Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564324",
    "label": "Press Releases - 02/01/1972-02/09/1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564324"
}

{
    "id": "118564324",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564324",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Press Releases - 02/01/1972-02/09/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564324",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Releases"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-003-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-003-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-003-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564324",
    "naId": 118564324,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408623/40-840-7408623-P13-003-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "c44460585d2b67ee",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Releases -\n02/01/1972-02/09/1972\nBox: P13\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nMEMO TO THE RESS\nSacramento, Californ\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n2-1-72\nThe Salaries and Wages supplement to the\n1972-73 budget is now available to the Capitol\nPress Corps in the Governor's Press Office.\n# # #\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#61\nGovernor Ronald Reagan acted today to gather all state forces\nconcerned with earthquake preparedness and research under a single\nbanner with the appointment of a 32-member Governor's Earthquake Council.\nThe council, which includes experts from all levels of government,\nthe universities and the private sector, will coordinate preparedness\nand research programs, recommend and evaluate legislation, propose\naction to reduce the toll of lives and property damage, and work to\ndevelop an earthquake warning system.\n\"While we cannot prevent earthquakes, we know that much can be\ndone to reduce the loss of life and property damage,\" Governor Reagan\npointed out. \"But we must also explore every avenue that can lead to\na system that will help us to predict when and where earthquakes are\nlikely to occur and their magnitude.\"\nIn announcing the formation of the council, the governor commended\nthe legislature's Joint Committee on Seismic Safety for its \"excellent\nprogress in the development of earthquake legislation.\"\nHe also noted that the week of February 7 has been designated as\n\"Seismic Safety Week\" by the legislature in memory of the victims of\nthe San Fernando earthquake of 1971.\n\"I believe that we can best honor those who suffered in that\ndisaster by resolving to use all the knowledge we can acquire to pre-\npare for and prevent future tragedies,\" he said.\nThe governor also endorsed a simulated earthquake exercise\nscheduled during Seismic Safety Week throughout Southern California\nby the State Office of Emergency Services in cooperation with local\ngovernmental agencies. The exercise will test responses and techniques\nlearned during the 1971 earthquake.\nParticipants will include the University of Southern California's\nSchool of Business Administration and agencies of the City of\nLos Angeles and the counties of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange,\nSan Diego and Riverside.\nThe earthquake council, which will hold its organizational meeting\nlater this month, will be headed by James G. Stearns, director of the\nState Department of Conservation, as chairman.\n-1-\n#61\nCol. Herbert R. Temple, Jr., director of the Office of Emergency\nServices, will serve as vice chairman and State Geologist Wesley G.\nBruer will act as secretary.\nFollowing are representatives and alternates named to the\nGovernor's Earthquake Council:\nRepresentative\nAlternate\nDr. Leroy R. Alldredge\nDr. S. Theodore Algermissen\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.\nBoulder, Colorado\nBoulder, Colorado\nDr. Clarence R. Allen\nRodney J. Diridon\nCalifornia Legislature Joint\nSan Jose\nCommittee on Seismic Safety\nPasadena\nArt Arthur\nnone\nPublic Member\nBeverly Hills\nRichards D. Barger\nLawrence C. Baker, Jr.\nState Department of Insurance\nLos Angeles\nSan Francisco\nGene Block\nMary W. Henderson\nLeague of California Cities\nRedwood City\nClaremont\nProfessor Bruce A. Bolt\nProfessor Joseph Penzien\nUniversity of California\nBerkeley\nBerkeley\nDr. Frank R. Bowerman\nDr. Orville L. Bandy\nUniversity of Southern California\nLos Angeles\nLos Angeles\nDr. James N. Brune\nProfessor J. Freeman Gilbert\nUniversity of California\nProfessor Richard A. Haubrich\nSan Diego\nSan Diego\nRalph D. Burns\nTerence S. Meade\nOffice of Emergency Preparedness\nSan Francisco\nSan Francisco\nLloyd S. Cluff\nJay L. Smith\nAssociation of Engineering Geologists\nLong Beach\nOakland\nRobert J. Datel\nArthur L. Elliott\nState Department of Public Works\nSacramento\nSacramento\nMrs. Frances K. Dias\nAllen E. Wilmore\nOffice of Civil Defense, U.S. Depart-\nSanta Rosa\nment of the Army\nSanta Rosa\nArt Dreyer\nCalvin Jepsen\nState Department of Housing\nSacramento\nand Community Development\nSacramento\nDr. Jerry P. Eaton\nDr. Robert E. Wallace\nU.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Depart-\nMenlo Park\nment of the Interior\nMenlo Park\n-2-\n#61\nGreer W. Ferver\nJack S. Barrish\nAmerican Society of Civil Engineers\nSacramento\nSan Diego\nKenneth H. Hack\nJames S. Brigham\nCalifornia Savings and Loan League\nNorth Hollywood\nSan Francisco\nDr. Roy E. Hanson\nDr. Charles C. Thiel\nNational Science Foundation\nWashington, D.C.\nWashington, D.C.\nDr. George W. Housner\nnone\nCalifornia Institute of Technology\nPasadena\nFred Hummel\nWilliam R. Vick\nState Department of General Services\nSacramento\nSacramento\nProfessor Richard H. Jahns\nProfessor Robert L. Kovach\nStanford University\nStanford\nStanford\nRobert B. Jansen\nLaurence B. James\nState Department of Water Resources\nSacramento\nSacramento\nWillard F. Libby\nDr. Leon Knopoff\nUniversity of California\nLos Angeles\nLos Angeles\nDaniel D. Mikesell\nEdward E. Bernard\nCounty Supervisors Assn. of Calif.\nSt. Helena\nSan Bernardino\nThomas J. Nolan\nRichard D. Carlson\nState Department of Real Estate\nSacramento\nSacramento\nMelville Owen\nnone\nPublic Member\nSan Francisco\nJohn B. Passerello\nJohn Tooker\nState Office of Planning and Research\nSacramento\nSacramento\nWilliam F. Ropp\nH. Robert Hammill\nStructural Engineers Association\nSan Francisco\nof California, Los Angeles\nG. Richard Schermerhorn\nDale James\nU.S. Department of Housing and\nSan Francisco\nUrban Development, San Francisco\nKarl V. Steinbrugge\nnone\nState Mining and Geology Board\nSan Francisco\nRonald S. Thacker\nFielding McDearmon\nCalifornia Bankers Association\nSan Francisco\nLos Angeles\nMrs. Carol Walker\nnone\nCouncil on Intergovernmental\nRelations, Sacramento\nCharles A. Zahn\nnone\nAmerican Institute of Planners,\nCalifornia Chapter\nMartinez\n# # #\n-3-\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: Imi liate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#62\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Mrs. Rachel Ayers of\nPasadena and Sister Helene Marie Sauers of Burlingame to four-year terms\non the Board of Nursing Education and Nurse Registration in the\nDepartment of Consumer Affairs.\nMrs. Ayers, Director of Nursing for the City of Hope Medical Center\nin Duarte, has served on the board since 1968. She lives at 1155 East\nDel Mar Street, Pasadena. She is a Republican.\nSister Helene, Health Services Education Coordinator for the Sisters\nof Mercy Convent in Burlingame, has served on the board since 1969.\nShe is a Republican.\nBoard members receive $25 per diem while on official duty.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#63\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed three members to\nfour-year terms on the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners in the\nDepartment of Consumer Affairs.\nThey are Richard A. Battaglia of South San Francisco, Mrs. Pearle\nH. Miller of San Diego and Dr. Rosalio F. Munoz of Los Angeles.\nBattaglia, office manager of a chemical firm, lives at 371 Valencia\nDrive, South San Francisco. He has represented the public on the board\nsince 1969. He is a Republican.\nMrs. Miller, Director of Medical Social Service for the Department\nof Medical Institutions, San Diego, has represented registered social\nworkers on the board since 1969. She lives at 3075 Malaga, San Diego.\nShe is a Republican.\nDr. Munoz, coordinator of District Pupil Services and the attendance\nsection of the Los Angeles City Board of Education, has represented\nregistered social workers on the board since 1969. Dr. Munoz, who lives\nat 6164 Mt. Angelus Drive, Los Angeles, is a Democrat.\nBoard members receive $25 per diem while on official duty.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: Imi. liate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#64\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today appointed Dr. Joseph N. Fields\nof Chula Vista to the Podiatry Examining Committee in the Department\nof Consumer Affairs.\nDr. Fields, a past president of the California Podiatry Association\nand a past trustee of California College of Podiatric Medicine, is\npresident of the Arthritis Foundation of San Diego County and a member\nof the National Advisory Council for Health Professions Education\nAssistance of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.\nHe succeeds Dr. Donald W. Field of San Leandro, whose term has\nexpired.\nDr. Fields, a Republican, lives at 344 Kimble Terrace, Chula Vista.\nMembers of the committee receive $25 per diem while on official\nduty.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: Imi liate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#65\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Camille M. Shaar of\nHope Ranch and William A. DeGroot, Jr., of Venice to four-year terms on\nthe Navigation and Ocean Development Commission, subject to Senate\nconfirmation.\nShaar, director of the General Motors Corporation Defense Research\nLaboratory in Goleta, has served on the commission since 1969. He lives\nat 1124 Estrella, Hope Ranch.\nDeGroot, a yachtsman and businessman, has also been a commissioner\nsince 1969. He lives at 5205 Ocean Front, Venice.\nBoth men are Republicans.\nCommissioners receive necessary expenses.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE:\nnediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#66\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Martin M. Cooper,\nMt. Shasta businessman and rancher, and Ralph R. Turk, Happy Camp\ncattleman, to four-year terms on the board of the 10th District\nAgricultural Association (Siskiyou County Fair).\nCooper, who lives at 303 Adams Drive, Mt. Shasta, and Turk, whose\naddress is Box 497 Happy Camp, have served on the board since 1968.\nBoth are Republicans.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: Im diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#67\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today reappointed Norman T. R. Heathorn,\nan Oakland contractor, to a four-year term on the Contractors' State\nLicense Board in the Department of Consumer Affairs.\nHeathorn, who lives at 4834 Haley Drive, Castro Valley, has\nserved on the board since 1968. He is a Republican.\nBoard members receive $25 per diem while on official duty.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#68\nActing Governor Ed Reinecke today announced the appointments of\nDr. Philip H. Pope of San Bernardino and Dr. Leo J. Poxon of Palos\nVerdes Estates to four-year terms on the Board of Dental Examiners of\nCalifornia in the Department of Consumer Affairs. Both are Republicans.\nDr. Pope, who lives at 1414 East Citrus, San Bernardino, will\nsucceed Dr. Lewis E. Martin of Downey, whose term has expired.\nDr. Poxon, who practices in Redondo Beach and lives at 5375 Rolling\nRidge Road, Palos Verdes Estates, will succeed Dr. Robert D. Lawson of\nUpland who did not seek reappointment.\nMembers of the board receive $25 per diem while on official duty.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#69\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today sent the following telegram to Senator\nRussell B. Long, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in Washington,\nD.C.:\n\"I again want to express my deep appreciation to you and the\nmembers of the committee for giving me the opportunity to urge that the\nkind of welfare reform we have pioneered in California be adopted as a\nmodel for the entire nation.\n\"The fact there are 176,000 fewer people on welfare in California\ntoday than there were nine months ago when previously our welfare\nrolls were growing at the fantastic rate of 40,000 a month simply\nhas to remove any doubt that our tried and proven approach to welfare\nreform really works.\n\"On the basis of the success we have achieved, I am more convinced\nthan ever before that Congress must act to assure that the states have\nthe statutory and regulatory elbow room they need to adopt the welfare\nreforms best suited to their own particular needs\nunhindered by the\nstultifying red tape and abuses of discretion so often imposed on us\nby the welfare bureaucracy at HEW.\n\"The modifications of federal law and welfare regulations which I\nproposed to your committee yesterday can provide the states all the\ntools they need to effectively overhaul and reform welfare. With your\nhelp and the support of the members of your committee, Congress can and\nmust see to it that this is done at the earliest possible time. Thank\nyou very much for all you are doing to help us succeed.\n\"Very sincerely, Ronald Reagan, Governor of California.\"\n#####\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nRELEASE: Immediate\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#70\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today requested the legislature to expand\nthe 1972-73 budget by approximately $4 million to enable California to\nqualify for an anticipated $60 million in the state's share of federal\nanti-crime funds.\nThe Governor said it would be necessary to increase the General\nFund level by $4,085,000 to meet a \"state buy-in\" provision which will\nbe required next year under the federally-backed Omnibus Crime Control\nProgram.\nSince the federal block grant program began in mid-1969, the\nCalifornia Council on Criminal Justice has funded more than 525 projects\nto improve the police, courts, and correctional system with grant awards\nin excess of $45 million from the federal Law Enforcement Assistance\nAdministration. At present, the bulk of the projects are funded on a\nratio of 75 percent federal funds, and 25 percent in local matching\nfunds from cities and counties.\nThe governor said, \"Beginning with 1972-73 funding under the\nOmnibus Crime Control Act, the State of California will be required\nto 'buy in' to the program by providing not less than one-fourth of\nthe non-federal funds required for each of the crime-fighting projects\nfunded throughout the state.\"\nThe governor also stated that by the end of this year, federal\nblock grants to the California Council on Criminal Justice will have\ntotaled nearly $100 under the LEAA program. Seventy-five percent of\nthese funds are funneled directly to cities and counties for a variety\nof crime reduction programs and to foster long-range planning in the\ncriminal justice system. Major statewide programs include establishment\nof regional criminal justice training centers, creation of a statewide\nsystem of crime labs, use of electronic data processing to speed\noperations of the courts, and training of law enforcement personnel in\nriot control.\n# # #\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: Im diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-2-72\n#71\nEarl Coke, a member of the governor's cabinet and secretary of the\nState Agriculture and Services Agency, today sent the following letter to\nmembers of the Select Labor Management Factfinding Committee for the State\nDivision of Industrial Safety.\nThe committee was formed January 24 to examine the operations of the\nState Division of Industrial Safety and to make appropriate recommendation\nto Earl Coke for whatever corrective action might be necessary within\nthe division. The committee members are:\nWarren Mendel, Executive Vice President, Engineering and Grading\nContractors' Association\nThomas Richards, California Farm Bureau Federation\nEmmons McClung, California Manufacturers' Association\nJames Lee, President, Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO\nFrank Farrell, Teamsters Union\nKenneth Larson, Chairman, State-wide AFL-CIO Safety Committee\nCoke forwarded with his letter copies of a \"Management Review\" of\nthe Division of Industrial Safety which was prepared independently by\nDepartment of Finance auditors, at the request of the governor (attached).\nHere is the text of Mr. Coke's letter:\n\"I want to thank you very much for serving on this important fact-\nfinding task force and for accepting the responsibility for examining\nthe operations of the Division of Industrial Safety, Department of\nIndustrial Relations.\n\"To assist you in your efforts, I am enclosing copies of a management\nreview of the Division which was prepared independently by Department of\nFinance auditors at the request of the governor. Before the review was\ncompleted, the auditors' preliminary findings were forwarded to the\ngovernor's office.\n\"As you know, the governor has accepted the resignation of Jack Hatto\nas chief of the division and named Roy J. Bell as acting chief.\n\"In addition, the findings of a thorough internal investigation by\nDirector Hern also are being turned over to you for your evaluation.\n\"Governor Reagan carefully read the preliminary findings and is\ndeeply concerned that the Division of Industrial Safety meet its\nresponsibilities. He has asked me to assume full responsibility for\nwhatever corrective action may be necessary within the division.\n- 1 -\n#71\n\"Let me stress that the objective of this administration has been,\nand continues to be, the protection of the health and safety of\nCalifornia workers through a balanced program of education and\nenforcement.\n\"Budgeting for this program has been complicated by the uncertain\naspects of federal funding---available under provisions of the new\nOccupational Safety and Health Act. These uncertainties are not yet\ncompletely resolved. However, it now appears thatat least $2 million in\nadditional federal funds can reasonably be expected during fiscal\n1972-73. Thus, plans for more definitive budgeting can now be undertaken\nin the Division of Industrial Safety.\n\"In addition to the indications of ineffective internal\ncommunications and other management deficiencies within the Division of\nIndustrial Safety, the enclosed management review outlines several areas\nof special concern to which I am directing the immediate attention of\nActing Chief Roy Bell.\n\"First, the report points out some areas where manpower may be\ninadequate to handle the workload of the division most efficiently and\nexpeditiously. Several professional positions within the division are\nnow vacant and I am asking Mr. Bell to fill them immediately. The effort\nof some employees might well be redirected toward field examinations and\nMr. Bell tells me that he is already working on that problem.\n\"Second, the report points out that travel funds are inadequate.\nNot all travel funds budgeted for the division were utilized last year\nor it could be that not all are being utilized during the current year.\nI have asked Mr. Bell to ensure that all appropriations for travel\npurposes be fully utilized.\n\"Third, the report discusses the inadequacy of equipment. Although\nmany vouchers may not be in, it appears possible that only a small\nportion of the equipment money budgeted for the current year actually\nhas been used. Mr. Bell is being asked to immediately expend available\nfunds to bring equipment up to an acceptable level.\n\"I want to urge that you assess the information contained in this\nmanagement review along with the findings of Director Hern's investigatio\nand make appropriate recommendations to me for corrective action at the\nearliest possible time. The governor has assured me that your\nrecommendations will be given full and careful consideration and will\nhave a substantial impact on whatever decisions we reach.\n- 2 -\n#71\n\"We will take whatever steps are necessary, working with the\nlegislature, to see that the Division of Industrial Safety fulfills its\nvital role of protecting the health and safety of California workers.\n\"Despite the shameful, politically motivated statements of some\nso-called legislative leaders, let me assure you that this administration\nwill not compromise the integrity of the division's obligations for\nproviding safe working conditions for the citizens of California.\nSincerely,\nEarl Coke\nAgency Secretary\"\n#####\nEJG\n- 3 -\nMANAGEMENT REVIEW OF\nDIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY\nDEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS\nJANUARY 1972\nAudits Division\nDepartment of Finance\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nPage\nExecutive Summary\ni\nIntroduction\n1\nAdministration\n9\nConstruction\n12\nElectrical\n24\nElevators\n29\nIndustrial\n33\nPressure Vessels\n43\nWe express:\nOur appreciation to the employees of the Division\nof Industrial Safety for their courteous attitudes,\ntheir frank and open discussion with our auditors\nand their willingness to participate on their own\ntime and at their own homes.\nOur thanks to Director Hern for the information,\nreports and cooperation he furnished us.\nR.J.Ardaling\nINDUSTRIAL SAFETY PROGRAM\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nCoverage\nProfessional employees below the level of Chief were interviewed as follows:\nSection\nPotential\nInterviewed\nPercent\nAdministration\n16\n15\n94%\nConstruction\n48\n46\n96%\nElectrical\n10\n10\n100%\nElevators\n20\n15\n75%\nIndustrial\n67\n58\n87%\nPressure Vessels\n53\n48\n91%\nTotal\n214\n192\n90%\nFACTS REGARDING STUDY METHODOLOGY\nAll data collection was done through employee interviews. No records, except\nthe Governor's Budget, were reviewed. Solid data, supported by specific ex-\namples were hard to come by and in most instances lacking. Thus, this can be\nconsidered an opinion survey rather than a systematic program review.\nNevertheless, the size of the sample interviewed, the frequency of many\nresponses and the convictions evidenced by the employees lead us to believe\nthat the conclusions are sound and indicate that improvement is needed.\nSymbols used throughout the Executive Summary are as follows:\nA - Adequate\nE - Excellent\nInA - Inadequate\nNR - No Response\nS - Satisfactory\nT - Total\nUnS - Unsatisfactory\n-i-\nOVERALL CONCLUSIONS\nThere is a Need for Improved Program Management\nEmployee responses relating to program management are\nsummarized below:\nSection\nE\nS\nUnS\nNR\nT\nAdministration\n4\n4\n3\n4\n15\nConstruction\n6\n10\n30\n46\nElectrical\n2\n5\n3\n10\nElevator\n10\n2\n2\n1\n15\nIndustrial\n10\n30\n12\n6\n58\nPressure Vessels\n10\n34\n1\n3\n48\nTotal Employee\nResponses\n42\n85\n51\n14\n192\nOf the total employee responses, 27% felt the need for\nimproved program management.\nIn the Construction Section, 65% of employee responses\n(30 out of 46) and in the Industrial Section, 21% of\nemployee responses (12 out of 58) indicated the need for\nimproved program management.\nIn the other sections, there were some indications of the\nneed for improved program management.\nThe Role of the Division is Not Well Defined\nThere is a conflict between educational and enforcement\nactivities.\nEmployees feel management stresses education.\nManagement feels employees stress enforcement.\nCommunications With Employees Needs Improvement\nMany employees feel a lack of policy direction from\ntop management.\nSafety codes are not current.\nApplication of safety requirements are not uniform.\nDeviations from safety requirements are permitted by higher\nlevels with no feedback to employees as to why.\nSupervisory personnel spend little or no time in field.\nEmployee training to update and refresh their skills is\ntotally inadequate.\nEmployee Morale Needs Improvement\nThe large number of adverse employee responses concerning\nDivision management indicates low employee morale.\nAdministrative and supervisory personnel are not responsive\nto the needs of employees, who, in the main, are dedicated to\ntheir jobs.\nIn the Construction Section particularly, morale is extremely\nlow. The apparent lack of management support for enforcement\nhas taken its toll.\nIn the Electrical and Industrial Sections, morale is below\naverage. It would appear that the most significant con-\ntributing factor is insufficient employees to make needed\ninspections on a reasonable cycle.\nIn the Elevator and Pressure Vessels Sections, morale is\nsomewhat higher. This may be due to the fixed workload and\nthe better defined programs of their sections.\nManagement Support of Safety Engineers Needs Strengthening\nThe following is a summary of employee responses regarding the\nlevel of management support:\nSection\nE\nS\nUnS\nNR\nT\nAdministration\n10\n3\n2\n15\nConstruction\n11\n15\n19\n1\n46\nElectrical\n3\n4\n3\n10\nElevator\n14\n1\n15\nIndustrial\n20\n34\n1\n3\n58\nPressure Vessels\n19\n27\n2\n48\nTotal Employee\nResponses\n77\n83\n23\n9\n192\n-iii-\nOf the total employee responses, 12% felt that management\nsupport was unsatisfactory.\nIn the Construction Section, 41% of the employee responses\n(19 out of 46) rated management support as unsatisfactory.\nIn the other sections, most employees felt that management\nsupport was fairly reasonable.\nThere was a general feeling, however, among employees that\nall unsafe conditions are not always reported. This was\ndue to their anticipated lack of management support.\nFew recommendations to prosecute are upheld.\nInspection reports no longer provide for a prosecution\nrecommendation.\nMany employees feel that management's approach is \"don't\nrock the boat\".\nThere Were Some Indications of External Pressure\nA summary of employee responses concerning employers getting\nunwarranted favorable treatment follows:\nSection\nYes\nNo\nNR\nT\nAdministration\n2\n11\n2\n15\nConstruction\n18\n28\n46\nElectrical\n5\n4\n1\n10\nElevator\n2\n12\n1\n15\nIndustrial\n5\n47\n6\n58\nPressure Vessels\n2\n42\n4\n48\nTotal Employee\nResponses\n34\n144\n14\n192\nThe possibility of external pressure was indicated in 18% of\nthe total employee responses.\nIn the Construction Section, 39% of the employee responses\n(18 out of 46) indicated the possibility of external pressure.\nIn the other sections, there was some concern over the\npossibility of external pressure.\nMany employees felt that failure to prosecute was indicative\nof external pressure.\n-iv-\nAdditional Staffing is Needed\nA summary of employee responses concerning staffing follows:\nSection\nA\nInA\nNR\nT\nAdministration\n4\n8\n3\n15\nConstruction\n19\n26\n1\n46\nElectrical\n9\n1\n10\nElevator\n1\n14\n15\nIndustrial\n15\n42\n1\n58\nPressure Vessels\n23\n24\n1\n48\nTotal Employee\nResponses\n62\n123\n7\n192\nOf the total employee responses, 64% felt that staffing was\ninadequate.\nIn all sections, 50% or more of the employee responses in-\ndicated that staffing was inadequate.\nMany employees felt that additional staffing was needed for\nenforcement.\nSome geographical areas are too large to be adequately covered\nwith present staff.\nThere are inspection backlogs.\nWorkload is increasing.\nPaperwork ties up professionals, more clerks are needed.\nTravel Funds are Inadequate\nEmployee responses relating to travel funds are summarized below:\nSection\nA\nInA\nNR\nT\nAdministration\n12\n1\n2\n15\nConstruction\n27\n19\n46\nElectrical\n1\n9\n10\nElevator\n14\n1\n15\nIndustrial\n45\n10\n3\n58\nPressure Vessels\n28\n16\n4\n48\nTotal Employee\nResponses\n127\n55\n10\n192\nOf the total employee responses, 29% felt that travel funds\nwere inadequate.\nEmployee responses indicated that travel funds were inadequate,\nexcept in the Administration and Elevator Sections.\nLack of travel funds restricts needed reinspections, especially\nwhere jobs are dispersed over large geographical areas.\nAll jobs that should be inspected cannot be inspected due to\ninadequate travel funds.\nInsufficient Equipment is Provided to Safety Engineers\nThe following is a summary of employee responses regarding\nequipment.\nSection\nA\nInA\nNR\nT\nAdministration\n5\n8\n2\n15\nConstruction\n26\n18\n2\n46\nElectrical\n2\n8\n10\nElevators\n10\n4\n1\n15\nIndustrial\n27\n27\n4\n58\nPressure Vessels\n34\n11\n3\n48\nTotal Employee\nResponses\n104\n76\n12\n192\nEquipment was inadequate as indicated by 34% of the total\nemployee responses.\nEmployee responses indicated that equipment was inadequate\nin all sections.\nOutdated and worn out testing equipment should be replaced.\nNew, modern, and specialized testing equipment is needed.\nTwo State automobiles were described as being in poor condition.\nAt times, employees must borrow equipment from organizations\nbeing inspected.\nMany times it is necessary for employees to use their own\nor borrowed tools.\nINTRODUCTION\nThe Assembly Select Committee on Industrial Safety, Assemblyman Jack R.\nFenton, Chairman, recently held a series of hearings concerning the\nactivities of the Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial\nRelations. During the course of these hearings, numerous Division em-\nployees testified about conditions in the Division which they felt were\nseriously detrimental to the achievement of Division objectives.\nMajor complaints made before the commission by these employees included\nthe following:\nDivision management frequently fails to \"back up\" its field\nsafety inspectors in disputes with employers over the enforce-\nment of safety regulations.\nSpecifically, on frequent occasions management countermands\nthe attempts of its field inspectors to close down certain\nunsafe operations or equipment.\nManagement shows favoritism toward employers, particularly\nlarger employers.\nThere are an insufficient number of prosecutions recommended\nby the Division, and inspector's requests for prosectuion could\nbe and usually were overruled at management levels above the\ninspector.\nBoth staffing levels and travel funds are inadequate to do the\njob.\n-1-\nDuring the course of the committee hearings, the appointed Chief of the\nDivision of Industrial Safety tendered his resignation, which was not\naccepted pending investigation. Governor Reagan directed the Director of\nIndustrial Relations to conduct a study of the Division. Also, on\nJanuary 21, 1972, in order to obtain the viewpoints and perspectives of\na group from without the Department, the Audits Division, Department of\nFinance, was directed to investigate the problem independently. This is\nthe report of that investigation.\nStudy Scope and Methodology\nThe study was a fact finding investigation as to the experiences, opinions\nand attitudes of the professional employees and supervisors of the Division\nof Industrial Safety. In the interest of assuring that all voices were\nheard, an attempt was made to contact all professional employees of the\nDivision below the level of Chief, and to interview these employees at\ntheir homes. In addition, a few clerical employees were interviewed when\nsuch contacts were recommended by professional employees.\nA listing of current Division employees names, home addresses and telephone\nnumbers was obtained from the Department Director. Commencing at 6 p.m.,\nFriday, January 21, attempts were made to reach all employees, at their\nhomes, by telephone. These calls continued through Sunday night, until\nalmost all Division professional employees were reached.\nThe following statement was made to the employees contacted:\nExhibit I\nTelephone Contact Speech\nThe Director of Finance has asked us to contact all professional\nemployees of the Division of Industrial Safety. Our objective\nis to learn about the operation of the industrial safety program.\nWe are particularly concerned with how well the recommendations\nof the safety engineers are supported by Division management. We\nare also concerned about the adequacy of resources assigned to the\nsafety program.\nYou are no doubt aware of the legislative hearings that have been\nheld on the subject. The administration is not trying to whitewash\nthe problems raised in those hearings. Instead, the Governor wants\nus to gather additional facts, both good and bad, about the safety\nprogram's administration. We have to find out by Monday night.\nWe would like to interview you this weekend about your own expe-\nriences. We would like examples of how your safety recommendations\nhave or have not been supported. We also want your general feelings\nabout the adequacy of the program. If you feel it is inadequate, we\nwant your recommendations as to how it could be improved.\nThe Director of your department is aware of the study and knows that\nwe are telephoning you. When and where can our representative see\nyou?\nMost employees readily agreed to be interviewed at their homes, and appoint-\nments were made for Friday evening, Saturday or Sunday. A few insisted that\nthe interviews be conducted on State time, these were interviewed at their\nwork stations on Monday, January 24. Still fewer refused to be interviewed;\nno pressure was used to try to change their minds. As could be expected, a\ncertain number of employees were unavailable.\nInterviewers were not directed to follow a specific (patterned) format.\nInstead, they were given a list of questions to be answered during the\ninterview, but were instructed also to explore any other areas brought up\nby the interviewee, which were pertinent to the issues at hand. The specific\nquestions, reproduced below as Exhibit 2, were designed with care to be\nunbiased and open ended, with the objectives of freeing results from dis-\ntortion and maximizing further responses from the Division employees being\ninterviewed.\nExhibit 2\nSURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE\nAuditor: Enter required information in space provided. Give detailed explanation\non open ended questions. Check appropriate box where additional sheets\nare used. In addition, describe on reverse the general attitude of\nemployee.\nInterview time\nDate\nApproximate Duration\n1. Name\n2. Position\n3. Office Location\n4. Territory\n5. How long have you been in: a. Safety work?\nb. Your present job\n6. Describe your present job.\n7. In 1971, about how many:\na. Inspections did you make?\nb. Violations did you find?\nC. Violations corrected by contractor?\nd. Disputed violations upheld by management?\ne. Disputed violations reversed by management?\n8. In general how do you feel about the level of support that your recommendations\nreceive from your management?\nAdditional Sheet\n9. Can you give us some examples where your recommendations were not supported when\nyou feel they should have beon? (Get approximate dates, job and firms involved,\ndescription of incident, safety engineer's recommendations, management action\nand by whom.)\nAdditional Sheet\n10. What percent of the time would you say your recommendations were not followed when\nthey should have been?\nAdditional Sheet\n11. In your opinion, did any of the incidents described result in the injury or death\nof employees? (Elaborate)\nAdditional Sheet\n12. Do you have any feelings that employers are getting unwarranted favorable treatment\nfrom the department? Please give examples.\nAdditional Sheet\n13. How adequate are the travel funds at your disposal?\nAdditional Sheet\n14. How adequate is the equipment at your disposal?\nAdditional Sheet\n15. How adequate do you feel staffing levels are in your portion of the industrial\nsafety program? Why?\nAdditional Sheet\n16. In your opinion how well managed is the program? Why?\nAdditional Sheet\nAuditor's Name\nWhen all of the interviews were completed, the interview reports were reviewed\ncarefully by Audits Division supervisory personnel, and the field interviewers\nwere questioned to be sure that all important information was captured.\nThe results of the interviews are summarized in the balance of this report,\nby Section. Our overall findings and conclusions are given in the Executive\nSummary which precedes this report section.\nFACTS ABOUT THE DIVISION\nThe Division of Industrial Safety is in the State Department of Industrial\nRelations. It operates under the authority of Labor Code, Division 1,\nChapter 6, Section 142, and Division 5, Part 1 through 7, which direct it to\nadminister and enforce safety standards, investigate accidents, participate in\neducational activities and formulate statewide safety standards.\nThe overall program of the Division, then, provides for field safety surveys\nof places of employment to bring correction of unsafe conditions through\ncode enforcement, to improve safety performance through education and con-\nsulation, to investigate accidents and complaints; and to develop, maintain\nand publish codes of safety standards and assist this endeavor. This\noverall activity is accomplished through eight program elements, staffed\nand funded as indicated in Exhibit 3, on the following page:\n-6-\nExhibit 3\nProgram Elements - Division of Industrial Safety\nPROGRAM REQUIREMENTS\n70-71\n71-72\n72-73\n1970-71\n1971-72\n1372-73\nContinuing program costs\n281.9\n277.2\n276.8\n$4,934,440\n$4,968,098\n$5,003,773\nWorkload adjustments\n-\n23\n-\n-\n388,663\n-\nTotals, The Prevention of Industrial\nInjuries and Deaths to California\nWorkers\n281.9\n300.2\n276.8\n$4,934,440\n$5,356,161\n$5,003,773\nGeneral Fund\n4,893,150\n4,922,098\n4,957,773\n388,063\n-\nFederal funds\n-\nReimbursement\n41,290\n46,000\n46,000\nProgram Elements:\nA. Safety for employees in construc-\ntion\n58.1\n63.1\n60.1\n$1,051,459\n$1,119,543\n$1,077,221\nB. Safety for employees exposed to\nelectrical hazards\n14.4\n13.3\n13.3\n268,314\n234,260\n238,386\nC. Safety for employees while using\nor repairing elevators, escalators\nor aerial tramways\n30.8\n30.3\n30.1\n518,492\n553,387\n571,276\nD. Safety of employees from radia-\ntion, dusts, fumes, vapors, gases.\netc.\n12.2\n10.4\n10.4\n224,919\n187,890\n186,407\nE. Safety for employees in industrial\nplants and operations including\nmineral industries\n83.7\n87\n80\n1,456,830\n1,526,002\n1,433,904\nF. Developing and coordinating Cali-\nfornia OSHA projects. cataloging\nCalifornia Health and Safety\nCodes. and comparing state and\nfederal health and safety laws\n13\n233,484\nI\n-\n-\n-\nG. Safety for employees from pressure\nvessel failure or malfunction\n78.5\n79.7\n79.5\n1,346,595\n1,423,496\n1,435,636\nH. Education and engineering research\nactivities for industrial safety\n4.2\n3.4\n3.4\n67,831\n77,499\n60,943\nThe Division of Industrial Safety is organized into seven operating sections\nand functions out of its San Francisco headquarters and 21 field locations.\nOverall management comprises a Chief, (appointed) Assistant Chiefs,\nNorthern and Southern (civil service) and an Assistant to the Chief (appointed).\nEach of the program elements, except Environmental Safety, is headed by a\nSupervising Safety Engineer (civil service) and each of the five major\ninspection programs (pressure vessels, industrial, elevator, electrical,\nand construction) have their own field organizations supervised by Senior\nSafety Engineers. There are no area supervisors in the field offices to\ncoordinate division activities in the geographic regions. Field engineers\nreport through their own chain of command, by section, to San Francisco\nheadquarters.\n-7-\nExhibit 4, below, is the overall Division organization chart.\nExhibit 4\nDEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS\nDIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY\nINDUSTRIAL SAFETY BOARD\nHAS JURISDICTION OVER ADOPTION\nCHIEF\nOF SAFETY REGULATIONS, INCLUDING\nTHE HOLDING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.\nASST. CHIEF\nASST. CHIEF\nASST. TO\nTHE\nNORTHERN\nSOUTHERN\nCHIEF\nADMIN ASSISTANT 11\nSTATEWIOC\nADMIN SUPERVISION\nOFFICE FACILITIES\nSUPERVISING CLERKS\nL.A. & 3.F.\nCLERICAL SERVICES\no\no\nO\no\no\no\n0\no\nPRESSURE VESSEL\nINDUSTRIAL\nELEVATOR\nENVIRONMENTAL\nELECTRICAL\nCONSTRUCTION\nRESEARCH AND\nSECTION\nSECTION\nSECTION\nENGINEERING UNIT\nSECTION\nSECTION\nEDUCATION\nO\nSECTION\nSAN FRANCISCO\nLOS ANGELES\nSUPERVISING\nSUPERVISING\nSUPERVISING\nSENIOR\nSENIOR\nSUPERVISING\nSUPERVISING\nD\nSUPERVISING\nO\nSAFETY ENGINEER\nSAFETY ENGINEER\nSAFETY ENGINEER\nI H ENGINEER\nH ENGINEER\nSAFETY ENGINEER\nSAFETY ENGINEER\nSAFETY ENGINEER\nSENIOR SAFETY\nSENIOR SAFETY\nSENIOR SAFETY\nSENIOR SAFETY\nSENIOR SAFETY\nENGINEER\nENGINEER\nENGINEER\nENGINEER\nENGINEER\nINFO OFFICER I\nO\nO\n2-SAN FRANCISCO\n1-5AN FRANCISCO\n1-5AN FRANCISCO\n12 ASSOC. MP\nASSOC. HP\n1-SAN FRANCISCO\n1-3AV FRANCISCO\n1-OAKLAND\n1-OAKLAND\n1-Los ANGELES\nASSOC. IH ENG 2 IN. ENG ASSOC\n1-5ACRAMENTO\nO\nO\n1-BAKEÁSFIELD\n1-FRESNO\nTH ENG ASSCC\nO-LOS ANGELES\n2-LOS ANGELES\n2-L05 ANGELES\n1-5AN JOSE\n1-924 DIECO\n0\no\n1-SANTA ANA\n2-LOS ANGELES\n1-09KLAND\n1-SANTA ANA\nTECHNICAL STAFF SERVICE\nEDUCATIONAL STAFF SERVICE\nNOTE: THIS CHART COVERS ONLY SUPERVISORY LEVELS or THE LINE ORGANIZATION. SEE\nINDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION CHARTS FOR SAFETY ENGINEER ASSIGNMENTS WITHIN.EACH . SECTION,\nDECEMBER 1971\nADMINISTRATIVE UNIT\nUnit Organization\nThe Administrative Unit of the Division of Industrial Safety is comprised\nof top management (Chief, Assistant to The Chief, 2 Assistant Chiefs,\nAdministrative Assistant), as well as the Research and Education group and\nthe Environmental Engineering group, for a total of 16 positions. Eleven\nof these positions are located in the San Francisco office and 5 in the\nLos Angeles office.\nStudy Coverage\nThe Division Chief was not interviewed, but all other 15 employees were.\nWorkload Data\nWithin this group, many of the employees are supervisory and do not regularly\nmake inspections. For those employees regularly making inspections, work-\nload statistics gathered during the interviews were not felt to be valid.\nEmployees were interviewed on the weekend and hence, no accurate statistics\nwere available. Several employees would not venture guesses and others made\nonly gross approximations.\nManagement Support\nAs would be expected, this unit, which is primarily a management group,\ngenerally is supportive of present management practices. When questioned\nabout the level of support their recommendations receive from top management,\nthere were no responses indicating unsatisfactory support.\n-9-\nFavorable Treatment of Employers\nOn the question of employers receiving unwarranted favorable treatment\nfrom the Department, only two felt that this was the case, and neither\ncould (or would) give specific examples.\nTravel Funds\nThis group almost unanimously agreed that travel funds are adequate. One\nemployee felt more funds were needed (to attend professional conferences).\nEquipment\nThe group was split on the question of equipment. Generally speaking,\nEnvironmental Engineering group employees felt the greatest need for\nadditional modern, specialized testing equipment.\nStaffing Levels\nMost employees felt strong needs for additional staff.\nOverall Management\nWith respect to overall program management, interesting comments were made\nby several employees. One employee believes the Division is divided into\ntwo factions, one concerned with enforcement, the other with education.\nThis, he states, is resulting in disagreementsabout the organization's\nrole, which affects Division effectiveness, even though each group thinks\nit is doing what is best. This individual also stated that several safety\nengineers are incompetent and should be removed.\n10\nAnother employee, who asked to remain anonymous, felt overall\nDivision management was quite poor. In his opinion, lines of authority\nwere unclear, discipline lacking and no leadership existed. He commented\nthat the Chief just wants to be a \"good guy\". It should be noted, however,\nthat several other employees felt management was excellent.\n11\nCONSTRUCTION SECTION\nStaffing and Organization\nThe needs, objectives, workload measures and inputs of this program element are\nshown in Exhibit 5 below.\nExhibit 5\nA. Safety for Employees in Construction\nNeed\nIn 1969 the construction industry had an injury rate of 74.4 injuries per\nthousand workers, more than twice the overall rate for all industries of\n31.6. The 1969 construction disabling injury total was 22,308 of which\n134 were fatal. In 1968 there was an injury total of 21,072, a rate of\n72.5 injuries per thousand workers, and a fatality total of 116.\nObjectives\nTo prevent employee injuries at construction projects.\nOutput\nActual\nEstimated\nEstimated\n1969-70\n1970-71\n1971-72\nUnsafe conditions corrected\n33,708\n33,400\n36,700\nAccidents investigated\n607\n600\n660\nSpecial calls\n6,210\n6,150\n6,760\nComplaints and requests investigated\n2,089\n2,070\n2,280\nSafety speeches\n103\n102\n112\nGeneral Description\nThis element involves conducting of field surveys by division engineers specializing\nin construction safety, for the purpose of bringing about corrections of unsafe\npractices; the investigation of accidents and establishment of preventive programs;\nthe investigation of complaints and requests; the delivery of safety talks and\neducational materials; the preparation of proposed construction safety standards\nfor possible board adoption as administrative law.\nInput\nActual\nEstimated\nEstimated\n1969-70\n1970-71\n1971-72\nExpenditures\n$1,009,785\n$1,033,509\n$1,069,512\nPersonnel man-years\n60.7\n60.1\n60.1\nSource: Governor's Budget 1971-72, pg. 284.\n-12-\nAn organization chart follows (Exhibit 6). Note the geographic distances\nbetween the supervisor and the engineers in some areas.\n17\nEXHIBIT 6\nConstruction Section\nState of California\nOrganizational Chart\nDepartment of Industrial Relations\nDivision of Industrial Safety\nCONSTRUCTION\nSUPERVISOR\n-14-\nS.F.\nOAK.\nSACTO.\nLA\nLA\nS.D.\nSSE\nSSE\nSSE\nSSE\nSSE\nSSE\n(3)\n(2)\n(1)\n(6)\n(9)\n(2)\n(2)\nSTA. ROSA (1)\nSAN JOSE (2)\nOAK.\nFRESNO (1)\nMODESTO (1)\nSACTO. (3)\nCHICO\nEUREKA (1)\nVENTURA (1)\nSTA. BARB. (1)\nBAKERSFIELD (1)\nSF\nS.D.\nSTA. ANA (4)\nS. B'DNO\nLA\nLA\nScope\nIn this review, we contacted 46 professional employees headquartered in\n16 localities. Thirty nine were safety engineers and seven were in\nsupervisory capacities.\nNumber of Inspections and Violations Reported\nWe asked how many inspections were made and how many violations were\nreported. These statistics vary widely. Frequently employees indicated\nthey were relatively meaningless because there is no standard method of\ncounting violations.\nWhen we asked whether disputed violations were reversed by management, we\nreceived strong indications that many violations are not reported, because\nthe engineers have little faith that management will support them. There\nwere frequent comments that Division management does not want controversial\nitems reported, so consequently the engineers do not report them. Instead,\nthe man in the field frequently handles the violations himself, or lets\nthem go uncorrected.\nIn part, this may be due to difference in philosophy between management\nand field engineers. Much of management seems to believe that the best\njob can be done by educating contractors in safe practices, while most field\nengineers want strict enforcement, including prosecution of habitual offenders\nor serious offenses.\nTherefore, while few disputed violations were reported as reversed by manage-\nment, an apparent cause is that engineers have learned not to report items\nthey feel will be reversed.\n-15-\nPertinent comments regarding reversals included the following:\n\"Management is not always wrong in reversing the field\nengineers\".\n\"Management reports are carefully prepared so as to leave no\noptions to management but to back me up.\"\n\"I go out of my way to keep my administration from getting\ninvolved in my field work because of past sad experiences.\"\nLevel of Support for Recommendations\nWe asked each interviewee: \"In general how do you feel about the level of\nsupport that your recommendations receive from management?\"\nThe percentage of employees who felt support was unsatisfactory is, in our\nopinion, indicative of major problems. In addition, many employees reiterated\nthat support was satisfactory only because the employees only recommended\nwhat they believed management would support.\nPertinent comments included the following:\n\"Backing is inadequate. I feel responsible for enforcing\nlaws, yet management is passive toward backing the engineer.\nMy power to enforce is inadequate.\"\nOne employee said that only one-third of the prosecutions\nrecommended by inspectors included sufficient cause for\naction under existing Division policy.\nChange in policy and administration were reported as resulting\nin decreased enforcement powers.\nRecommendations are frequently overruled without the recom-\nmender's knowledge and without his being consulted.\nExamples of Non-support of Recommendations\nEighteen of forty-four employees interviewed gave us examples of non-\nsupport with varying amounts of detail.\nOne engineer noted that the form used to report violations formerly con-\ntained a space for the engineer's recommendation to prosecute or not.\nAbout two years ago the space was dropped.\nSome employees indicated that support was received only when it was a very\nserious situation.\nOther pertinent comments included the following:\n\"Construction section engineers avoid controversial situations\nby selecting the jobs and times to inspect so that violations\nare not likely to be present. There would be more violations\nreversed by management if inspectors reported everything.\"\nInspectors do not report everything because Division does not\nlike to prosecute.\n-17-\nRecommendations Not Followed When They Should Have Been\nWe asked about \"the percent of time you would say your recommendations were\nnot followed when they should have been\". Percentages reported varied\nfrom 0% to 50% with 24 reporting 0% to 1%. However, many employees\nreporting 0 percent also stated that they did not report what they knew\nmanagement would not support. Before they adopted this posture, rejections\nwere reported as having been high.\nInjuries or Deaths\nTen employees cited examples of incidences of non-support of their recom-\nmendations which in their opinion resulted in subsequent injury or death.\nPreferential Treatment\nEighteen engineers, or 46% of the non-supervisors, felt that some employers\nreceive unwarranted preferential treatment, especially large, influential\ncompanies.\nMany engineers indicated that contractors do not comply as they should\nbecause they know the Division will not prosecute. Some are habitual of-\nfenders. One engineer categorized the Division as a \"paper tiger\".\nMany felt that employers were getting unwarranted favorable treatment because\nthe power to prosecute is seldom used. In addition, employees complain that\nthe policy is not to red tag, but to be gentle.\nAdequacy of Travel Funds\nThere is a wide variation in opinions as to whether travel expenses are\nadequate.\n-18-\nMany indicated they have had inadequate allowances in the past.\nHowever, most supervisors feel travel allowances are adequate.\nThe method generally used is to allot to each engineer an amount that he\nmay use for travel in a given month. These amounts generally are assigned\nby the supervisor and vary from $125 to $200 including about $84 used\nto finance auto mileage. There were indications that:\nEngineers make repeat inspections around headquarters\nbecause they do not have funds to go further into the field.\nMany inspections are delayed longer than advisable because\nof lack of funds.\nEngineers can't make all the trips they should.\nOrders are not to stay overnight at Location X. May lose 4 hours\nof work, driving 180-200 miles in one day.\nAdequacy of Equipment\nSome comments on inadequacy were:\nNo standard tools furnished. Bought own.\nAbsolute minimum in quality - in less than first class\ncondition.\nSeveral felt air conditioned cars were needed particularly\nin hot areas.\nLack of testing equipment. Several mentioned lack of gas\nmeters and noise level meters.\n-10_\nStaffing Levels\nWhen asked: \"How adequate are staffing levels in the Construction Sections?,\"\nanswers seem to differ among the field men opending on their understanding\nof the Division's mission. Those who believe it is to \"educate\" felt\nstaffing was adequate. Those who felt their primary job was \"enforcement\"\nfelt staffing was inadequate.\nOne comment repeated several times was that the section was overstaffed\nwith Senior Engineers, but understaffed in working level engineers. Some\nfelt that Seniors were \"not doing a job\"; others felt that the job assigned\nto Seniors was not worth doing as many of the duties were clerical in nature.\nSome felt that the Seniors' experience and talent are being wasted. Others\nreported that some Senior Engineers were not well qualified.\nOther comments on staffing included:\n\"Can't have someone on a construction job daily. Lucky to\nhit the big ones once a month.\"\n\"Staffing would be adequate if we were backed by management.\nAs we are not, no number of staff could effectively enforce\nsafety regulations.\"\n\"We are low on clerical help.\"\n\"Salaries are lower than Federal and private industry\".\n(One said 30% lower.)\n-20-\nOpinion of Management\nThe high incidence of dissatisfaction with Division management is unique\nin our experience and warrants careful attention.\nSeveral of the employees interviewed felt that reorganization of the Division\nwas necessary to correct the situation. Many felt that supervisors should\nbe closer geographically to the field employees. Supervisors are fre-\nquently in cities far removed from the headquarters of the engineer and\ncommunications between them are poor.\nOther comments made several times included:\nEmployees need more training in new methods and equipment.\nManagement is poor because they do not prosecute enough.\nManagement policy de-emphasizes enforcement and emphasizes\ntraining of contractors through education.\nAttitude of present management is \"Don't Rock the Boat\" -\n(dont' report controversial violations).\nOther comments on inadequacy were:\nDivision lacks leadership.\nManagement is excellent, however, enforcement in the construction\nsection cannot be accomplished within the present administration\nframework.\n-21-\nDivision lacks policy statements.\nContractor knows that field men will have difficulty getting\nstop orders approved by management.\n\"I have never been instructed on what to enforce. In 5 years\nwe have had only 3 staff meetings.\"\nEsprit de corps has dropped.\nDisunity between North and South. No statewide leadership.\nNot enough legal advice available.\nConclusion\nOur interview in the Construction Section disclosed that this Section has\nmore major problems than any other portion of the Division. Morale is\nexceedingly low. Communications, according to all indications, need\nsubstantial improvement. There is a serious split between what the safety\nengineers feel to be the role of the Section (enforcement) and management's\nemphasis (education). Inspectors believe that punitive actions against\nemployers who deviate from safety regulations have sunk to such a low level\nthat the Division has become \"a paper tiger\". Consequently, they be ieve\nthat habitual offenders ignore safety inspectors warnings and continue unsafe\npractices because no actions will be taken against them.\nField inspectors also believe that favoritism is shown for major employers.\nThis, of course, could not be verified.\n-22-\nStaffing levels may be too low. Certainly, small jobs far from headquarters\nare infrequently inspected. However, this determination again depends upon\none's interpretation of the Division's role and about management determina-\ntions as to the required frequency of inspection.\n-23-\nELECTRICAL SECTION\nProgram Data\nSafety engineers in this section conduct field surveys to identify and correct\nunsafe conditions and practices; investigate accidents, complaints and requests;\nand establish preventative programs. This section also proposes electrical\nsafety standards for possible board adoption.\nBudget and Staffing\nThe 1972-73 expenditures are estimated at $238,386. Currently there are\n8 Safety Engineers and 2 Supervising Safety Engineers, distributed as\nfollows:\nFresno\n1\nLos Angeles\n2\nRedding\n1\nSacramento\n1\nSan Bernardino\n1\nSan Diego\n1\nSan Francisco\n3\nTotal 10\nBoth supervisors are located in San Francisco and have statewide responsibility.\nInterview Coverage\nAll ten professional employees of. the Electrical Section were interviewed in\nperson by members of the review team.\nInspections and Violations\nThe reported number of inspections and related violations varied widely among\nthe inspectors interviewed for a number of reasons:\nInspectors guessed at the numbers\nSome \"did not know\"\n-24-\nDifferent areas being inspected\nProbable different criteria for tabulating the number of\ninspections.\nConsequently, the workload data collected for this survey is of doubtful\naccuracy. The information concerning employee experiences, attitudes and\nopinions is considered to be valid.\nViolations Reversed by Management\nOnly one major violation on which the Safety Engineer had been reversed by\nmanagement during 1971 was reported. Details were not revealed, except that\nthe violation was by a major company in the Los Angeles area.\nManagement Support\nField-level management support is generally considered by Electrical Section\nemployees to be satisfactory to excellent. However, two staff members feel\nthat they receive very little support from top management. Both were quite\nvocal on this subject: they believe top management \"always\" puts them on the\ndefensive and \"usually\" overturns their decisions in favor of employers, other\nstate agencies (the Building Standards Commission), and even other sections\nof their division. Because of this, one seeks every opportunity to circumvent\nor to not involve top management. When he must, he anticipates reversal of\nhis recommendations.\n-25-\nExamples of Non-Support by Management\nOnly three employees reported incidents involving electrical violations\non which the inspectors were not supported by management. Examples are:\n1. Improperly installed air conditioning.\n2. An unidentified job where, allegedly, external pressure\nwas used to circumvent regulations.\n3. State operations which Electrical Section employees are not\nallowed to inspect.\n4. Improper fuses supplied by a major manufacturer.\n5. A major business firm not required to meet national standards.\nRecommendations Not Followed by Management\nPractically all field engineers reported that their recommendations were\naccepted. However, one reported a low exception rate, since he \"did not\ninvolve management\"; another reported that he was reversed on 20 percent\nof all violations that he found.\nInjuries and Deaths\nNo known deaths or injuries resulted when reported violations were overruled\nby management. However, 52 electrical fatalities occurred in 1970 due to\nother reasons.\nSpecial Treatment to Employers\nThe majority of the employees contacted felt the various segments of industry\nreceived some special treatment. Some either had no proof or were unwilling to\ncite specifics.\n-26-\nExamples of entities reported as receiving special treatment included:\nCertain farmers\nUtility companies\nCertain manufacturers or large corporations\nSome state operations\nTravel Funds\nPractically all employees of this section stressed the lack of adequate funds\nfor travel. They are limited to monthly allotments and mileage restrictions\nwhich they believe are insufficient to allow the travel necessary to do the job.\nEquipment\nMost employees felt they needed additional equipment, including testing devices,\nmeters and gauges. At present, employees borrow these from other jurisdictions,\nwhen obtainable.\nStaffing\nAll section employees consider staffing levels to be totally inadequate. They\nestimated that 50 men could not cover the State properly. The current staffing\nof ten is reported to allow for scheduling on a crisis basis and the investi-\ngation of accidents, rather than a program of accident prevention.\nProgram Management\nSection employees report that program management is generally adequate to\nexcellent. Adverse criticism was confined to the aforementioned complaints of\ncertain employees, staffing and travel expense level complaints, and excessive\nworkload.\n-27-\nOther Problem Areas\nThere appears to be a need for standardized electrical regulations and up-\ndating of safety orders. Various other Division sections and other state\norganizations adopt, apply and interpret regulations in conflict with the\nElectrical Section.\nConclusion\nFew problems exist at the field level in most district offices of this section.\nIn attempting to determine how well the programs are managed, the major\ncomplaint was excess workload for the amount of staff assigned. Complaints\nof favoritism, while few, warrant further investigation. This is difficult,\nhowever, without specific examples.\n-28-\nELEVATOR SECTION\nOrganization\nBriefly, the employees of the Elevator Section are distributed as follows:\nSupervising\nSenior\nSafety Engineer\nSafety Engineer\nSafety Engineer\nNorthern Region\nSan Francisco\n1\n1\n10\nSacramento\n1\nSouthern Region\nLos Angeles\n1\n5\nSan Diego\n1\n-\nI\nTotal Positions\n1\n2\n17\nResponsibilities\nThe Supervising Safety Engineer is responsible statewide for the safety\ninspection program directed toward annual licensing of about 38,000 elevators,\nescalators, ski lifts and tramways. Inspections are also made when requested\nby insurance companies. In addition, elevator company plans are reviewed.\nInspections resulting in observations of unsafe conditions are posted with a\nred tag (Notice of Unsafe Conditions). If the inspection results in a shut-\ndown, a yellow tag (Notice of Shut-Down) is posted. Before a yellow tag is\nposted, it must be approved by the Supervisor, Assistant Chief, and Chief.\n-29-\nManagement Support\nWe interviewed the Supervisor, two Seniors, and 12 Safety Engineers. They all\nindicated that they received excellent support from higher management levels.\nA few cases of recommendations being reversed were reported. They are as\nfollows:\nPublic building with home elevator.\nIllegal dumbwaiter.\nSmall superficial breaks in elevator cable.\nElevator machine room did not provide sufficient working space\nfor service and repair workers.\nInsufficient access to service elevator mechanism.\nElevator motor installed halfway under a wall.\nApparently most of these reversals permitted deviations from requirements\nbecause they did not create unsafe conditions and to make changes would be\ncostly and may cause unsafe conditions. Also, at times there are judgmental\ndifferences between the safety engineer and his superiors.\nThere was some feeling expressed that deviations from requirements may be\ngranted due to external pressure.\nTravel Funds\nAll employees in this section indicated that travel funds were adequate.\nEquipment\nMost employees felt that equipment was adequate. However, some employees\nindicated the need for testing devices (scales, voltage meters, torque gauge,\netc.). Two state automobiles were described as in poor condition.\n-30-\nStaffing\nAll of the employees expressed a need for additional staff. Some reasons were\nas follows:\nOverall backlog of inspections-- about 5,000.\nNine months inspection backlog in San Francisco.\nTwo to three months inspection backlog in Los Angeles.\nSix months to a year inspection backlog in San Diego.\nIn San Francisco, some reinspections deferred 16 to 18 months.\nIncreased workload as insurance companies discontinued inspections.\nNow use division inspections.\nRecruiting problems, private sector and Los Angeles County salaries\ngreater than state salaries.\nNeed more capable clerical help.\nOne employee thought that the 1972-73 budget request included 11 new positions;\nhowever, he believes that they may have been eliminated.\nProgram Management\nMost employees thought that the program was well managed. Some suggestions for\nimprovement were made as follows:\nIncrease communication from top management.\nReduce paperwork.\nIncrease the fee structure to make inspections self-supporting.\nEstablish a fee for reviewing elevator plans.\nEstablish uniform applications of inspection requirements between\nNorthern and Southern Regions.\nIncrease revenue by reducing inspection backlogs.\n-31-\nAttend American National Standards Association Conference and\nhelp establish standards.\nCharge for inspection of ski lifts (fee collected in Northern Region\nbut not in Southern Region).\nConclusion\nEmployees indicate excellent support from higher management levels. Their\nconcern for additional staffing appears to have merit. Backlogs of inspections,\nincreased workload, and recruiting problems impede program accomplishments.\nSuggestions for improved program management are worthy of further considera-\ntion, especially those relating to uniform application of inspection require-\nments, which should include permitted deviations, and the development of a fee\nstructure to make inspections self-supporting.\nINDUSTRIAL SECTION\nIntroduction\nThe Industrial Section of the Division of Industrial Safety is responsible for\nthe safety of employees in industrial plants and operations including mineral\nindustries. Accident prevention is accomplished through an organized safety\nprogram encompassing numerous activities. Aspects of the program assigned\nhigher priorities include inspections at plant sites and operations to bring\nabout corrections to unsafe conditions and practices; investigating and\nreporting accidents; answering complaints or requests from employers, labor,\nor interested parties to investigate what is believed to be an unsafe\ncondition or practice; furnishing technical advice and guidance to various\norganizations including registered architects, contractors, and city building\ninspection departments in order to assure new construction plans and specifications\ncomply with California Safety Orders; lecturing on safety subjects upon request;\nand evaluating or assisting with safety programs sponsored by employers.\nThe Section is staffed with one supervising safety engineer, eight senior\nsafety engineers and 58 safety (field) engineers. One senior is a temporary\nappointment resulting from the Division's involvement in the OSHA Program\n(Public Law 91-596, the Occupational Safety and Health Act). Six field\nengineers are currently assigned to pilot. or other special activities. The\nsafety engineers are spread out geographically throughout California in 19\ncities. We interviewed nearly 90 percent of all the engineers.\nLevel of Support for Recommendations\nThe following query was posed to all field engineers interviewed, \"In general\nhow do you feel about the level of support that your recommendations for\ncorrective action received from your management?\" The general consensus was\n77\nthat recommendations were supported by management. Examples of the responses\nare, \"good, adequate, strong support, excellent, etc.\" One employee, however,\nstated that generally recommendations are now supported, but this has not always\nbeen the case. Another field engineer stated that during the first eight years\nof employment, there were only three instances where top management refused to\nback him. He also indicated that in each case he managed to get all unsafe\nconditions corrected.\nAs a follow up to the previous question, field engineers were asked to give\nexamples where their recommendations were not supported when they felt they\nshould have been. As indicated by the preceding paragraph, almost every\nresponse was negative. One employee said that a request for a special tag\norder was withdrawn because of pressure from outside the division.\nAnother stated that a recommendation was reversed without an explanation. It\nwas reported that an employee was seriously injured because a supervisor granted\nan employer an extension of time while the field engineer wanted to stop the\noperations immediately. The incident occurred several years ago.\nWhen we asked employees to give us examples of where and when their recommendations\nhad not been supported by management, we received 52 answers stating they had no\nexamples; that management had always supported them or had convinced them that an\nalternative recommendation was more feasible.\nThe examples cited by the six employees who said their recommendations had not\nbeen supported when they should have been included:\nOne industry's sound levels are above legal requirements and employees\nhad not been required to wear ear protection. The engineer's\nsupervisor would not support him in requiring compliance.\nAbout 1969, an engineer wrote requirements for a firm to (1) install\nsafety railings in certain areas and (2) a method of handling combusti-\nble dust. A supervisor subsequently went to the employer,\nconducted an inspection and rescinded the engineer's requirements.\nThe reason was not explained and the engineer was not present during\nthe inspection by the supervisor.\nOne engineer stated that in the first eight years of his employment\nthere were three instances of management not supporting him when\nthey should have. In two of those cases, he obtained compliance\nwithout support from management. He states now he tries not to seek\nsupport of management, relying only on his own devices.\nAn office building did not have exit railings. A special tag order\nrequested was withdrawn. The engineer believes it was because of\nexternal pressure put on management.\nAn employer was cited for 56 violations. The engineer was not supported.\nHe believes it was because of external pressure put on management.\nCases Which Resulted in Injury or Death\nOf the 50 field safety engineers interviewed by our staff, we asked each if,\nin their opinion, there had been instances where their recommendations had not\nbeen supported by management of their section or division or followed by\nemployers and as a result there had been an employee injured or killed. We\nreceived 47 \"no\" answers and three \"yes\" answers.\nIn one instance, involving an exposed mechansim, an employer was\nunder written requirement to correct the matter. Before reinspection and\nbefore correction, an employee's clothing caught in the mechanism. The employee\nwas thrown clear when his clothing tore and he received only bruises and cuts.\nIn the opinion of the engineer, the employee would have been killed had the\n75\nIn another instance, about five years ago, an employee was killed by a mower\nalong a freeway grade. The engineer attributes his death to the failure\nof the division to require roll-over bars on mowers.\nIn another instance, again several years ago, an employee lost a limb because\na division supervisor refused to go along with the safety engineer's decision to\nissue a \"show cause\" order. The supervisor gave the employer a time extension\ninstead.\nWithin the time constraints our staff worked under, we were not able to analyze\nor even verify the positive answers. We note that two of the instances cited\nto our staff happened some time ago.\nFeelings of Employers Getting Unwarranted Favorable Treatment\nDo you have any feelings that employers are getting unwarranted favorable\ntreatment from the department? In response to this question, we received\na feeling that there is a reluctance to issue \"show cause\" orders to employers.\nSuch orders would cause employers inconvenience and result in increased costs.\nViolations are reported and rereported without penalties being inflicted.\nCertain large employers seem to be favored. Chances are good that field\npersonnel can be reversed if appeals are made to headquarters.\nExamples of other comments made by division employees were:\nSome industries operate at excessive sound levels with most\nemployees being very hard of hearing.\n-36-\nA manufacturer did not have to comply with field findings on\ntwo of its products.\nAn unsafe ladder can be corrected over a four to six-month period.\nProsecution of employers is dependent on long drawn-out legal processes.\nA hospital. has an unsafe smokestack, but no action is taken.\nSafety requirements for an employer were dropped as a result of\nexternal pressure.\nAdequacy of Travel Funds\nThe answers to the quesiton, \"How adequate are travel funds at your disposal?\",\nindicated mixed feelings exist. Men in isolated locations covering large\nareas felt travel funds were insufficient. Employees seem to be satisfied\nif their work is within easy commuting distance. Field men tend to believe\nsupervisors should get out of office more often.\nExamples of these mixed feelings were:\nInfrequent staff meetings are held due to lack of travel funds.\nAdvised to limit travel as much as possible in his 12 northern\ncounties.\nLimited to 1,200 miles in Los Angeles area per month but\nadequate.\nCannot cover territory and assigned areas of responsibility.\n-37-\nTravel with Bureau of Mines forces division to provide sufficient\ntravel funds.\nFunds for outlying areas are inadequate,\nThe word is watch travel expenditures and overnight trips.\nFunds are only one-half of what is needed.\nAdequacy of Equipment\n\"How adequate is the equipment at your disposal?\"\nSafety engineers are about evenly divided in their opinion as to the\nadequacy of equipment to do their work. However, this division is\nmisleading as most of the men stating that equipment was adequate were\nfrom the large metropolitan offices. In the samller, more isolated\noffices, the inadequacy of equipment becomes more apparent. In part,\nthis inadequacy may be in the use and distribution of available equipment\nrather than in statewide deficiencies.\nSome of the items listed to be in short supply are:\nSound and noise level meters (most frequent)\nProjectors and visual aid equipment\nIndustrial hygiene testing equipment\nLight meters\nVelometers\nPhotographic equipment\nMine gas testors\n-38-\nA few men stated that they had to borrow equipment from employers to make their\ntests or have local government make their tests. One man stated that he had\npersonally invested $2,000 in photographic and projection equipment, a typewriter\nand a tape recorder.\nThe responses show that there is a real need for the Industrial Section to\nsurvey its equipment needs and correlate these needs with available equipment\nin the division or in the department.\nAdequacy of Staffing\n\"How adequate do you feel staffing levels are in your portion of the\nindustrial safety program?\"\nThe consensus of the safety engineers is that the Industrial Section is\ngrossly understaffed. The general feeling is that workload has grown immensely\nin the last twenty years with no increase in staff. There was also a feeling\nthat the Construction Section has a greater proportionate staff. Some of the\ncomments were as follows:\nToo much industry to be covered by the present staff.\nTakes ten years to. cover territory once.\nMany more inspectors could be used if all the high risk areas\nare to be inspected every few years.\nNot half enough men in the field.\n70\nStaffing needs to be tripled.\nMust cover the territory of four men.\nRespond mainly to fires--need 100 percent increase.\nSo shorthanded not able to answer complaints within five days.\nPaperwork ties up professionals- need more clerks.\nManagement of Program\nWe asked all employees interviewed the questions \"In your opinion, how well\nmanaged is the program? Why?\"\nIn response, we received a wide variety of opinions. Quite often, com-\nments made by those interviewed did not appear consistent with their\noverall evaluation of the management of the program.\nOn the positive side, a most frequent answer given had to do with either the\ndedication or skill of particular individual managerial personnel and,\nfrequently, comments were made to the effect that management had recently\nimproved or was in the process of improving.\nOn the negative side, several specific comments were made. Included\nin these were:\nManagement does not protect safety of workers. Frequently\ncited was \"management's failure to support safety orders\non Roll-Over protection devices.\"\n10\nManagement is subject to external pressure. Frequently\ncited was the ability of large employers to ask the division\nto relax or rescind a requirement.\nThe field engineers receive little input from management. Management\nis not sensitive to the needs of lower ranks.\nThe unit cannot compete salarywise with other organizations\nand salary ranges between classes are too compacted. They\ncannot attract many good employees and there is no good\nincentive for promotion. As a result, too many new hires\nare retirees from another career, frequently the military.\nThere is an inadequate number of personnel, inadequate equipment,\nand inadequate travel funds. As a result, the energies of the\nunit are used in putting out \"fires\" and they do not have the\nresources to plan and execute an overall good safety program.\nDepartment and division management are so subject to external\npressure that they do not make and vigorously defend adequate\nbudget requests.\nBased on our review, we conclude there is a fairly wide-based dissatisfaction\nin the unit with management at the division and department levels and with\nother agencies of state government.\nOther Comments\nThere were a number of comments made in addition to responses to specific\nquestions which are useful to gauging the morale and the feelings of the\nemployees in the organization. These include:\nTop management has never been exposed to actual field conditions\nand is inexperienced in dealing with problems.\nNot enough communications from top to bottom of organization.\nUnsafe conditions which should be taken to enforcement are not\nwritten up because of nonenforcement climate.\nViolations are statistics which are inflated through\nadministrative pressure--playing numbers game with workload\nstatistics for budgetary purposes.\nGreat need for method to identify high risk industries and\nareas for special attention.\nA \"show cause\" order is a weak enforcement instrument- fines\nwould be more effective.\nPRESSURE VESSELS SECTION\nSection Objectives\nThe objective of this unit is to prevent employee injuries caused by pressure\nvessel failure or malfunction. The unit conducts field inspections of pres-\nsure vessels and makes shop inspections of new pressure vessels.\nOrganization\nOffices are located in Bakersifield, Chico, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles,\nModesto, Oakland, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San\nJose, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa and Stockton. The section is\nheaded up by a Supervising Safety Engineer with 7 Senior Safety Engineers\nresponsible for the supervision of Safety Engineers.\nStudy Coverage\nThe interview teams directly contacted the Supervising Safety Engineer, all\n7 of the Senior Safety Engineers and 40 of the Safety Engineers.\nWorkload Data\nMost of the interviewed employees are inspectors. Even so, it would sèem that\nthe workload statistics obtained from them may not be valid because the employees\nwere interviewed on the weekend and could only give approximations.\nManagement Support\nOne fact that came out very clearly was that violation decisions made by the\nfield staff in this section were almost never reversed by top management. Not\none example could, or would, be given where an employee recommendation was not\nsupported by supervisors.\nEmployees were asked how they felt about management support of their\nrecommendations.\nIn no case did an employee feel his recommendations were not followed\nover one percent of the time.\nInjuries and Deaths\nOne employee reported that on one occasion, a vessel blew up, killing\n3 people. His investigation revealed that illegal repairs had earlier\nbeen made to the vessel. Although his findings were reported on \"up\nthe line\" no further action was taken. This employee still felt manage-\nment was doing a good job. With the limited details available, we do\nnot feel justified in disputing his opinion.\nUnwarranted Favorable Treatment\nThe question as to whether employers are getting unwarranted favorable\ntreatment from the department was asked. The two employees responding\n\"yes\" were from the same office. One felt that this was not done in-\ntentionally, however, and the other felt it was due to understaffing.\nTravel Funds\nSome employees felt that they were not able to make enough inspections\nbecause of travel fund restrictions; most did not feel this way.\nEquipment\nWhen asked how they felt about the sufficiency of equipment, most employees\nresponded that it was adequate. The \"inadequate\" responses concerned\nout-dated or worn out testing equipment.\n-44-\nStaffing Levels\nThe question on adequate staffing levels split the group almost down the\nmiddle. Their general feeling was that there are sufficient supervisors,\nbut more field inspectors and clerical staff were needed.\nProgram Management\nEmployees in this unit almost unanimously agreed that program management\nwas satisfactory.\nThe only comment made by an employee responding \"unsatisfactory\" was\nthat communications between division sections and between top management\nand employees was poor.\nOne supervisor would not respond directly to the questionnaire, but made\ncomments such as:\nSome people are afraid to talk\nSupervision is very weak\nCommunications are bad (several others also made this point)\nSuspects contractors are bribing employees\nTremendous waste in the Construction Unit\nRecords disappear from files\nLack of support for inspectors\nTop management acts like it's retired\n-45-\nThis individual could not, or would not, provide any specific data. Several of\nhis comments were directly contradicted by the results of our questionnaire.\nConclusions\nIn general, it appears to be the concensus of most employees that this unit\nis well managed and has relatively few problems. Several employees\ncommented that Construction was the only unit in the division to have serious\nproblems.\n-46-\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR\nMEMO TO THE P.ESS\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n2-3-72\nGovernor Reagan's Los Angeles press conference\non Friday, February 4, in the Century Plaza West\nSide Room will be held at 10:30 a.m. (instead of\n10:00 a.m.). .\n# # #\nPE\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: Im liate\nSacramento, California\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n2-3-72\n#72\nGovernor Ronald Reagan announced today state license fees for real\nestate brokers and salesmen will be reduced by $10 effective April 1,\n1972.\nReal Estate Commissioner Robert W. Karpe instituted new regulations\nto allow the reduced fees after passage of Assembly Bill 324 paved the\nway. That bill enables the commissioner to prescribe lower license fees\nby regulation.\nGovernor Reagan said, \"I am very pleased to see that in spite of\ninflation, one of our state agencies is making it possible for licensees\nto look for their first reduction in fees in 40 years. I congratulate\nBob Karpe and his department for effecting substantial economies while\nstill providing the same efficient service to the public at a reduced\ncost to the licensees.' \"\nGovernor Reagan added, \"I believe license fees should correspond as\nclosely as possible to the cost of administering the laws.\"\nThe fee cut will mean annual savings to California real estate\npractitioners of approximately $500,000. Under the new regulation,\nreal estate brokers and salesmen will pay $75 and $50 respectively for\na four year license.\n#####\nEJG\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nMEMO TO THE\nESS\nSacramento, Californ..\nContact: Paul Beck\n445-4571\n2-3-72\nFurther change in time of Governor's Press Con-\nference scheduled for Los Angeles, Century Plaza West\nSide Room, tomorrow:\n11:00 A.M.\ninstead of 10:30 a.m.\n# # #\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERNO\nRELEASE: In diate\nSacramento, Californ.\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-3-72\n#73\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today branded as \"sheer obstructionism\" a\ndecision by Sacramento Superior Court Judge William Gallagher which\neffectively prohibits the state from checking the outside incomes of\nwelfare recipients.\nJudge Gallagher issued the temporary restraining order Monday, but\nthe state was not informed of the existence of the order and the\nstate officials\nlawsuit until this afternoon. In effect, it prevents / from checking\non the income of welfare recipients unless the individual gives his\npersonal consent.\n\"Such a ruling is sheer obstructionism and goes far beyond the\ndiscretion of the court,\" the governor said in announcing the state would\nappeal immediately.\n\"How anyone in a responsible position especially a judge---could\nrule that the state cannot check into the outside income of welfare\nrecipients is almost beyond belief, although this is not the first\ndecision of this court that meets that description.\n\"Perhaps the judge did not realize what he was doing because it is\ndifficult to believe that any intelligent person would say the state does\nnot have a moral as well as legal obligation to determine a person's\neligibility before handing out the taxpayers' cash willy-nilly.\"\nThe governor also said it was \"unconscionable, indeed a flagrant\nviolation of public trust\" that Judge Gallagher issued his order without\nany notice whatsoever to the state and without hearing any evidence to\nS upport the state's position.\n\"Such action is totally unfair to the tax-paying citizens of\nCalifornia since it fails to afford them due process of law. Such\njudicial misconduct certainly reinforces the public's low opinion of\nour court system,\" the governor said.\nJudge Gallagher's decision enjoins the State Department of Social\nWelfare from consulting with or obtaining any information from the\nState Department of Human Resources Development having to do with the\noutside earnings or income of welfare recipients. The Department of\nSocial Welfare began exhanging such information with HRD in late\nDecember when Social Welfare's new computerized Earnings Clearance\nReports System was instituted.\n# # #\nPB\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nSacramento, California\nMEMO TO THE PRESS\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-4-72\n#74\nGOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE\nFebruary 7, 1972\nthrough\nFebruary 13, 1972\nMonday, February 7\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\nTuesday, February 8\n10:30 a.m.\nPRESS CONFERENCE\nOvernight - Sacramento\nWednesday, February 9\n11:30 a.m.\nMeeting with 9th grade students from\nCompton, Governor's Office.\nOvernight - Sacramento\nThursday, February 10\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Sacramento\nFriday, February 11\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSaturday, February 12\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\nSunday, February 13\nNo public appointments scheduled\nOvernight - Los Angeles\n######\nPB\nOFFICE OF THE GOVER:\nRELEASE: I ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-8-72\n#75\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed seven members to the new\nCalifornia Hospital Commission.\nCreated by 1971 legislation, the commission is empowered to develop\nand approve systems for accounting and uniform reporting by hospitals\nwith the aim of stabilizing hospital costs through efficiency and economy.\nMembers of the commission, whose appointments are subject to Senate\nconfirmation, include:\nEverett Southard, assistant economist for the Kaiser Foundation\nHealth Plan, Oakland; Henry B. Dunlap, administrator of Children's\nHospital of Los Angeles; Dr. James B. D. Mark, Professor of Surgery,\nStanford University School of Medicine; Mrs. Elizabeth Rowen, a San Rafael\nbusiness woman and civic leader; Albert B. Halverson, a Los Angeles\ninsurance executive; Theodore E. Cummings, a Los Angeles businessman,\nand Allen J. Manzano, president of a Sacramento management systems firm.\nSouthard, who lives at 985 Euclid Avenue, Berkeley, will represent\ncomprehensive group practice prepayment health care service plans on the\ncommission. He is a Democrat.\nDunlap, who lives at 881 Cumberland Road, Glendale, will represent\nhospital chief executive officers. He is a Republican.\nDr. Mark, a resident of 921 Casanueva Place, Stanford, will represent\nlicensed physicians. He is a Republican.\nMrs. Rowen, who lives with her husband James and their family at\n360 Johnstone Drive, San Rafael, will represent consumers. She is a\nRepublican.\nHalverson, who is Senior Executive Vice President of Occidental Life\nInsurance Company, will represent health insurance plans. He lives at\n1615 Pegfair Estates Drive, Pasadena. He is a Republican.\nCummings, director of Pacific Coast Properties in Los Angeles, will\nrepresent consumers. He lives at 911 Hillcrest Road, Beverly Hills. He\nis a Republican.\nManzano, a former chief deputy director of the Department of Health\n/ lives at 1013 Fordham Drive, Davis.\nCare Services, He will represent consumers. He is a Republican.\nThe commissioners, who will serve four-year terms, will receive\nnecessary expenses\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVER\nR\nRELEASE: : ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#76\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Dr. Glenn S. Dumke,\nChancellor of the California State Colleges, to a four-year term on\nthe Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.\nDr. Dumke, who has served on the commission since 1971, lives at\n285 West California Boulevard, Pasadena. He is a Republican.\nHis appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.\nMembers of the commission receive necessary travel expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN,\nRELEASE: 1...mediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#77\nMrs. Olive H. Auser of Groveland and Edgar H. Popke of Sonora\nwere reappointed today by Governor Ronald Reagan to four-year terms\non the board of the 29th District Agricultural Association (Mother Lode\nFair).\nMrs. Auser, a Groveland civic leader, and Popke, a rancher, have\nserved on the board since 1968. Her address is Box 113, Groveland,\nand his address is Box 1182, Sonora. Both are Republicans.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERI\nRELEASE: I ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#78\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Charles C. Messick, a\nMarysville farmer, and Martin J. Newkom, a Yuba City real estate\nsalesman, to four-year terms on the 13th District Agricultural\nAssociation board (Yuba-Sutter Fair).\nMessick lives at 7652 B Plantz Road, Marysville, and Newkom lives\nat 1235 Stewart Road, Yuba City. Both have served on the board since\n1968. Both are Republicans.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERI\nRELEASE: I. ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#79\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Alfred J. Bianchi of\nPoint Reyes Station and William A. Gnoss of Novato to four-year terms\non the board of the Fourth District Agricultural Association (Sonoma-\nMarin District Fair).\nBianchi, a retired dairyman, has served on the board since 1941.\nHe is a Republican. His address is Box 146, Point Reyes Station.\nGnoss, a rancher and farmer, has also served on the board since\n1941. He is a Democrat. He lives at 623 Olive Avenue, Novato.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n#######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: 1 ediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#80\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed B. H. Hill, a retired\nfarmer, and Walter W. Stroming, a hardware store owner, both of\nMariposa, to four-year terms on the 35a District Agricultural Association\n(Mariposa County Fair and Homecoming).\nHill, whose address is Star Route Box 232, Mariposa, and Stroming,\nwhose address is P.O. Box 667, Mariposa, have served on the board\nsince 1968. Both are Republicans.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: It diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#81\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed Walter J. Holmdahl, a\nLompoc rancher and businessman, and William F. Luton, SI., president\nof a Santa Barbara television station, to four-year terms on the\n37th District Agricultural Association (Santa Barbara County Fair).\nHolmdahl, whose address is P.O. Box 1084, Lompoc, has served on\nthe board since 1968. He is a Republican.\nLuton, a rancher and president of KEYT-TV, lives at Rancho San\nJuan, Los Alamos. He has served on the board since 1968. He is a\nRepublican.\nBoard members receive necessary expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE: In diate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#82\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today reappointed John Cotton, a San Diego\nrealtor, and Grant B. Potter, president of a Dinuba forest products\ncompany, to four-year terms on the Real Estate Commission.\nCotton, who lives at 2980 Nichols Street, San Diego, has served\nas a commissioner since 1968.\nPotter, who has represented the public on the commission since\n1970, lives at 785 Saginaw, Dinuba.\nBoth are Republicans.\nCommissioners receive actual and necessary travel expenses.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN\nRELEASE:\nnediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-9-72\n#83\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed Dr. S. Don Schultz, a\nconsulting psychologist and Dean of the California School of Professional\nPsychology in San Francisco, to the Psychology Examining Committee in\nthe Department of Consumer Affairs.\nDr. Schultz, 46, will fill the unexpired term of Dr. Rudolph J.\nBrandt of Los Angeles, who has resigned. The term ends in June, 1975.\nDr. Schultz, who earned his Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State College,\npractices in Palo Alto. His home is at 330 Lunada Drive, Los Altos.\nHe is a Democrat.\nCommittee members receive $25 per diem for each day of official\nduty.\n########\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVER\nR\nRELEASE:\nmediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-10-72\n#84\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today named Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney\nMichael T. Sauer to the Los Angeles Judicial District Municipal Court.\nSauer, 35, a Republican, will receive an annual salary of $32,273.\nHe succeeds the late Judge David Mohr.\nA member of the Los Angeles City Attorney's staff since 1964,\nSauer is a graduate of the University of Santa Clara and earned his\nlaw degree from the Loyola University School of Law.\nHe is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the\nAmerican Bar Association, the American Judicature Society, the Criminal\nCourts Bar Association, the Advocates (Loyola Law School Contributors\nOrganization), Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity and the Attorney General's\nCommittee on Pornography.\nSauer and his wife Marianne live in Los Angeles.\n#####\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVERN R\nRELEASE:\nmediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-10-72\n#85\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed Albert L. Buffington of\nStockton and reappointed three members to four-year terms on the board\not the Second District Agricultural Association (San Joaquin County\nFair).\nBuffington, president and general manager of the Diamond Walnut\nGrowers, Inc., of Stockton, succeeds Albert D. Aringa of Stockton,\nwhose term has expired.\nBuffington, a Republican, lives at 7221 Alexandria Street, Stockton.\nReappointed were Robert Ryburn, a rancher, of P.O. Box 684,\nLinden, who has served on the board since 1954; Ellsworth S. Beckman, a\nbanker, 7868 East Highway 12, Lodi, and John H. Dillon, a retired labor\nofficial, 1120 West Mariposa Street, Stockton.\nBeckman has served on the board since 1970 and Dillon has been a\nmember since 1965.\nRyburn and Dillon are Democrats. Beckman is a Republican.\n######\nWAS\nOFFICE OF THE GOVER.OR\nRELEASE:\nmediate\nSacramento, California\nContact:\nPaul Beck\n445-4571\n2-10-72\n#86\nGovernor Ronald Reagan today appointed Municipal Judge William H.\nWoodward of Stockton as a public member of the Areawide Mental\nRetardation Program Board for Area VI, which includes the counties of\nAmador, Calaveras, San Joaquin and Tuolumne.\nJudge Woodward, who has served on the Stockton Judicial District\nMunicipal Court bench since 1967, will succeed Clifford Wisdom of\nStockton whose term has expired.\nThe term is for three years.\nJudge Woodward is a Republican.\n######\nWAS"
}