
10
Elevators
10
4
1
15
Industrial
27
27
4
58
Pressure Vessels
34
11
3
48
Total Employee
Responses
104
76
12
192
Equipment was inadequate as indicated by 34% of the total
employee responses.
Employee responses indicated that equipment was inadequate
in all sections.
Outdated and worn out testing equipment should be replaced.
New, modern, and specialized testing equipment is needed.
Two State automobiles were described as being in poor condition.
At times, employees must borrow equipment from organizations
being inspected.
Many times it is necessary for employees to use their own
or borrowed tools.
INTRODUCTION
The Assembly Select Committee on Industrial Safety, Assemblyman Jack R.
Fenton, Chairman, recently held a series of hearings concerning the
activities of the Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial
Relations. During the course of these hearings, numerous Division em-
ployees testified about conditions in the Division which they felt were
seriously detrimental to the achievement of Division objectives.
Major complaints made before the commission by these employees included
the following:
Division management frequently fails to "back up" its field
safety inspectors in disputes with employers over the enforce-
ment of safety regulations.
Specifically, on frequent occasions management countermands
the attempts of its field inspectors to close down certain
unsafe operations or equipment.
Management shows favoritism toward employers, particularly
larger employers.
There are an insufficient number of prosecutions recommended
by the Division, and inspector's requests for prosectuion could
be and usually were overruled at management levels above the
inspector.
Both staffing levels and travel funds are inadequate to do the
job.
-1-
During the course of the committee hearings, the appointed Chief of the
Division of Industrial Safety tendered his resignation, which was not
accepted pending investigation. Governor Reagan directed the Director of
Industrial Relations to conduct a study of the Division. Also, on
January 21, 1972, in order to obtain the viewpoints and perspectives of
a group from without the Department, the Audits Division, Department of
Finance, was directed to investigate the problem independently. This is
the report of that investigation.
Study Scope and Methodology
The study was a fact finding investigation as to the experiences, opinions
and attitudes of the professional employees and supervisors of the Division
of Industrial Safety. In the interest of assuring that all voices were
heard, an attempt was made to contact all professional employees of the
Division below the level of Chief, and to interview these employees at
their homes. In addition, a few clerical employees were interviewed when
such contacts were recommended by professional employees.
A listing of current Division employees names, home addresses and telephone
numbers was obtained from the Department Director. Commencing at 6 p.m.,
Friday, January 21, attempts were made to reach all employees, at their
homes, by telephone. These calls continued through Sunday night, until
almost all Division professional employees were reached.
The following statement was made to the employees contacted:
Exhibit I
Telephone Contact Speech
The Director of Finance has asked us to contact all professional
employees of the Division of Industrial Safety. Our objective
is to learn about the operation of the industrial safety program.
We are particularly concerned with how well the recommendations
of the safety engineers are supported by Division management. We
are also concerned about the adequacy of resources assigned to the
safety program.
You are no doubt aware of the legislative hearings that have been
held on the subject. The administration is not trying to whitewash
the problems raised in those hearings. Instead, the Governor wants
us to gather additional facts, both good and bad, about the safety
program's administration. We have to find out by Monday night.
We would like to interview you this weekend about your own expe-
riences. We would like examples of how your safety recommendations
have or have not been supported. We also want your general feelings
about the adequacy of the program. If you feel it is inadequate, we
want your recommendations as to how it could be improved.
The Director of your department is aware of the study and knows that
we are telephoning you. When and where can our representative see
you?
Most employees readily agreed to be interviewed at their homes, and appoint-
ments were made for Friday evening, Saturday or Sunday. A few insisted that
the interviews be conducted on State time, these were interviewed at their
work stations on Monday, January 24. Still fewer refused to be interviewed;
no pressure was used to try to change their minds. As could be expected, a
certain number of employees were unavailable.
Interviewers were not directed to follow a specific (patterned) format.
Instead, they were given a list of questions to be answered during the
interview, but were instructed also to explore any other areas brought up
by the interviewee, which were pertinent to the issues at hand. The specific
questions, reproduced below as Exhibit 2, were designed with care to be
unbiased and open ended, with the objectives of freeing results from dis-
tortion and maximizing further responses from the Division employees being
interviewed.
Exhibit 2
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Auditor: Enter required information in space provided. Give detailed explanation
on open ended questions. Check appropriate box where additional sheets
are used. In addition, describe on reverse the general attitude of
employee.
Interview time
Date
Approximate Duration
1. Name
2. Position
3. Office Location
4. Territory
5. How long have you been in: a. Safety work?
b. Your present job
6. Describe your present job.
7. In 1971, about how many:
a. Inspections did you make?
b. Violations did you find?
C. Violations corrected by contractor?
d. Disputed violations upheld by management?
e. Disputed violations reversed by management?
8. In general how do you feel about the level of support that your recommendations
receive from your management?
Additional Sheet
9. Can you give us some examples where your recommendations were not supported when
you feel they should have beon? (Get approximate dates, job and firms involved,
description of incident, safety engineer's recommendations, management action
and by whom.)
Additional Sheet
10. What percent of the time would you say your recommendations were not followed when
they should have been?
Additional Sheet
11. In your opinion, did any of the incidents described result in the injury or death
of employees? (Elaborate)
Additional Sheet
12. Do you have any feelings that employers are getting unwarranted favorable treatment
from the department? Please give examples.
Additional Sheet
13. How adequate are the travel funds at your disposal?
Additional Sheet
14. How adequate is the equipment at your disposal?
Additional Sheet
15. How adequate do you feel staffing levels are in your portion of the industrial
safety program? Why?
Additional Sheet
16. In your opinion how well managed is the program? Why?
Additional Sheet
Auditor's Name
When all of the interviews were completed, the interview reports were reviewed
carefully by Audits Division supervisory personnel, and the field interviewers
were questioned to be sure that all important information was captured.
The results of the interviews are summarized in the balance of this report,
by Section. Our overall findings and conclusions are given in the Executive
Summary which precedes this report section.
FACTS ABOUT THE DIVISION
The Division of Industrial Safety is in the State Department of Industrial
Relations. It operates under the authority of Labor Code, Division 1,
Chapter 6, Section 142, and Division 5, Part 1 through 7, which direct it to
administer and enforce safety standards, investigate accidents, participate in
educational activities and formulate statewide safety standards.
The overall program of the Division, then, provides for field safety surveys
of places of employment to bring correction of unsafe conditions through
code enforcement, to improve safety performance through education and con-
sulation, to investigate accidents and complaints; and to develop, maintain
and publish codes of safety standards and assist this endeavor. This
overall activity is accomplished through eight program elements, staffed
and funded as indicated in Exhibit 3, on the following page:
-6-
Exhibit 3
Program Elements - Division of Industrial Safety
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
70-71
71-72
72-73
1970-71
1971-72
1372-73
Continuing program costs
281.9
277.2
276.8
$4,934,440
$4,968,098
$5,003,773
Workload adjustments
-
23
-
-
388,663
-
Totals, The Prevention of Industrial
Injuries and Deaths to California
Workers
281.9
300.2
276.8
$4,934,440
$5,356,161
$5,003,773
General Fund
4,893,150
4,922,098
4,957,773
388,063
-
Federal funds
-
Reimbursement
41,290
46,000
46,000
Program Elements:
A. Safety for employees in construc-
tion
58.1
63.1
60.1
$1,051,459
$1,119,543
$1,077,221
B. Safety for employees exposed to
electrical hazards
14.4
13.3
13.3
268,314
234,260
238,386
C. Safety for employees while using
or repairing elevators, escalators
or aerial tramways
30.8
30.3
30.1
518,492
553,387
571,276
D. Safety of employees from radia-
tion, dusts, fumes, vapors, gases.
etc.
12.2
10.4
10.4
224,919
187,890
186,407
E. Safety for employees in industrial
plants and operations including
mineral industries
83.7
87
80
1,456,830
1,526,002
1,433,904
F. Developing and coordinating Cali-
fornia OSHA projects. cataloging
California Health and Safety
Codes. and comparing state and
federal health and safety laws
13
233,484
I
-
-
-
G. Safety for employees from pressure
vessel failure or malfunction
78.5
79.7
79.5
1,346,595
1,423,496
1,435,636
H. Education and engineering research
activities for industrial safety
4.2
3.4
3.4
67,831
77,499
60,943
The Division of Industrial Safety is organized into seven operating sections
and functions out of its San Francisco headquarters and 21 field locations.
Overall management comprises a Chief, (appointed) Assistant Chiefs,
Northern and Southern (civil service) and an Assistant to the Chief (appointed).
Each of the program elements, except Environmental Safety, is headed by a
Supervising Safety Engineer (civil service) and each of the five major
inspection programs (pressure vessels, industrial, elevator, electrical,
and construction) have their own field organizations supervised by Senior
Safety Engineers. There are no area supervisors in the field offices to
coordinate division activities in the geographic regions. Field engineers
report through their own chain of command, by section, to San Francisco
headquarters.
-7-
Exhibit 4, below, is the overall Division organization chart.
Exhibit 4
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY BOARD
HAS JURISDICTION OVER ADOPTION
CHIEF
OF SAFETY REGULATIONS, INCLUDING
THE HOLDING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ASST. CHIEF
ASST. CHIEF
ASST. TO
THE
NORTHERN
SOUTHERN
CHIEF
ADMIN ASSISTANT 11
STATEWIOC
ADMIN SUPERVISION
OFFICE FACILITIES
SUPERVISING CLERKS
L.A. & 3.F.
CLERICAL SERVICES
o
o
O
o
o
o
0
o
PRESSURE VESSEL
INDUSTRIAL
ELEVATOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
ELECTRICAL
CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH AND
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
ENGINEERING UNIT
SECTION
SECTION
EDUCATION
O
SECTION
SAN FRANCISCO
LOS ANGELES
SUPERVISING
SUPERVISING
SUPERVISING
SENIOR
SENIOR
SUPERVISING
SUPERVISING
D
SUPERVISING
O
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
I H ENGINEER
H ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
INFO OFFICER I
O
O
2-SAN FRANCISCO
1-5AN FRANCISCO
1-5AN FRANCISCO
12 ASSOC. MP
ASSOC. HP
1-SAN FRANCISCO
1-3AV FRANCISCO
1-OAKLAND
1-OAKLAND
1-Los ANGELES
ASSOC. IH ENG 2 IN. ENG ASSOC
1-5ACRAMENTO
O
O
1-BAKEÁSFIELD
1-FRESNO
TH ENG ASSCC
O-LOS ANGELES
2-LOS ANGELES
2-L05 ANGELES
1-5AN JOSE
1-924 DIECO
0
o
1-SANTA ANA
2-LOS ANGELES
1-09KLAND
1-SANTA ANA
TECHNICAL STAFF SERVICE
EDUCATIONAL STAFF SERVICE
NOTE: THIS CHART COVERS ONLY SUPERVISORY LEVELS or THE LINE ORGANIZATION. SEE
INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION CHARTS FOR SAFETY ENGINEER ASSIGNMENTS WITHIN.EACH . SECTION,
DECEMBER 1971
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
Unit Organization
The Administrative Unit of the Division of Industrial Safety is comprised
of top management (Chief, Assistant to The Chief, 2 Assistant Chiefs,
Administrative Assistant), as well as the Research and Education group and
the Environmental Engineering group, for a total of 16 positions. Eleven
of these positions are located in the San Francisco office and 5 in the
Los Angeles office.
Study Coverage
The Division Chief was not interviewed, but all other 15 employees were.
Workload Data
Within this group, many of the employees are supervisory and do not regularly
make inspections. For those employees regularly making inspections, work-
load statistics gathered during the interviews were not felt to be valid.
Employees were interviewed on the weekend and hence, no accurate statistics
were available. Several employees would not venture guesses and others made
only gross approximations.
Management Support
As would be expected, this unit, which is primarily a management group,
generally is supportive of present management practices. When questioned
about the level of support their recommendations receive from top management,
there were no responses indicating unsatisfactory support.
-9-
Favorable Treatment of Employers
On the question of employers receiving unwarranted favorable treatment
from the Department, only two felt that this was the case, and neither
could (or would) give specific examples.
Travel Funds
This group almost unanimously agreed that travel funds are adequate. One
employee felt more funds were needed (to attend professional conferences).
Equipment
The group was split on the question of equipment. Generally speaking,
Environmental Engineering group employees felt the greatest need for
additional modern, specialized testing equipment.
Staffing Levels
Most employees felt strong needs for additional staff.
Overall Management
With respect to overall program management, interesting comments were made
by several employees. One employee believes the Division is divided into
two factions, one concerned with enforcement, the other with education.
This, he states, is resulting in disagreementsabout the organization's
role, which affects Division effectiveness, even though each group thinks
it is doing what is best. This individual also stated that several safety
engineers are incompetent and should be removed.
10
Another employee, who asked to remain anonymous, felt overall
Division management was quite poor. In his opinion, lines of authority
were unclear, discipline lacking and no leadership existed. He commented
that the Chief just wants to be a "good guy". It should be noted, however,
that several other employees felt management was excellent.
11
CONSTRUCTION SECTION
Staffing and Organization
The needs, objectives, workload measures and inputs of this program element are
shown in Exhibit 5 below.
Exhibit 5
A. Safety for Employees in Construction
Need
In 1969 the construction industry had an injury rate of 74.4 injuries per
thousand workers, more than twice the overall rate for all industries of
31.6. The 1969 construction disabling injury total was 22,308 of which
134 were fatal. In 1968 there was an injury total of 21,072, a rate of
72.5 injuries per thousand workers, and a fatality total of 116.
Objectives
To prevent employee injuries at construction projects.
Output
Actual
Estimated
Estimated
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
Unsafe conditions corrected
33,708
33,400
36,700
Accidents investigated
607
600
660
Special calls
6,210
6,150
6,760
Complaints and requests investigated
2,089
2,070
2,280
Safety speeches
103
102
112
General Description
This element involves conducting of field surveys by division engineers specializing
in construction safety, for the purpose of bringing about corrections of unsafe
practices; the investigation of accidents and establishment of preventive programs;
the investigation of complaints and requests; the delivery of safety talks and
educational materials; the preparation of proposed construction safety standards
for possible board adoption as administrative law.
Input
Actual
Estimated
Estimated
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
Expenditures
$1,009,785
$1,033,509
$1,069,512
Personnel man-years
60.7
60.1
60.1
Source: Governor's Budget 1971-72, pg. 284.
-12-
An organization chart follows (Exhibit 6). Note the geographic distances
between the supervisor and the engineers in some areas.
17
EXHIBIT 6
Construction Section
State of California
Organizational Chart
Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Industrial Safety
CONSTRUCTION
SUPERVISOR
-14-
S.F.
OAK.
SACTO.
LA
LA
S.D.
SSE
SSE
SSE
SSE
SSE
SSE
(3)
(2)
(1)
(6)
(9)
(2)
(2)
STA. ROSA (1)
SAN JOSE (2)
OAK.
FRESNO (1)
MODESTO (1)
SACTO. (3)
CHICO
EUREKA (1)
VENTURA (1)
STA. BARB. (1)
BAKERSFIELD (1)
SF
S.D.
STA. ANA (4)
S. B'DNO
LA
LA
Scope
In this review, we contacted 46 professional employees headquartered in
16 localities. Thirty nine were safety engineers and seven were in
supervisory capacities.
Number of Inspections and Violations Reported
We asked how many inspections were made and how many violations were
reported. These statistics vary widely. Frequently employees indicated
they were relatively meaningless because there is no standard method of
counting violations.
When we asked whether disputed violations were reversed by management, we
received strong indications that many violations are not reported, because
the engineers have little faith that management will support them. There
were frequent comments that Division management does not want controversial
items reported, so consequently the engineers do not report them. Instead,
the man in the field frequently handles the violations himself, or lets
them go uncorrected.
In part, this may be due to difference in philosophy between management
and field engineers. Much of management seems to believe that the best
job can be done by educating contractors in safe practices, while most field
engineers want strict enforcement, including prosecution of habitual offenders
or serious offenses.
Therefore, while few disputed violations were reported as reversed by manage-
ment, an apparent cause is that engineers have learned not to report items
they feel will be reversed.
-15-
Pertinent comments regarding reversals included the following:
"Management is not always wrong in reversing the field
engineers".
"Management reports are carefully prepared so as to leave no
options to management but to back me up."
"I go out of my way to keep my administration from getting
involved in my field work because of past sad experiences."
Level of Support for Recommendations
We asked each interviewee: "In general how do you feel about the level of
support that your recommendations receive from management?"
The percentage of employees who felt support was unsatisfactory is, in our
opinion, indicative of major problems. In addition, many employees reiterated
that support was satisfactory only because the employees only recommended
what they believed management would support.
Pertinent comments included the following:
"Backing is inadequate. I feel responsible for enforcing
laws, yet management is passive toward backing the engineer.
My power to enforce is inadequate."
One employee said that only one-third of the prosecutions
recommended by inspectors included sufficient cause for
action under existing Division policy.
Change in policy and administration were reported as resulting
in decreased enforcement powers.
Recommendations are frequently overruled without the recom-
mender's knowledge and without his being consulted.
Examples of Non-support of Recommendations
Eighteen of forty-four employees interviewed gave us examples of non-
support with varying amounts of detail.
One engineer noted that the form used to report violations formerly con-
tained a space for the engineer's recommendation to prosecute or not.
About two years ago the space was dropped.
Some employees indicated that support was received only when it was a very
serious situation.
Other pertinent comments included the following:
"Construction section engineers avoid controversial situations
by selecting the jobs and times to inspect so that violations
are not likely to be present. There would be more violations
reversed by management if inspectors reported everything."
Inspectors do not report everything because Division does not
like to prosecute.
-17-
Recommendations Not Followed When They Should Have Been
We asked about "the percent of time you would say your recommendations were
not followed when they should have been". Percentages reported varied
from 0% to 50% with 24 reporting 0% to 1%. However, many employees
reporting 0 percent also stated that they did not report what they knew
management would not support. Before they adopted this posture, rejections
were reported as having been high.
Injuries or Deaths
Ten employees cited examples of incidences of non-support of their recom-
mendations which in their opinion resulted in subsequent injury or death.
Preferential Treatment
Eighteen engineers, or 46% of the non-supervisors, felt that some employers
receive unwarranted preferential treatment, especially large, influential
companies.
Many engineers indicated that contractors do not comply as they should
because they know the Division will not prosecute. Some are habitual of-
fenders. One engineer categorized the Division as a "paper tiger".
Many felt that employers were getting unwarranted favorable treatment because
the power to prosecute is seldom used. In addition, employees complain that
the policy is not to red tag, but to be gentle.
Adequacy of Travel Funds
There is a wide variation in opinions as to whether travel expenses are
adequate.
-18-
Many indicated they have had inadequate allowances in the past.
However, most supervisors feel travel allowances are adequate.
The method generally used is to allot to each engineer an amount that he
may use for travel in a given month. These amounts generally are assigned
by the supervisor and vary from $125 to $200 including about $84 used
to finance auto mileage. There were indications that:
Engineers make repeat inspections around headquarters
because they do not have funds to go further into the field.
Many inspections are delayed longer than advisable because
of lack of funds.
Engineers can't make all the trips they should.
Orders are not to stay overnight at Location X. May lose 4 hours
of work, driving 180-200 miles in one day.
Adequacy of Equipment
Some comments on inadequacy were:
No standard tools furnished. Bought own.
Absolute minimum in quality - in less than first class
condition.
Several felt air conditioned cars were needed particularly
in hot areas.
Lack of testing equipment. Several mentioned lack of gas
meters and noise level meters.
-10_
Staffing Levels
When asked: "How adequate are staffing levels in the Construction Sections?,"
answers seem to differ among the field men opending on their understanding
of the Division's mission. Those who believe it is to "educate" felt
staffing was adequate. Those who felt their primary job was "enforcement"
felt staffing was inadequate.
One comment repeated several times was that the section was overstaffed
with Senior Engineers, but understaffed in working level engineers. Some
felt that Seniors were "not doing a job"; others felt that the job assigned
to Seniors was not worth doing as many of the duties were clerical in nature.
Some felt that the Seniors' experience and talent are being wasted. Others
reported that some Senior Engineers were not well qualified.
Other comments on staffing included:
"Can't have someone on a construction job daily. Lucky to
hit the big ones once a month."
"Staffing would be adequate if we were backed by management.
As we are not, no number of staff could effectively enforce
safety regulations."
"We are low on clerical help."
"Salaries are lower than Federal and private industry".
(One said 30% lower.)
-20-
Opinion of Management
The high incidence of dissatisfaction with Division management is unique
in our experience and warrants careful attention.
Several of the employees interviewed felt that reorganization of the Division
was necessary to correct the situation. Many felt that supervisors should
be closer geographically to the field employees. Supervisors are fre-
quently in cities far removed from the headquarters of the engineer and
communications between them are poor.
Other comments made several times included:
Employees need more training in new methods and equipment.
Management is poor because they do not prosecute enough.
Management policy de-emphasizes enforcement and emphasizes
training of contractors through education.
Attitude of present management is "Don't Rock the Boat" -
(dont' report controversial violations).
Other comments on inadequacy were:
Division lacks leadership.
Management is excellent, however, enforcement in the construction
section cannot be accomplished within the present administration
framework.
-21-
Division lacks policy statements.
Contractor knows that field men will have difficulty getting
stop orders approved by management.
"I have never been instructed on what to enforce. In 5 years
we have had only 3 staff meetings."
Esprit de corps has dropped.
Disunity between North and South. No statewide leadership.
Not enough legal advice available.
Conclusion
Our interview in the Construction Section disclosed that this Section has
more major problems than any other portion of the Division. Morale is
exceedingly low. Communications, according to all indications, need
substantial improvement. There is a serious split between what the safety
engineers feel to be the role of the Section (enforcement) and management's
emphasis (education). Inspectors believe that punitive actions against
employers who deviate from safety regulations have sunk to such a low level
that the Division has become "a paper tiger". Consequently, they be ieve
that habitual offenders ignore safety inspectors warnings and continue unsafe
practices because no actions will be taken against them.
Field inspectors also believe that favoritism is shown for major employers.
This, of course, could not be verified.
-22-
Staffing levels may be too low. Certainly, small jobs far from headquarters
are infrequently inspected. However, this determination again depends upon
one's interpretation of the Division's role and about management determina-
tions as to the required frequency of inspection.
-23-
ELECTRICAL SECTION
Program Data
Safety engineers in this section conduct field surveys to identify and correct
unsafe conditions and practices; investigate accidents, complaints and requests;
and establish preventative programs. This section also proposes electrical
safety standards for possible board adoption.
Budget and Staffing
The 1972-73 expenditures are estimated at $238,386. Currently there are
8 Safety Engineers and 2 Supervising Safety Engineers, distributed as
follows:
Fresno
1
Los Angeles
2
Redding
1
Sacramento
1
San Bernardino
1
San Diego
1
San Francisco
3
Total 10
Both supervisors are located in San Francisco and have statewide responsibility.
Interview Coverage
All ten professional employees of. the Electrical Section were interviewed in
person by members of the review team.
Inspections and Violations
The reported number of inspections and related violations varied widely among
the inspectors interviewed for a number of reasons:
Inspectors guessed at the numbers
Some "did not know"
-24-
Different areas being inspected
Probable different criteria for tabulating the number of
inspections.
Consequently, the workload data collected for this survey is of doubtful
accuracy. The information concerning employee experiences, attitudes and
opinions is considered to be valid.
Violations Reversed by Management
Only one major violation on which the Safety Engineer had been reversed by
management during 1971 was reported. Details were not revealed, except that
the violation was by a major company in the Los Angeles area.
Management Support
Field-level management support is generally considered by Electrical Section
employees to be satisfactory to excellent. However, two staff members feel
that they receive very little support from top management. Both were quite
vocal on this subject: they believe top management "always" puts them on the
defensive and "usually" overturns their decisions in favor of employers, other
state agencies (the Building Standards Commission), and even other sections
of their division. Because of this, one seeks every opportunity to circumvent
or to not involve top management. When he must, he anticipates reversal of
his recommendations.
-25-
Examples of Non-Support by Management
Only three employees reported incidents involving electrical violations
on which the inspectors were not supported by management. Examples are:
1. Improperly installed air conditioning.
2. An unidentified job where, allegedly, external pressure
was used to circumvent regulations.
3. State operations which Electrical Section employees are not
allowed to inspect.
4. Improper fuses supplied by a major manufacturer.
5. A major business firm not required to meet national standards.
Recommendations Not Followed by Management
Practically all field engineers reported that their recommendations were
accepted. However, one reported a low exception rate, since he "did not
involve management"; another reported that he was reversed on 20 percent
of all violations that he found.
Injuries and Deaths
No known deaths or injuries resulted when reported violations were overruled
by management. However, 52 electrical fatalities occurred in 1970 due to
other reasons.
Special Treatment to Employers
The majority of the employees contacted felt the various segments of industry
received some special treatment. Some either had no proof or were unwilling to
cite specifics.
-26-
Examples of entities reported as receiving special treatment included:
Certain farmers
Utility companies
Certain manufacturers or large corporations
Some state operations
Travel Funds
Practically all employees of this section stressed the lack of adequate funds
for travel. They are limited to monthly allotments and mileage restrictions
which they believe are insufficient to allow the travel necessary to do the job.
Equipment
Most employees felt they needed additional equipment, including testing devices,
meters and gauges. At present, employees borrow these from other jurisdictions,
when obtainable.
Staffing
All section employees consider staffing levels to be totally inadequate. They
estimated that 50 men could not cover the State properly. The current staffing
of ten is reported to allow for scheduling on a crisis basis and the investi-
gation of accidents, rather than a program of accident prevention.
Program Management
Section employees report that program management is generally adequate to
excellent. Adverse criticism was confined to the aforementioned complaints of
certain employees, staffing and travel expense level complaints, and excessive
workload.
-27-
Other Problem Areas
There appears to be a need for standardized electrical regulations and up-
dating of safety orders. Various other Division sections and other state
organizations adopt, apply and interpret regulations in conflict with the
Electrical Section.
Conclusion
Few problems exist at the field level in most district offices of this section.
In attempting to determine how well the programs are managed, the major
complaint was excess workload for the amount of staff assigned. Complaints
of favoritism, while few, warrant further investigation. This is difficult,
however, without specific examples.
-28-
ELEVATOR SECTION
Organization
Briefly, the employees of the Elevator Section are distributed as follows:
Supervising
Senior
Safety Engineer
Safety Engineer
Safety Engineer
Northern Region
San Francisco
1
1
10
Sacramento
1
Southern Region
Los Angeles
1
5
San Diego
1
-
I
Total Positions
1
2
17
Responsibilities
The Supervising Safety Engineer is responsible statewide for the safety
inspection program directed toward annual licensing of about 38,000 elevators,
escalators, ski lifts and tramways. Inspections are also made when requested
by insurance companies. In addition, elevator company plans are reviewed.
Inspections resulting in observations of unsafe conditions are posted with a
red tag (Notice of Unsafe Conditions). If the inspection results in a shut-
down, a yellow tag (Notice of Shut-Down) is posted. Before a yellow tag is
posted, it must be approved by the Supervisor, Assistant Chief, and Chief.
-29-
Management Support
We interviewed the Supervisor, two Seniors, and 12 Safety Engineers. They all
indicated that they received excellent support from higher management levels.
A few cases of recommendations being reversed were reported. They are as
follows:
Public building with home elevator.
Illegal dumbwaiter.
Small superficial breaks in elevator cable.
Elevator machine room did not provide sufficient working space
for service and repair workers.
Insufficient access to service elevator mechanism.
Elevator motor installed halfway under a wall.
Apparently most of these reversals permitted deviations from requirements
because they did not create unsafe conditions and to make changes would be
costly and may cause unsafe conditions. Also, at times there are judgmental
differences between the safety engineer and his superiors.
There was some feeling expressed that deviations from requirements may be
granted due to external pressure.
Travel Funds
All employees in this section indicated that travel funds were adequate.
Equipment
Most employees felt that equipment was adequate. However, some employees
indicated the need for testing devices (scales, voltage meters, torque gauge,
etc.). Two state automobiles were described as in poor condition.
-30-
Staffing
All of the employees expressed a need for additional staff. Some reasons were
as follows:
Overall backlog of inspections-- about 5,000.
Nine months inspection backlog in San Francisco.
Two to three months inspection backlog in Los Angeles.
Six months to a year inspection backlog in San Diego.
In San Francisco, some reinspections deferred 16 to 18 months.
Increased workload as insurance companies discontinued inspections.
Now use division inspections.
Recruiting problems, private sector and Los Angeles County salaries
greater than state salaries.
Need more capable clerical help.
One employee thought that the 1972-73 budget request included 11 new positions;
however, he believes that they may have been eliminated.
Program Management
Most employees thought that the program was well managed. Some suggestions for
improvement were made as follows:
Increase communication from top management.
Reduce paperwork.
Increase the fee structure to make inspections self-supporting.
Establish a fee for reviewing elevator plans.
Establish uniform applications of inspection requirements between
Northern and Southern Regions.
Increase revenue by reducing inspection backlogs.
-31-
Attend American National Standards Association Conference and
help establish standards.
Charge for inspection of ski lifts (fee collected in Northern Region
but not in Southern Region).
Conclusion
Employees indicate excellent support from higher management levels. Their
concern for additional staffing appears to have merit. Backlogs of inspections,
increased workload, and recruiting problems impede program accomplishments.
Suggestions for improved program management are worthy of further considera-
tion, especially those relating to uniform application of inspection require-
ments, which should include permitted deviations, and the development of a fee
structure to make inspections self-supporting.
INDUSTRIAL SECTION
Introduction
The Industrial Section of the Division of Industrial Safety is responsible for
the safety of employees in industrial plants and operations including mineral
industries. Accident prevention is accomplished through an organized safety
program encompassing numerous activities. Aspects of the program assigned
higher priorities include inspections at plant sites and operations to bring
about corrections to unsafe conditions and practices; investigating and
reporting accidents; answering complaints or requests from employers, labor,
or interested parties to investigate what is believed to be an unsafe
condition or practice; furnishing technical advice and guidance to various
organizations including registered architects, contractors, and city building
inspection departments in order to assure new construction plans and specifications
comply with California Safety Orders; lecturing on safety subjects upon request;
and evaluating or assisting with safety programs sponsored by employers.
The Section is staffed with one supervising safety engineer, eight senior
safety engineers and 58 safety (field) engineers. One senior is a temporary
appointment resulting from the Division's involvement in the OSHA Program
(Public Law 91-596, the Occupational Safety and Health Act). Six field
engineers are currently assigned to pilot. or other special activities. The
safety engineers are spread out geographically throughout California in 19
cities. We interviewed nearly 90 percent of all the engineers.
Level of Support for Recommendations
The following query was posed to all field engineers interviewed, "In general
how do you feel about the level of support that your recommendations for
corrective action received from your management?" The general consensus was
77
that recommendations were supported by management. Examples of the responses
are, "good, adequate, strong support, excellent, etc." One employee, however,
stated that generally recommendations are now supported, but this has not always
been the case. Another field engineer stated that during the first eight years
of employment, there were only three instances where top management refused to
back him. He also indicated that in each case he managed to get all unsafe
conditions corrected.
As a follow up to the previous question, field engineers were asked to give
examples where their recommendations were not supported when they felt they
should have been. As indicated by the preceding paragraph, almost every
response was negative. One employee said that a request for a special tag
order was withdrawn because of pressure from outside the division.
Another stated that a recommendation was reversed without an explanation. It
was reported that an employee was seriously injured because a supervisor granted
an employer an extension of time while the field engineer wanted to stop the
operations immediately. The incident occurred several years ago.
When we asked employees to give us examples of where and when their recommendations
had not been supported by management, we received 52 answers stating they had no
examples; that management had always supported them or had convinced them that an
alternative recommendation was more feasible.
The examples cited by the six employees who said their recommendations had not
been supported when they should have been included:
One industry's sound levels are above legal requirements and employees
had not been required to wear ear protection. The engineer's
supervisor would not support him in requiring compliance.
About 1969, an engineer wrote requirements for a firm to (1) install
safety railings in certain areas and (2) a method of handling combusti-
ble dust. A supervisor subsequently went to the employer,
conducted an inspection and rescinded the engineer's requirements.
The reason was not explained and the engineer was not present during
the inspection by the supervisor.
One engineer stated that in the first eight years of his employment
there were three instances of management not supporting him when
they should have. In two of those cases, he obtained compliance
without support from management. He states now he tries not to seek
support of management, relying only on his own devices.
An office building did not have exit railings. A special tag order
requested was withdrawn. The engineer believes it was because of
external pressure put on management.
An employer was cited for 56 violations. The engineer was not supported.
He believes it was because of external pressure put on management.
Cases Which Resulted in Injury or Death
Of the 50 field safety engineers interviewed by our staff, we asked each if,
in their opinion, there had been instances where their recommendations had not
been supported by management of their section or division or followed by
employers and as a result there had been an employee injured or killed. We
received 47 "no" answers and three "yes" answers.
In one instance, involving an exposed mechansim, an employer was
under written requirement to correct the matter. Before reinspection and
before correction, an employee's clothing caught in the mechanism. The employee
was thrown clear when his clothing tore and he received only bruises and cuts.
In the opinion of the engineer, the employee would have been killed had the
75
In another instance, about five years ago, an employee was killed by a mower
along a freeway grade. The engineer attributes his death to the failure
of the division to require roll-over bars on mowers.
In another instance, again several years ago, an employee lost a limb because
a division supervisor refused to go along with the safety engineer's decision to
issue a "show cause" order. The supervisor gave the employer a time extension
instead.
Within the time constraints our staff worked under, we were not able to analyze
or even verify the positive answers. We note that two of the instances cited
to our staff happened some time ago.
Feelings of Employers Getting Unwarranted Favorable Treatment
Do you have any feelings that employers are getting unwarranted favorable
treatment from the department? In response to this question, we received
a feeling that there is a reluctance to issue "show cause" orders to employers.
Such orders would cause employers inconvenience and result in increased costs.
Violations are reported and rereported without penalties being inflicted.
Certain large employers seem to be favored. Chances are good that field
personnel can be reversed if appeals are made to headquarters.
Examples of other comments made by division employees were:
Some industries operate at excessive sound levels with most
employees being very hard of hearing.
-36-
A manufacturer did not have to comply with field findings on
two of its products.
An unsafe ladder can be corrected over a four to six-month period.
Prosecution of employers is dependent on long drawn-out legal processes.
A hospital. has an unsafe smokestack, but no action is taken.
Safety requirements for an employer were dropped as a result of
external pressure.
Adequacy of Travel Funds
The answers to the quesiton, "How adequate are travel funds at your disposal?",
indicated mixed feelings exist. Men in isolated locations covering large
areas felt travel funds were insufficient. Employees seem to be satisfied
if their work is within easy commuting distance. Field men tend to believe
supervisors should get out of office more often.
Examples of these mixed feelings were:
Infrequent staff meetings are held due to lack of travel funds.
Advised to limit travel as much as possible in his 12 northern
counties.
Limited to 1,200 miles in Los Angeles area per month but
adequate.
Cannot cover territory and assigned areas of responsibility.
-37-
Travel with Bureau of Mines forces division to provide sufficient
travel funds.
Funds for outlying areas are inadequate,
The word is watch travel expenditures and overnight trips.
Funds are only one-half of what is needed.
Adequacy of Equipment
"How adequate is the equipment at your disposal?"
Safety engineers are about evenly divided in their opinion as to the
adequacy of equipment to do their work. However, this division is
misleading as most of the men stating that equipment was adequate were
from the large metropolitan offices. In the samller, more isolated
offices, the inadequacy of equipment becomes more apparent. In part,
this inadequacy may be in the use and distribution of available equipment
rather than in statewide deficiencies.
Some of the items listed to be in short supply are:
Sound and noise level meters (most frequent)
Projectors and visual aid equipment
Industrial hygiene testing equipment
Light meters
Velometers
Photographic equipment
Mine gas testors
-38-
A few men stated that they had to borrow equipment from employers to make their
tests or have local government make their tests. One man stated that he had
personally invested $2,000 in photographic and projection equipment, a typewriter
and a tape recorder.
The responses show that there is a real need for the Industrial Section to
survey its equipment needs and correlate these needs with available equipment
in the division or in the department.
Adequacy of Staffing
"How adequate do you feel staffing levels are in your portion of the
industrial safety program?"
The consensus of the safety engineers is that the Industrial Section is
grossly understaffed. The general feeling is that workload has grown immensely
in the last twenty years with no increase in staff. There was also a feeling
that the Construction Section has a greater proportionate staff. Some of the
comments were as follows:
Too much industry to be covered by the present staff.
Takes ten years to. cover territory once.
Many more inspectors could be used if all the high risk areas
are to be inspected every few years.
Not half enough men in the field.
70
Staffing needs to be tripled.
Must cover the territory of four men.
Respond mainly to fires--need 100 percent increase.
So shorthanded not able to answer complaints within five days.
Paperwork ties up professionals- need more clerks.
Management of Program
We asked all employees interviewed the questions "In your opinion, how well
managed is the program? Why?"
In response, we received a wide variety of opinions. Quite often, com-
ments made by those interviewed did not appear consistent with their
overall evaluation of the management of the program.
On the positive side, a most frequent answer given had to do with either the
dedication or skill of particular individual managerial personnel and,
frequently, comments were made to the effect that management had recently
improved or was in the process of improving.
On the negative side, several specific comments were made. Included
in these were:
Management does not protect safety of workers. Frequently
cited was "management's failure to support safety orders
on Roll-Over protection devices."
10
Management is subject to external pressure. Frequently
cited was the ability of large employers to ask the division
to relax or rescind a requirement.
The field engineers receive little input from management. Management
is not sensitive to the needs of lower ranks.
The unit cannot compete salarywise with other organizations
and salary ranges between classes are too compacted. They
cannot attract many good employees and there is no good
incentive for promotion. As a result, too many new hires
are retirees from another career, frequently the military.
There is an inadequate number of personnel, inadequate equipment,
and inadequate travel funds. As a result, the energies of the
unit are used in putting out "fires" and they do not have the
resources to plan and execute an overall good safety program.
Department and division management are so subject to external
pressure that they do not make and vigorously defend adequate
budget requests.
Based on our review, we conclude there is a fairly wide-based dissatisfaction
in the unit with management at the division and department levels and with
other agencies of state government.
Other Comments
There were a number of comments made in addition to responses to specific
questions which are useful to gauging the morale and the feelings of the
employees in the organization. These include:
Top management has never been exposed to actual field conditions
and is inexperienced in dealing with problems.
Not enough communications from top to bottom of organization.
Unsafe conditions which should be taken to enforcement are not
written up because of nonenforcement climate.
Violations are statistics which are inflated through
administrative pressure--playing numbers game with workload
statistics for budgetary purposes.
Great need for method to identify high risk industries and
areas for special attention.
A "show cause" order is a weak enforcement instrument- fines
would be more effective.
PRESSURE VESSELS SECTION
Section Objectives
The objective of this unit is to prevent employee injuries caused by pressure
vessel failure or malfunction. The unit conducts field inspections of pres-
sure vessels and makes shop inspections of new pressure vessels.
Organization
Offices are located in Bakersifield, Chico, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Modesto, Oakland, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San
Jose, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa and Stockton. The section is
headed up by a Supervising Safety Engineer with 7 Senior Safety Engineers
responsible for the supervision of Safety Engineers.
Study Coverage
The interview teams directly contacted the Supervising Safety Engineer, all
7 of the Senior Safety Engineers and 40 of the Safety Engineers.
Workload Data
Most of the interviewed employees are inspectors. Even so, it would sèem that
the workload statistics obtained from them may not be valid because the employees
were interviewed on the weekend and could only give approximations.
Management Support
One fact that came out very clearly was that violation decisions made by the
field staff in this section were almost never reversed by top management. Not
one example could, or would, be given where an employee recommendation was not
supported by supervisors.
Employees were asked how they felt about management support of their
recommendations.
In no case did an employee feel his recommendations were not followed
over one percent of the time.
Injuries and Deaths
One employee reported that on one occasion, a vessel blew up, killing
3 people. His investigation revealed that illegal repairs had earlier
been made to the vessel. Although his findings were reported on "up
the line" no further action was taken. This employee still felt manage-
ment was doing a good job. With the limited details available, we do
not feel justified in disputing his opinion.
Unwarranted Favorable Treatment
The question as to whether employers are getting unwarranted favorable
treatment from the department was asked. The two employees responding
"yes" were from the same office. One felt that this was not done in-
tentionally, however, and the other felt it was due to understaffing.
Travel Funds
Some employees felt that they were not able to make enough inspections
because of travel fund restrictions; most did not feel this way.
Equipment
When asked how they felt about the sufficiency of equipment, most employees
responded that it was adequate. The "inadequate" responses concerned
out-dated or worn out testing equipment.
-44-
Staffing Levels
The question on adequate staffing levels split the group almost down the
middle. Their general feeling was that there are sufficient supervisors,
but more field inspectors and clerical staff were needed.
Program Management
Employees in this unit almost unanimously agreed that program management
was satisfactory.
The only comment made by an employee responding "unsatisfactory" was
that communications between division sections and between top management
and employees was poor.
One supervisor would not respond directly to the questionnaire, but made
comments such as:
Some people are afraid to talk
Supervision is very weak
Communications are bad (several others also made this point)
Suspects contractors are bribing employees
Tremendous waste in the Construction Unit
Records disappear from files
Lack of support for inspectors
Top management acts like it's retired
-45-
This individual could not, or would not, provide any specific data. Several of
his comments were directly contradicted by the results of our questionnaire.
Conclusions
In general, it appears to be the concensus of most employees that this unit
is well managed and has relatively few problems. Several employees
commented that Construction was the only unit in the division to have serious
problems.
-46-
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MEMO TO THE P.ESS
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
2-3-72
Governor Reagan's Los Angeles press conference
on Friday, February 4, in the Century Plaza West
Side Room will be held at 10:30 a.m. (instead of
10:00 a.m.). .
# # #
PE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: Im liate
Sacramento, California
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
2-3-72
#72
Governor Ronald Reagan announced today state license fees for real
estate brokers and salesmen will be reduced by $10 effective April 1,
1972.
Real Estate Commissioner Robert W. Karpe instituted new regulations
to allow the reduced fees after passage of Assembly Bill 324 paved the
way. That bill enables the commissioner to prescribe lower license fees
by regulation.
Governor Reagan said, "I am very pleased to see that in spite of
inflation, one of our state agencies is making it possible for licensees
to look for their first reduction in fees in 40 years. I congratulate
Bob Karpe and his department for effecting substantial economies while
still providing the same efficient service to the public at a reduced
cost to the licensees.' "
Governor Reagan added, "I believe license fees should correspond as
closely as possible to the cost of administering the laws."
The fee cut will mean annual savings to California real estate
practitioners of approximately $500,000. Under the new regulation,
real estate brokers and salesmen will pay $75 and $50 respectively for
a four year license.
#####
EJG
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
MEMO TO THE
ESS
Sacramento, Californ..
Contact: Paul Beck
445-4571
2-3-72
Further change in time of Governor's Press Con-
ference scheduled for Los Angeles, Century Plaza West
Side Room, tomorrow:
11:00 A.M.
instead of 10:30 a.m.
# # #
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNO
RELEASE: In diate
Sacramento, Californ.
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-3-72
#73
Governor Ronald Reagan today branded as "sheer obstructionism" a
decision by Sacramento Superior Court Judge William Gallagher which
effectively prohibits the state from checking the outside incomes of
welfare recipients.
Judge Gallagher issued the temporary restraining order Monday, but
the state was not informed of the existence of the order and the
state officials
lawsuit until this afternoon. In effect, it prevents / from checking
on the income of welfare recipients unless the individual gives his
personal consent.
"Such a ruling is sheer obstructionism and goes far beyond the
discretion of the court," the governor said in announcing the state would
appeal immediately.
"How anyone in a responsible position especially a judge---could
rule that the state cannot check into the outside income of welfare
recipients is almost beyond belief, although this is not the first
decision of this court that meets that description.
"Perhaps the judge did not realize what he was doing because it is
difficult to believe that any intelligent person would say the state does
not have a moral as well as legal obligation to determine a person's
eligibility before handing out the taxpayers' cash willy-nilly."
The governor also said it was "unconscionable, indeed a flagrant
violation of public trust" that Judge Gallagher issued his order without
any notice whatsoever to the state and without hearing any evidence to
S upport the state's position.
"Such action is totally unfair to the tax-paying citizens of
California since it fails to afford them due process of law. Such
judicial misconduct certainly reinforces the public's low opinion of
our court system," the governor said.
Judge Gallagher's decision enjoins the State Department of Social
Welfare from consulting with or obtaining any information from the
State Department of Human Resources Development having to do with the
outside earnings or income of welfare recipients. The Department of
Social Welfare began exhanging such information with HRD in late
December when Social Welfare's new computerized Earnings Clearance
Reports System was instituted.
# # #
PB
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
Sacramento, California
MEMO TO THE PRESS
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-4-72
#74
GOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE
February 7, 1972
through
February 13, 1972
Monday, February 7
No public appointments scheduled
Overnight - Sacramento
Tuesday, February 8
10:30 a.m.
PRESS CONFERENCE
Overnight - Sacramento
Wednesday, February 9
11:30 a.m.
Meeting with 9th grade students from
Compton, Governor's Office.
Overnight - Sacramento
Thursday, February 10
No public appointments scheduled
Overnight - Sacramento
Friday, February 11
No public appointments scheduled
Overnight - Los Angeles
Saturday, February 12
No public appointments scheduled
Overnight - Los Angeles
Sunday, February 13
No public appointments scheduled
Overnight - Los Angeles
######
PB
OFFICE OF THE GOVER:
RELEASE: I ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-8-72
#75
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed seven members to the new
California Hospital Commission.
Created by 1971 legislation, the commission is empowered to develop
and approve systems for accounting and uniform reporting by hospitals
with the aim of stabilizing hospital costs through efficiency and economy.
Members of the commission, whose appointments are subject to Senate
confirmation, include:
Everett Southard, assistant economist for the Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan, Oakland; Henry B. Dunlap, administrator of Children's
Hospital of Los Angeles; Dr. James B. D. Mark, Professor of Surgery,
Stanford University School of Medicine; Mrs. Elizabeth Rowen, a San Rafael
business woman and civic leader; Albert B. Halverson, a Los Angeles
insurance executive; Theodore E. Cummings, a Los Angeles businessman,
and Allen J. Manzano, president of a Sacramento management systems firm.
Southard, who lives at 985 Euclid Avenue, Berkeley, will represent
comprehensive group practice prepayment health care service plans on the
commission. He is a Democrat.
Dunlap, who lives at 881 Cumberland Road, Glendale, will represent
hospital chief executive officers. He is a Republican.
Dr. Mark, a resident of 921 Casanueva Place, Stanford, will represent
licensed physicians. He is a Republican.
Mrs. Rowen, who lives with her husband James and their family at
360 Johnstone Drive, San Rafael, will represent consumers. She is a
Republican.
Halverson, who is Senior Executive Vice President of Occidental Life
Insurance Company, will represent health insurance plans. He lives at
1615 Pegfair Estates Drive, Pasadena. He is a Republican.
Cummings, director of Pacific Coast Properties in Los Angeles, will
represent consumers. He lives at 911 Hillcrest Road, Beverly Hills. He
is a Republican.
Manzano, a former chief deputy director of the Department of Health
/ lives at 1013 Fordham Drive, Davis.
Care Services, He will represent consumers. He is a Republican.
The commissioners, who will serve four-year terms, will receive
necessary expenses
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVER
R
RELEASE: : ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#76
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Dr. Glenn S. Dumke,
Chancellor of the California State Colleges, to a four-year term on
the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Dr. Dumke, who has served on the commission since 1971, lives at
285 West California Boulevard, Pasadena. He is a Republican.
His appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
Members of the commission receive necessary travel expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN,
RELEASE: 1...mediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#77
Mrs. Olive H. Auser of Groveland and Edgar H. Popke of Sonora
were reappointed today by Governor Ronald Reagan to four-year terms
on the board of the 29th District Agricultural Association (Mother Lode
Fair).
Mrs. Auser, a Groveland civic leader, and Popke, a rancher, have
served on the board since 1968. Her address is Box 113, Groveland,
and his address is Box 1182, Sonora. Both are Republicans.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERI
RELEASE: I ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#78
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Charles C. Messick, a
Marysville farmer, and Martin J. Newkom, a Yuba City real estate
salesman, to four-year terms on the 13th District Agricultural
Association board (Yuba-Sutter Fair).
Messick lives at 7652 B Plantz Road, Marysville, and Newkom lives
at 1235 Stewart Road, Yuba City. Both have served on the board since
1968. Both are Republicans.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERI
RELEASE: I. ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#79
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Alfred J. Bianchi of
Point Reyes Station and William A. Gnoss of Novato to four-year terms
on the board of the Fourth District Agricultural Association (Sonoma-
Marin District Fair).
Bianchi, a retired dairyman, has served on the board since 1941.
He is a Republican. His address is Box 146, Point Reyes Station.
Gnoss, a rancher and farmer, has also served on the board since
1941. He is a Democrat. He lives at 623 Olive Avenue, Novato.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
#######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: 1 ediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#80
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed B. H. Hill, a retired
farmer, and Walter W. Stroming, a hardware store owner, both of
Mariposa, to four-year terms on the 35a District Agricultural Association
(Mariposa County Fair and Homecoming).
Hill, whose address is Star Route Box 232, Mariposa, and Stroming,
whose address is P.O. Box 667, Mariposa, have served on the board
since 1968. Both are Republicans.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: It diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#81
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Walter J. Holmdahl, a
Lompoc rancher and businessman, and William F. Luton, SI., president
of a Santa Barbara television station, to four-year terms on the
37th District Agricultural Association (Santa Barbara County Fair).
Holmdahl, whose address is P.O. Box 1084, Lompoc, has served on
the board since 1968. He is a Republican.
Luton, a rancher and president of KEYT-TV, lives at Rancho San
Juan, Los Alamos. He has served on the board since 1968. He is a
Republican.
Board members receive necessary expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE: In diate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#82
Governor Ronald Reagan today reappointed John Cotton, a San Diego
realtor, and Grant B. Potter, president of a Dinuba forest products
company, to four-year terms on the Real Estate Commission.
Cotton, who lives at 2980 Nichols Street, San Diego, has served
as a commissioner since 1968.
Potter, who has represented the public on the commission since
1970, lives at 785 Saginaw, Dinuba.
Both are Republicans.
Commissioners receive actual and necessary travel expenses.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN
RELEASE:
nediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-9-72
#83
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed Dr. S. Don Schultz, a
consulting psychologist and Dean of the California School of Professional
Psychology in San Francisco, to the Psychology Examining Committee in
the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Dr. Schultz, 46, will fill the unexpired term of Dr. Rudolph J.
Brandt of Los Angeles, who has resigned. The term ends in June, 1975.
Dr. Schultz, who earned his Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State College,
practices in Palo Alto. His home is at 330 Lunada Drive, Los Altos.
He is a Democrat.
Committee members receive $25 per diem for each day of official
duty.
########
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVER
R
RELEASE:
mediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-10-72
#84
Governor Ronald Reagan today named Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney
Michael T. Sauer to the Los Angeles Judicial District Municipal Court.
Sauer, 35, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of $32,273.
He succeeds the late Judge David Mohr.
A member of the Los Angeles City Attorney's staff since 1964,
Sauer is a graduate of the University of Santa Clara and earned his
law degree from the Loyola University School of Law.
He is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the
American Bar Association, the American Judicature Society, the Criminal
Courts Bar Association, the Advocates (Loyola Law School Contributors
Organization), Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity and the Attorney General's
Committee on Pornography.
Sauer and his wife Marianne live in Los Angeles.
#####
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERN R
RELEASE:
mediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-10-72
#85
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed Albert L. Buffington of
Stockton and reappointed three members to four-year terms on the board
ot the Second District Agricultural Association (San Joaquin County
Fair).
Buffington, president and general manager of the Diamond Walnut
Growers, Inc., of Stockton, succeeds Albert D. Aringa of Stockton,
whose term has expired.
Buffington, a Republican, lives at 7221 Alexandria Street, Stockton.
Reappointed were Robert Ryburn, a rancher, of P.O. Box 684,
Linden, who has served on the board since 1954; Ellsworth S. Beckman, a
banker, 7868 East Highway 12, Lodi, and John H. Dillon, a retired labor
official, 1120 West Mariposa Street, Stockton.
Beckman has served on the board since 1970 and Dillon has been a
member since 1965.
Ryburn and Dillon are Democrats. Beckman is a Republican.
######
WAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVER.OR
RELEASE:
mediate
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
2-10-72
#86
Governor Ronald Reagan today appointed Municipal Judge William H.
Woodward of Stockton as a public member of the Areawide Mental
Retardation Program Board for Area VI, which includes the counties of
Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin and Tuolumne.
Judge Woodward, who has served on the Stockton Judicial District
Municipal Court bench since 1967, will succeed Clifford Wisdom of
Stockton whose term has expired.
The term is for three years.
Judge Woodward is a Republican.
######
WAS