Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564952",
    "label": "[Ecology] - Review of the California Ecology Corps (hearing before Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (3 of 3)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564952"
}

{
    "id": "118564952",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564952",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Ecology] - Review of the California Ecology Corps (hearing before Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (3 of 3)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564952",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Reports"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-013-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-013-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-013-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564952",
    "naId": 118564952,
    "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/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-013-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "3fda1ab2a75d9c3a",
    "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: [Ecology] - Review of the California\nEcology Corps (hearing before Committee on\nEfficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (3 of 3)\nBox: P34\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/\nFood Price Sample Chart\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch\nUnit Cost\nPercentage Cost\nVegetables\n1971\n1971\n1971\n1971\n1972\n1972\n1972\nIncrease/Decrease\nIncrease/Decrease\nHead Lettuce\n$.205\n$.225\n$.31\n$.27\n$.31\n$.205\nNo Change\nNo Change\nHead Cabbage\n.24#\n.28#\n.21#\n.31#\n.26#\n.32#\n$.39#\nUp $.15\nUp 48%\nBell Pepper\n.19#\n.24#\n.21#\n.39#\n.43#\n.43#\n.41#\nUp .22\nUp 54%\nTomatoes\n.20#\n.20#\n.31#\n@\n.25#\nUop .05\nUp 25%\nCelery\n.225#\n.21#\n.30#\n.35#\n.40#\n.40#\n.36#\nUp .135\nUp 40%\nFruits\nBananas\n.15#\n.15#\n.15#\n.13#\n.14#\n.15#\n.14#\nDown .01\nDown 7%\nApples\n.19#\n.17#\n.20#\n.15#\n.19#\nNo Change\nNo Change\nOranges\n.15#\n.19#\n.19#\n.15#\n.16#\nUp .01\nUp 7%\n-146-\nCI APPENDIX\nAPPENDIX E\nREPORT ON PROBLEM AREAS IN THE ECOLOGY CORPS\nby Timothy White\nApril 12, 1972\nBefore proceeding to enumerate the problems confronting the Corps, I would\nlike to make some preliminary observations.\nVirtually every corpsman I have talked with, including the so-called rabble-\nrousers, would sincerely like the Corps to succeed if it would actually under-\ntake its expressed functions, and if its administrators would seriously commit\nthemselves to solving the problems I will attempt to outline below.\nUntil recently, most C.O.'s have tried to stick it out in the Corps because\nthey felt the program, in spite of its many problems, had a great deal of poten-\ntial. Since many of the problems were obviously hangovers from the way things\nwere done in the Conservation Camp program, most corpsmen were at first hopeful\nthat the Corps would gradually outgrow those undesirable vestiges, and would, in\ndue time, iniate constructive changes on its own.\nAfter nearly a year of waiting and numerous unsuccessful attempts to get\nCorps administrators to look seriously at the Corps' problems had produced re-\ngretably few positive, and even a few negative, changes in the Corps, corpsmen\nfelt they had no choice but to air their grievances publicly at the two recent\nlegislative hearings. Hopefully, the hearings will have impressed upon Corps\nadministrators the need to effect some significant changes in the Corps soon,\nbefore the already low morale among corpsmen deteriorates even further.\nIt has not been difficult for me to develop a list of problem areas in the\nCorps. Most of the problems are ones that I have personally experienced as a\ncorpsman, and the other problems I have observed first hand on my field trips to\nthe various centers. For the Governor to discount these problems as complaints\ncoming from \"a fcw dissidents who found they didn't like the blisters that they\n-147-\npage 2\nAPPENDIX E\nwere getting blisters on their hands \" is a gross injustice. The problems are\nvery real and must be corrected as soon as possible.\nIn addition to describing the problems I have observed in the Corps, I have\nattempted to formulate some viable solutions to the problems. I believe that\nmost of the solutions I have suggested could be implemented within the present\nstructure of the Corps, and would, at the same time, be acceptable to corpsmen.\nI hope they can at least serve as a starting point for further discussions and\neventual change in the Corps.\nFailure of the Corps to involve itself in ecological work\nPerhaps the greatest single objection that corpsmen, particularly the C.O.'s,\nhave had about the Corps is that, beyond the role of fire fighting, corpsmen\nhave not been involved in what they would call truly ecological or environmental\nprotection work. Again, I think it was deplorable for the Governor to shrug off\nthe corpsmen's strong feelings on this issue as the views of a few dissidents that\nhave sounded off without seeing the big picture. My position in the Corps has-\ngiven me an unique opportunity to \"see the big picture\", and, in spite of state-\nments by Joe Griggs and others to the contrary, I must agree with the corpsmen\nthat most Corps projects cannot honestly be called \"ecological\".\nThe most obvious and only accurate description of what the Corps has been\ndoing is \"conservation work\". Although to many people the two terms; ecology\nand conservation, are synonymous, there is a fundamental difference between them,\nparticularly at the program level. Ecological programs are directed at minimizing\nthe affect of man on the environment so that a more naturally balanced, mutually\nbenefitial environment can be realized. Conservation programs, on the other hand,\nare aimed at managing natural resources in order to insure man's maximum uteli-\nzation of those resources without completely exhausting or destroying them.\nBoth approaches are applaudable, but the difference between the two must be\n-148-\npage 3\nAPPENDIX E\nrecognized.\nEcology action, or environmental protection, is something that is very\ndear to most C.O,'s. If the Corps were in fact an Ecology Corps that was serious-\n1y committed to and involved in ecological work, I do not think it would have had\nany trouble recruiting enough volunteers to fill its camps last year, even at\nthe low pay and without a draft law to coerce them to join. Many of the C.O.'s\nwho joined the Corps last summer did so in spite of the absence of a draft law,\nbecause they were hopeful that the Corps would actually undertake its stated\npurpose \"to aid in the maintenance of the natural ecology and the preservation\nof the beauty and natural resources of this state.\" The failure of the Corps\nto involve itself in ecological work has alienated many corpsmen, and has cer-\ntainly aggravated the low morale caused by the other problems.\nAt this point, I think it is significant to point out that the majority of\ncorpsmen do not object so much to doing conservation work, as they object to the\nCorps being called an Ecology Corps without its actually getting involved in\npredominantly ecological programs. To continue misleading prospective voluntcers,\nas well as the general public, by using the name of Ecology Corps without chang-\ning its primary thrust to ecological programs is simply not fair.\nIt has been pointed out to corpsmen on numerous occaisions that the Corps\nhas a very limited budget of its own and that it simply cannot afford to develop\nits own ecology programs. Hopefully, Corps administrators will eventually develop\na list of ecological projects and submit a request to the legislature for the\nfunds needed to implement them. In the mean time, however, I think a significant\nportion of ecology-oriented projects could be incorporated into the Corps' work\nprogram if a really serious effort would be made, in soliciting contracts, to\nspecifically seck out more contracts such as working for fish hatcheries, re-\nseeding bared land, clearing litter from along streams and campgrounds, and main-\ntaining foot trails. Regrettably, I do not see much hope of this happening as\n-149-\npage. 4\nAPPENDIX E\nlong as Corps contracts continue to be negotiated by the same personnel that\nnegotiate Conservation Camp projects.\nIn summary, the Corps has a critical decision to make - to be or not to be\nan Ecology Corps. Either it should commit itself to getting involved in more\necological work, or the name of the Corps should be change to something more\nappropriate like the California Environment Corps or the California Conservation\nCorps. I would personally rather see the Corps become progressively more involved\nin ecological projects until it can truly claim to be an Ecology Corps.\nInadequate compensation\nNearly everyone agrees that the present $40 a month allowance is totally\nunrealistic. I commend the Department of Conservation for recognizing that and\nworking to provide an increase to $100 a month effective July 1st.\nIt remains to be seen whether or not the $100 a month will be sufficient\ninducement to keep corpsmen in the program for the recommended 6 months, but it\nis certainly not enough to encourage many re-enlistments. While the $100.\nmonth should be sufficient to cover most routine expenses (recreation, trans-\nportation, incidentals, etc.), it still doesn't provide corpsmen any margin for\nrepaying outstanding financial obligations, like student loans or car payments;\nfor meeting emergency expenses, like dental care or emergency trips home; or for\nsaving money toward the day they finally get out of the corps and need to go job\nhunting or return to school. Since corpsmen do not receive veterans benefits,\nor end-of-service bonuses such as given in the Peace Corps and VISTA, it would\nbe considerate to give them a wage that would allow them to set aside their own\nfunds to meet future needs.\nCorpsmen should be paid wages commensurate to the work they are producing,\nand $100 a month is simply not adequate compensation for the type of hard manual\nlabor being done by corpsmen, or for the dangers to which corpsmen are exposed\npage 5\nAPPENDIX E\nto in fighting wildland fires. In view of the fact that corpsmen are producing\n1½ to 2 times the production of regular hand-crews that are paid well over the\nminimum wage, I don't think it is unreasonable for corpsmen to ask for and be\ngiven approximately a minimum wage.\nImplementing a minimum wage for corpsmen would almost certainly require di-\nrect appropriations from the state legislature, since it is highly improbable\nthat the increase could be met entirely by increasing contract rates. Since the\nstate assembly seems receptive to the idea of providing corpsmen a minimum wage,\nit appears the fate of the pay increase may well depend upon whether or not the\nDepartment of Conservation is ready to ask for the necessary appropriations. In\nmaking this decision, the Department is going to have to ask itself whether it\nreally needs the fire fighting force provided by the corpsmen. If they do, then\nI think it is their responsibility and duty to ask the state to provide just com-\npensation to corpsmen for their services. I am confident that the legislature,\nas well as the general public, will recognize that even paying a minimum wage it\nwill still be cheaper to use corpsmen, particularly since they would still be\npartially self-supporting, than to go without the fire protection, or have to\nhire additional seasonal fire-fighters at the prevaling rates.\nAnother problem I have observed in regard to wages is that it does not seem\nfair to keep corpsmen on call 24 hrs. a day at the centers during fire season\nwithout some form of compensation. Regular forestry employees are paid an extra\n15% during fire season for being on call at home, and are given C.T.O. when they\nhave night duty at the centers. It is only fair that corpsmen be compensated\nfor the extra 16 hrs. they are held on call, by either paying them an hourly\nrate of 15% of their regular hourly wage, or giving them one day of C.T.O. for\nevery five evenings they are on call.\nIn summary, I would recommend that the Department of Conservation commit it-\nself to the goal of increasing the wage to approximately the minimum wage starting\npage 6\nAPPENDIX E\nthis July if at all possible, and, if not, by July 1973 at the latest. Starting\nthis fire season, compensation in one form or the other should be provided corps-\nmen for being held on call during the fire season.\nNeed for health care protection\nAnother persistent concern of corpsmen has been the lack of adequate health\ncoverage provided corpsmen. Workmen's Compensation Insurance hardly provides the\ncomprehensive medical, life insurance, and dental coverage needed today. Corpsmen\nshould not be punished for getting sick or injured on their time off - proper\nmedical care needs to be provided for any illness or injury regardless of the\ncause. While it is one thing to say that corpsmen should buy their own coverage\nlike other state employees, it must not be forgotten that other state employees\nreceive salaries sufficiently high that they can afford to buy adequate coverage\nif they wish.\nCorpsmen attending the April 4th Cost and Efficiency hearing were pleased\nto learn that a comprehensive group plan, covering both medical care and life;\nwould be implemented August 1st once corpsmen are financially able to help pay\nfor the plan. Details of this plan should be made public to corpsmen now, so\nthey can determine if the plan does in fact provide adequate coverage. And un-\ntil a minimum wage is provided, I think it would be impractical to expect corps-\nmen to pay more than $5 a month of the cost. Picking up the remainder of the\ncost should be the responsibility of the Corps. Moreover, until the minimum\nwage is instituted, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that corpsmen be\nprovided basic dental care.\nIn summary, the fact that corpsmen are exempt contractees rather than regu-\nlar state employees should not be held against them particularly when it comes to\nbasic health needs.\n-152-\npage 7\nAPPENDIX E\nOvercrowded living accommodations\nUntil recently the problems created by overcrowded living facilities were\ninsignificant in comparison to the other problems. However, now that the cen-\nters are beginning to reach their quota of corpsmen, these problems are becoming\nmore accute.\nLiving facilities at most of the centers were designed to house 80 inmates,\nnot 80 free individuals. Living in barracks with row after row of bunk beds\nprovides very little privacy and can be nerve-racking. The corpsmen's practice\nof building cubicles of privacy out of lockers and blankets is indicative of\nthe need for privacy. The severe restrictions on personal freedoms caused by\nsuch close quarters were perhaps excusable when the facilities were being used\nby inmates who were being punished for committing crimes. However, neither the\nC.O,'s nor the regular volunteers have committed any such crimes, and they should\nnot be subjected to the same restrictions.\nAs the center populations continue to increase, the noise and activity levels\nin the barracks will increase and the space available each individual will de-\ncrease. Such overcrowding will undoubtedly have an adverse affect on the general\nmorale level, and thus indirectly affect work production. It is relevant to note\nthat the Conservation Camp program itself has got more work production per man-\nhour since their own camps have been operating at a reduced level of 60 inmates,\ninstead of the maximum of 80.\nFor the above reasons, I recommend that the populations at each center be\nlimited to no more than 50 corpsmen (including support positions such as corpsmen\ncooks, laundrymen, etc.). If fire protection needs make it necessary to keep\n80 men in each area, additional facilities (possibly in fire stations, highway\nmaintenance facilities, etc.) should be requisitioned to accommodate the extra\ncorpsmen. In addition, the existing center facilities should be remodeled into\npartitioned \"rooms\" so that some privacy can be achieved. The institution of a\n-153-\npage 8\nAPPENDIX E\nminimum wage could also help in regard to the housing situation. First, the\ndifference in cost between housing 50 men and 80 men at each center could be\nabsorbed in a slightly higher housing fee. Secondly, once a minimum wage were\neffected, corpsmen would be able to take advantage of the option to live off-\ncamp during the non-fire season.\nDisparity in food quality\nThe poor quality and nature of food served at several centers has been a\nmajor concern of the corpsmen at those centers. The present suggested 53.6 $\na meal food budget is inadequate for feeding persons doing largely hard manual\nlabor. Where camp administrators and cooks have tried to stay within that budget\n(at Inyo and Calaveras), the food quality and nuitrition, and indirectly the morale\nof corpsmen, have suffered.\nHaving grown up eating institutional food in a boarding school and having\nbeen a cook in the Corps for six months, I realize it is difficult to satisfy\nthe many different tastes and preferences found in any large group. However,\nI think many positive accommodations could be made by setting up. food commit-\ntees (composed of the regular cooks, the camp director or a foreman, the corps-\nmen cooks, and perhaps two representatives elected by corpsmen) at each center.\nAt Humboldt where such a food committee has been functioning, there have been\nsome welcomed improvements in the overall quality and nature of the food.\nNo matter how conscientious and creative the cooks may be, it is very\ndifficult to provide a well-balanced, nuitritional diet on a 53.6 C a meal food\nbudget. I would recommend that all centers adopt a more realistic food budget\nof around 65 C to 70 c a meal. Dispority in food costs at the various centers\nshould be taken into consideration in setting the food budgets. Finally, I would\nsuggest corpsmen be given vitamins to supplement their diet.\n-154-\nAPPENDIX E\npage 9\nClothing needs\nWhile most of the clothing issued corpsmen is of adequate quality, the\nboo in particular of very poor quality. I know that there have been some\nadministrative obstacles to getting boots, but sending corpsmen into fire situ-\nations in such slick-soled boots creates a dangerous safety problem. Another\nsub-standard item of clothing is the blue jeans. Corpsmen should be provided\nheavier, more durable pants, or be allowed to purchase their own as long as they\nconform to the general uniform. Finally, some type of thermal or fish-net long-\njohns should be provided all corpsmen who work out-of-doors in the winter.\nObjectionable recruiting practices\nWhile it is understandable that the centers need to be filled as soon as\npossible, the Corps' present recruiting practices may prove to be more of a\nhandicap than a solution to this problem in the long run. The present recruit-\ning practices are inefficient because they provoke considerable distrust and\nresentment of Corps administrators among corpsmen, which contribute indirectly,\nand in some cases directly, to the extraordinarily high turnover rate of corps-\nmen.\nSince the inception of the Corps, a great deal of misleading information\nhas been given out to prospective recruits. A few improvements have been made\nin this area - notably the replacement of that highly objectionable \"Do your\nthing\" leaflet with a new Corps leaflet which I attempted to keep as objective\nas possible. According to a few of the new recruits I have talked with; however,\nsome of the people who are now recruiting volunteers are evidently less concerned\nabout being objective and are continuing to mislead volunteers. Whether this\nhas been intentional or unintentional, it should be stopped. New recruits should\nnot be asked to sign contracts until they are fully informed about Corps regula-\n-155-\npage 10\nAPPENDIX E\ntions and about the nature of the work projects they will be involved in at each\ncenter, and until they have a chance to visit with corpsmen at a center.\nAnother concern that I have personally is that the exceptionally good work\nrecords established last year by the C.O.'s not be sacraficed simply in order to\nfill the centers as soon as possible. It appears that the only criteria being\nused now in recruiting corpsmen is to take anyone who is willing to join the\nCorps and sign a six month contract. I do not want to derogate the volunteers\nin the Corps, but a number of the volunteers recruited since January have been\nof such low mental ability that they could actually become dangerous handicaps\nin any fire situation. Humboldt, for instance, actually recruited six mentally\nretarded persons. And while I all for giving everyone a chance to be productive,\nthe Corps is not capable of providing the specialized help needed to integrate\nsuch persons into its work programs, much less develop them into trained fire\nfighters. Recruiting such persons, and then ruthlessly weeding out those unable\nto meet even minimal work standards seems to me to be a cruel and unproductive\nrecruiting practice. In view of these past experiences, I think it is essential\nthat certain minimum physical and mental standards be established for volunteers\nrecruited for the Corps.\nIn regard to the recruitment of C.O.'s, I would like to make two additional\nrecommendations. First, service in the Corps should be entirely voluntary. In\nother words, C.O.'s should not be ordered into the Corps unless they volunteer\nfor it. Second, C.O.'s should only be asked to make the same 6 month commitment\nas regular volunteers. Those C.O.'s who are satisfied with the Corps would pre-\nsumably re-enlist every 6 months until their two year obligation was over. Those\nC.O.'s who were not happy in the Corps would have the option of taking another\nalternative service job. The question of fulfilling the two year alternative\nservice obligation should be settled between the C.O. and Selective Service,\nand should not be handled by the Corps. Establishing such a policy might help\n-156-\nAPPENDIX E\npage 11\nsome in the recruitment of C.O.'s, since many of those who are now hesitant\nto commit themselves to the Corps for the full two years might be willing to\ngive the Corps a try for six months.\nNeed to relax grooming standards\nGrooming standards, specifically hair lengths, have been a touchy point of\ncontention between corpsmen and Corps administrators. Obviously both groups have\nstrong feelings about this issue, but hopefully a compromise solution can still\nbe worked out that would be acceptable to both sides.\nJim Stearn's effort last fall to accommodate some change in hair regulations\nwas received very favorably by the corpsmen at Tehama. Why the corpsmen there\ndid not follow through on this by formulating a viable standard, I do not know.\nHowever, I do know that corpsmen have not responded well to the conservative in-\nterpretation given the forestry grooming standards by some center directors and\nJoe Griggs. While the hair question has temporarily subsided in difference to\nthe other more over-riding issues, it will undoubtedly crop up again and again\nuntil a mutually satisfactory compromise is reached.\nTherefore, I would suggest the Department of Conservation take the iniative\nand establish the following new grooming standards. During the fire season,\ncorpsmen would be required to follow the state forestry grooming standards for\nfire fighters. It should be made clear that these standards do not mean tapered\nsides like some center directors have implied. During the off-fire season, hair\nstandards should be relaxed to the standards set by the Federal Forest Service for\ntheir fire fighters: i.e. hair can extend no longer than one inch below the collar\nand should not break the shoulders; and beards, sideburns, and moustaches are\nacceptable as long as they are tidily groomed.\n-157-\npage 12\nAPPENDIX E\nNeed for continuing dialog and an impartial grievance procedure\nMost of the above problems could probably have been taken care of long aga\nwithout their turning into crisis situations, if the Corps had iniated regular\ndialog between corpsmen and administrators, as was promised last summer, and if\na more impartial grievance procedure were in operation.\nRecognizing that the morale problem was being aggravated by the frustrating\nlack of access to those administrators capable of changing Corps policies and\nregulations, another corpsman and I talked with Jim Stearns last summer about\nthe need for regular communication and dialog between corpsmen and administrators.\nTwo suggestions were made, and received the approval of Mr. Stearns. One was to\nset up regular meetings between corpsmen representatives and administrators, both\nat the center level, and on a corps-wide basis. The other was to start a new\nCorps newsletter as another vehicle for dialog. Except at Humboldt where regular\ncenter meetings have been held, none of the above suggestions have been implement-\ned.\nWhen Joe Griggs announced after the March 15th Finance Committee hearing\nthat corpsmen would not be allowed to attend the long promised, and often post-\nponed, corps-wide meeting even if it were ever held, I was personally incensed.\nCorpsmen have not asked that they be given administrative control over the pro-\ngram - that is unrealistic. But they are asking that they be given regular op-\nportunities to express their viewpoints and make positive suggestions to Corps\nadministrators. Unless the Department of Conservation supports Joe Griggs'\nstatement that there will be no discussion in the Corps, I think it is absolute-\nly essential that such a corps-wide meeting be called for the immediate future,\nand that plans be formulated to hold such meetings on a regular basis (perhaps\nquarterly) from now on. I realize that such meeting are difficult to arrange,\nbut I cannot help but feel that they would take considerably less time and effort\n-158-\npage 13\nAPPENDIX E\nto hold than it takes to deal with each problem after it turns into a crisis\nsituation.\nIt appears the proposed Corps newsletter is going to suffer the same fate\nat the corps-wide meetings unless something is done quickly. In February I\nformulated an editorial policy for the newsletter, which with a few minor changes\nwas approved by the Director. Joe Griggs felt that it would be best if wrote\na letter to the center directors informing them about the newsletter and authoriz-\ning them to allow corpsmen to spend work time preparing material for the news-\nletter. Over a month and a half have elapsed since then without any action on\nhis part, in spite of the fact that I pestered him nearly every other day to\nsend the letter out so we could start getting material back in from the centers.\nSince an early release from the Alternative Service Program and the Corps has\nbeen arranged for me (effective April 17), I will no longer be able to follow\nthrough on the newsletter. As it stands now, I do not know whether or not\nthere is any point in publishing a newsletter, or even if there is any corpsman\nwho would be interested in editing it.\nAnother obstacle to solving problems in the Corps has been the total\nabsence of a clearly defined, impartial grievance procedure. Although there is\nalways the built-in grievance procedure of taking grievances up the bureaucratic\nhierarchy, as Mr. Stearns pointed out, this has been available to only a few\ncorpsmen who have not been intimidated by veiled threats from center adminis-\ntrators and who have had the iniative to take their grievances to Sacramento.\nIn one case that I know of personally, a corpsman was fired precisely because\nhe tried to utelize that natural grievance procedure. In most cases, however,\nthe grievances have simply been allowed to fester until they exploded in a\ncrisis situation. I don't think it is necessary to re-state the need for such\na basic element of good employee - employer relations.\n-159-\nAPPENDIX F\nSECTION SERVICE august SYSTEM\nCALIFORNIA HEADQUARTERS\nSELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM\nFEDERAL BUILDING\n801 I STREET\nIN REPLYING ADDRESS\nSACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814\nTHE STATE DIRECTOR AND REFER TO\nSUBJECT BELOW\n12 April 1972\n9-CO-11\nAssemblyman Mike Cullen, Chairman\nAssembly Committee on Efficiency\nand Cost Control\nState Capitol\nSacramento, California 95814\nSubject: Alternate Service Program\nDear Mr. Cullen:\nAs you requested, I am forwarding a copy of the Selective\nService Regulations which pertain to the administration of the\nAlternate Service Program for conscientious objectors. Probably\nyour main interest will be in the Sections 1660.5 and 1660.6, which\ncover eligible employers and eligible jobs for conscientious objec-\ntors assigned to alternate service. I appreciated the opportunity\nto appear before your committee and discuss the assignment of con-\nscientious objectors to the California Ecology Corps. If I can be\nof further service to you in any way, please feel free to call on\nme.\nWith best regards,\nSincerely,\nBILL D. MC CANN\nChief, Alternate\nService Program\nAttachments\n-160-\nAPPENDIX F\nSELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM\nNational Headquarters\nOffice of the Director\nAmendments to Selective Service Regulations\nWhereas, on November 5, 1971, the Director of Selective\nService published a Notice of Proposed Amendments of Selective\nService Regulations 36 Federal Register 21294 of November 5, 1971;\nand\nWhereas more than thirty days have elapsed subsequent\nto such publication during which period comments from the public\nhave been received and considered.\nNow therefore by virtue of the authority vested in me\nby Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act, as amended\n(50 App. U.S.C. sections 451 et seq.), the Selective Service\nRegulations, constituting a portion of Chapter XVI of Title 32\nof the Code of Federal Regulations, are hereby amended, effective\n7:00 a.m. E.S.T. on December 10, 1971, as follows:\n-161-\nAPPENDIX F\nPart 1660 Alternate Service is added to read as follows:\n\"Part 1660 - Alternate Service\nSec.\n1660.1\nResponsibility for Administration.\n1660.2\nExamination of Registrants.\n1660.3\nVolunteer for Alternate Service.\n1660.4\nSelection of Non-Volunteer for Alternate Service.\n1660.5\nEligible Employers of Registrants Performing Alternate\nService.\n1660.6\nEligible Jobs for Registrants Performing Alternate\nService.\n1660.7\nAssigning Alternate Service.\n1660.8\nPerformance of Alternate Service.\n1660.9\nAdministration of Alternate Service.\n1660.10\nRelease from Alternate Service.\n1660.11\nCompletion of Alternate Service.\n1660.12\nInformation Concerning Alternate Service.\n-162-\nAPPENDIX F\n\"1660.1 Responsibility for Administration. (a) The state\ndirector, under the supervision of the Director, will assure com-\npliance with the law, the regulations, and Selective Service policy\nconcerning the program of alternate service for registrants who have\nbeen classified in Class 1-0.\n\"(b) The state director of the state in which a registrant\nis registered will have primary responsibility for the initial place-\nment of the registrant in alternate service. That state director\nwill coordinate any job placement activities in any state outside\nhis own with the state director of that state. In assigning a reg-\nistrant outside his own state, the assigning state director must\nhave the approval of the 'receiving' state director or the Director\nof Selective Service.\n\"(c) Alternate service to be performed outside the\ngeographical area under the jurisdiction of a state director will be\nadministered by the Director of Selective Service after the assign-\nment to such work has been made by the state director.\n\"1660.2 Examination of Registrants. -A registrant clas-\nsified in Class 1-0 shall be ordered to report for Armed Forces\nexamination in the same manner as any other registrant. If he\n-163-\nAPPENDIX F\nfails to report for or submit to this examination, or if he is\nfound to be qualified for service, he shall be ordered to the\nappropriate alternate service job when his Random Sequence Number\nis reached.\n\"1660.3 Volunteer for Alternate Service.-Only registrants\nclassified In Class 1-0 may volunteer for alternate service in lieu\nof induction. Any registrant in Class 1-0 may submit SSS Form 151\n(Application of Volunteer for Alternate Service) to his local board.\nIf the volunteer wishes to propose jobs which he feels would be\napproved for his alternate service he will submit each job on an\nSSS Form 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a Job as\nAlternate Service) simultaneously with his completed SSS Form 151\n(Application of Volunteer for Alternate Service). The state director\nwill approve or disapprove the proposed jobs. If the registrant\nfails to locate a suitable job or if the jobs submitted on the SSS\nForm 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a Job as Alternate\nService) are not approved, the state director will take no action\nuntil sixty days after the registrant would have begun processing\nin accordance with section 1660.4 had he not volunteered. After\nthe sixty days the state director may order the registrant to an\navailable job.\n-164-\nAPPENDIX F\n\"1660.4 Selection of Non-Volunteer for Alternate Service.- -\n(a) A non-volunteer will not be ordered to perform alternate service\nin lieu of induction before registrants with his RSN who are clas-\nsified in Class 1-A or 1-A-0 are ordered for induction.\n\"(b) When a registrant in the medical, dental, or allied\nspecialist category is classified in Class 1-0, he will be ordered\nto alternate service in lieu of induction at the time that he would\nhave been called for induction if he were in Class 1-A or 1-A-0.\n\"(c) When the RSN of a registrant classified in Class 1-0\nis reached ('reached' means the national cutoff number is equal to\nor higher than the registrant's RSN) the local board will send him\nSSS Form 155 (Selection for Alternate Service; Rights and Obligations\nof Conscientious Objectors in the Alternate Service Assignment\nProcess), and retain a copy in the cover sheet of the registrant.\nSSS Form 152 (Conscientious Objectors Skills Questionnaire) and three\ncopies of SSS Form 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a\nJob as Alternate Service) will also be sent to the registrant at\nthis time.\n\"(d) Mailing of the SSS Form 155 (Selection for Alternate\nService; Rights and Obligations of Conscientious Objectors in the\nAlternate Service Assignment Process) by the local board is the\neffective beginning of processing for alternate service in lieu of\n-165-\nAPPENDIX F\ninduction for the affected registrant. If within 270 days after\nthe registrant has exhausted his 60 day job search an alternate\nservice job has not been obtained and the registrant has not been\nordered to such job, he will be placed in a lower priority selection\ngroup. Delays in processing due to litigation instituted by the\nregistrant, litigation pending against the registrant, or a post-\nponement of processing for alternate service granted the registrant\nunder section 1660.7 will not count toward the 270-day time period.\n\"1660.5 Eligible Employers of Registrants Performing\nAlternate Service. -Employment which may be considered to be appro-\npriate as alternate service in lieu of induction into the Armed\nForces by registrants who have been classified in Class 1-0 shall be\nlimited to the following:\n(1) Employment by the United States Government, or by a\nState, Territory, or possession of the United States or\nby a political subdivision thereof, or by the District of\nColumbia;\n(2) Employment by a non-profit organization, association,\nor corporation which is primarily engaged either in a\ncharitable activity conducted for the benefit of the general\npublic or in carrying out a program for the improvement of\nthe public health or welfare, including educational and\n-166-\nAPPENDIX F\nscientific activities in support thereof, when such\nactivity or program is not principally for the benefit\nof the members of such organization, association, or\ncorporation, or for increasing the membership thereof; or\n(3) Employment in an activity of an organization,\nassociation, or corporation which is either charitable\nin nature performed for the benefit of the general public\nor is for the improvement of the public health or welfare,\nincluding educational and scientific activities in support\nthereof, and when such activity or program is not for\nprofit.\n\"1660.6 Eligible Jobs for Registrants Performing Alternate\nService.-Five elements will be considered as a basis for determining\nwhether a specific job is acceptable as alternate service for a\nregistrant classified in Class 1-0:\n(1) National Health, Safety or Interest:\nThe job must fulfill specifications of the law and\nregulations.\n(2) Non-interference with the competitive labor market:\nThe registrant cannot be assigned to a job which is\napplied for by other qualified people who are not\nregistrants in Class 1-0. This restriction does not\n-167-\nAPPENDIX F\nprohibit the approval of special programs such as\nPeace Corps and VISTA for alternate service by\nregistrant in Class 1-0.\n(3) Compensation: The compensation will provide a\nstandard of living to the registrant reasonably com-\nparable to the standard of living the same man would\nhave enjoyed had he gone into the service.\n(4) Skill and talent utilization: A registrant may\nutilize his special skills.\n(5) Job location: A registrant will work outside his\ncommunity of residence.\nCriteria (3), (4), and (5) are waiverable by the state\ndirector when such action is determined to be in the national interest\nand would speed the placement of registrants in alternate service.\n\"1660.7 Assigning Alternate Service. - (a) Processing of\nthe registrant for assignment to alternate service will continue even\nthough he fails to return SSS Form 152 (Conscientious Objectors\nSkills Questionnaire) within 15 days.\n\"(b) The registrant will submit SSS Form(s) 156 (Employer's\nStatement of Availability of a Job as Alternate Service) to the\nstate director, who will determine whether the work is acceptable.\nA letter from an employer may, at any time, substitute for such\n-168-\nAPPENDIX F\nSSS Form 156. When a job is approved, the state director will\ndirect the Executive Secretary or clerk, if so authorized, or a\nlocal board member of a registrant's local board to issue a work\norder, SSS Form 153 (Order to Report for Alternate Service). The\nstate director will issue a domestic travel request and provide\nmeals and accommodations for a registrant, upon his request, who\nhas been ordered to alternate service, as would be done for a reg-\nistrant ordered for induction. Any time the state director dis-\napproves a job proposed on SSS Form 156 (Employer's Statement of\nAvailability of a Job as Alternate Service) submitted by the regis-\ntrant, he will inform the registrant of his decision within 10 days\nafter the state director receives such form.\n\"(c) At any time following 60 days after a registrant's\nSSS Form 155 (Selection for Alternate Service; Rights and Obligations\nof Conscientious Objectors in the Alternate Service Assignment\nProcess) has been mailed, if the registrant has submitted no SSS\nForm 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a Job as Alternate\nService) or if the submitted jobs have been disapproved, the state\ndirector may direct the Executive Secretary or clerk, if so authorized,\nor a local board member of a registrant's local board to order him\nto a job which the state director selects as the registrant's\nalternate service.\n-169-\nAPPENDIX F\n\"(d) A registrant classified in Class 1-0 may take a\njob anticipating that it might later be approved as alternate\nservice. If such a job is approved, the registrant will be credited\nwith having performed acceptable service, when in fact he has per-\nformed such service, from the date he started the job, or the date\nhe was classified in Class 1-0, whichever is later. No more than\ntwenty-four months of service will be required. Time spent looking\nfor an initial job is not creditable toward the twenty-four months\nof service.\n\"(e) A registrant who prior to the lapse of the sixty-day\nperiod established in paragraph (c), finds a job (jobs), but whose\njob(s) is (are) not approved by his state director, may request that\nthe state director's decision(s) be reviewed by the Director prior\nto his being mailed an SSS Form 153 (Order to Report for Alternate\nService). The registrant's case will be considered by the Director\non only one occasion prior to his initial assignment to alternate\nservice. However, he may request a review of as many as three such\nadverse decisions on jobs in this one review. The Director will\neither approve a job proposed by the registrant or, if the 60 days\nhave elapsed, authorize a mandatory work order. Decisions by the\nDirector will be carried out by the appropriate state director and\nlocal boards and their employees.\n-170-\nAPPENDIX F\n\"(f) Any reason for granting a postponement for an\ninduction order is sufficient for granting the postponement of\nprocessing for alternate service in lieu of induction.\n\"1660.8 Performance of Alternate Service.-Any registrant\nwho knowingly fails or neglects to obey an order from his local\nboard to perform alternate service contributing to the maintenance\nof the national health, safety, or interest in lieu of induction or\nwho constructively fails or neglects to obey such order by his\nfailure to comply with reasonable requirements of an employer shall\nbe deemed to have knowingly failed or neglected to perform a duty\nrequired of him under the Military Selective Service Act. The reg-\nistrant shall have failed to meet the standards or failed to perform\nsatisfactorily if he did not meet the standards of performance\ndemanded by the employer of his other employees in similar jobs.\n\"1660.9 Administration of Alternate Service. (a) Whenever\na registrant is refused employment by an employer who had previously\nagreed to hire him, whenever the registrant refuses employment,\nwhenever a registrant's employment is terminated, or whenever he\nleaves his job, the state director administering the registrant's\ncase will consider the circumstances surrounding the refusal,\ntermination, or departure to determine whether the registrant had\nfailed to perform his job or to conduct himself satisfactorily.\n-171-\nAPPENDIX F\n\"(b) Whenever the state director has reason to believe\nthat a registrant refused or constructively refused employment, or\nwas relieved for cause or left his job unjustifiably he will conduct\nan investigation which will include the following steps; obtain a\nstatement from the former employer describing the circumstances;\nsend such statement to the registrant; obtain a statement from the\nregistrant in his defense, if he wishes to make one; and compile any\nother evidence he feels is relevant. He will then determine whether\nthe termination was for cause or whether the departure was unjusti-\nfiable. If he determines that the registrant's departure was without\njustification he will report the registrant for prosecution.\n\"(c) If the state director finds no failure of the reg-\nistrant to perform satisfactorily he will order the registrant to\nanother job as quickly as possible. If the registrant complies with\nthe order to report to the new job, the intervening time between\njobs will not constitute a break in the required period of alternate\nservice.\n\"(d) The state director may reassign and reorder a\nworking registrant at any time that he determines the original job\nceases to be acceptable as alternate service as defined in section\n1660.6. Such determination shall be reviewed by the Director upon\nthe request of the registrant. The Director will either authorize\nthe registrant to remain on his job or validate the reassignment.\n-172-\nAPPENDIX F\n\"1660.10 Release from Alternate Service.-The state\ndirector of the state in which a registrant is working or the\nDirector, when the registrant is not under the supervision of a\nstate director, may release a registrant prior to his completion\nof twenty-four months of service upon a determination of a hardship,\nmedical, or other bona fide basis for such early release. If the\nregistrant is working outside the state in which he is registered,\nthe decision should be made in consultation with the state director\nof the state in which the registrant is registered. When such a\nrelease takes place prior to completion of six months of alternate\nservice, the state director of the state in which the registrant\nis registered may direct a reopening of the registrant's clas-\nsification by the local board.\n\"1660.11 Completion of Alternate Service. (a) After a\nregistrant has completed his alternate service obligation, the\nstate director will return (through another state director if\nnecessary) the registrant's selective service file to the appro-\npriate local board.\n\"(b) When the local board receives the registrant's\nselective service file, it shall inform the registrant that he\nhas satisfactorily completed his alternate service. He shall be\nclassified in Class 4-W.\n-173-\nAPPENDIX F\n\"1660.12 Information Concerning Alternate Service. -\nA registrant who is outside the area of his local board may seek\ninformation relative to any aspect of processing for alternate\nservice from the local board or state director of his new place\nof residence. The assisting state director or local board will\nnot assume the responsibility of the state director or local board\nof jurisdiction.\"\nCurtis W. Tarr\nDirector\nDecember 6, 1971\n-174-\nAPPENDIX G\nStatement presented to the California Assembly Efficiency and Cost Committee\nHonorable Michael Cullen, Chairman\n4 April 1972\nAt the request of the Department of Conservation, I would like to comment\non the Ecology program as it has aided the University of California's White\nMountain Research Station. At the outset, I wish to make clear that these re-\nmarks are based on my personal evaluation and do not constitute in any way an\nofficial position held by the University of California.\nThe White Mountain Research Station consists of four laboratories located\nat various altitudes up to 14, 246 feet on the White Mountain Range which forms\nthe eastern wall of the Owens Valley. The Station provides these facilities\nfor use by scientific investigators interested in the unique environmental\nconditions of this high altitude region.\nSince the beginning of the program at the Inyo Ecology Center last summer,\nwe have availed ourselves of the services of the corpsmen in a number of our\nprojects. I would like to describe these briefly and offer my opinion of the\nwork performed.\nAt the Owens Valley Laboratory near Bishop, we have set aside more than\n500 acres of desert land for the purpose of establishing a study area of the\nnative plants and animals. The corpsmen are providing the necessary manpower\nto install the fencing required to protect the area. In recent weeks, the\ncorps helped protect this area in yet another way. Several range fires near the\nLaboratory have threatened this site. The corps has reacted quickly and effi-\nciently each time to prevent destruction of the area. This aspect of their\nprogram is very important to the entire Inyo-Mono area.\nWork crews have been used at the higher elevations for the purpose of\nmaintaining the laboratory sites in conditions consistent with the environ-\nmental protection of the area. They have assisted in painting, area clean-up\nprojects, and in the development of a water storage system at the Barcroft\nLaboratory (12, feet elevation).\nIn one unique case, the educational background of one corpsman in the\nfield of biology provided an opportunity to utilize his talents as an assistant\nin my own resident research program. In addition to the obvious benefits to\nmy program, this young man gains much from the experience by broadening his\nown interests.\nIt is my observation that, in all the projects mentioned, the performance\nof the men has been outstanding and the quality of the work has been of the\nhighest standard. I will not hesitate to use their services whenever the need\narises.\nThe overall success of the Ecology Program, as I view it, is the combined\nresult of the diligent efforts of the men who make up the corps in Inyo County,\nand the capable leadership provided by Mr. John Clark and his staff at the Center.\n-175-\nAPPENDIX G\nStatement to Committee\n-2-\n4 April 1972\nUndoubtedly, it will be difficult at this point to judge the effectiveness of\nthe program in every detail. However, we can acknowledge the broad range of\nservices provided by the program and recognize their value to the people of\nthe State of California. It is my sincere hope that the Ecology Program will\ncontinue to receive the official and public support it has enjoyed during its\nfirst year of operation.\nRespectfully submitted by:\nDuane Blume\nF. Duane Blume, Ph.D.\nAssistant Director\nWhite Mountain Research Station\nBishop, California\n-176-\nAPPENDIX H\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\nFOREST SERVICE\n630 Sansome Street\nSan Francisco, California 94111\nApril 5, 1972\nTIMEST SYSTEM\nCOMPERATIVE\nMr. Mike Cullin, Chairman\nCommittee on Efficiency & Cost Control\nNATIONAL\nUAS\nFORESTRY\nCalifornia State Assembly\nFORESTRY\nRoom 440B State Capitol\nSacramento, California 95814\nDear Mr. Cullin:\nAs you requested at the termination of the hearing of the California\nEcology Corps yesterday, I am pleased to submit these comments for\nthe United States Forest Service concerning the continuation of the\nEcology Corps. The Corps provides a substantial and effective addition\nto the State's wildland fire fighting force. Adequately financed,\nit can continue to be an effective force in protection and development\nof resources within the National Forests in California as well as\non lands where the primary responsibility for protection lies with\nthe State.\nThe U.S. Forest Service protects and manages some 20 million acres of\npublicly owned lands which contribute a large share of the useable\nnatural resources including wood, water, forage, wildlife as well as\nrecreation, scenic and aesthetic attractions which make California's\ndesirable environment.\nAs Director Stearns indicated yesterday, the California Ecology Corps\nin the current fiscal year has undertaken work on the Stanislaus, the\nEldorado and the Inyo National Forests in addition to providing a trained\nsource of hand crews for forest fire suppression. Additional work is\nexpected in those situations where labor provided by the Ecology Corps\ncan effectively supplement the work forces employed by the U.S. Forest\nService directly or through other forms of contracting. We have found\nthe work of the Corps to be of desirable quality and quantity.\nI heartily endorse the testimony your committee heard yesterday support-\ning the continuation and extension of the Corps. We in the Forest\nService look on it as a highly valuable addition to the total fire\nprotection resource in the State. This resource appears even more critical\nin the light of the extended drought through much of California during\nthe current winter.\nDivision of Information & Education\n-177-\n6200-11 (1/69)\nAPPENDIX I\nSequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks\nThree Rivers, California 13271\nL7019\nMarch 31, 1972\nMemorandum\nTo:\nChief Park Ranger\nFrom:\nFire Control Officer\nSubject: California Ecology Corps, Ash Mountain\nThe Ecology Corps crew based in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National\nParks have been involved in the following activities since their\narrival in November, 1971.\nEcological Restoration:\nThey have been involved in rehabilitating areas burned by the\nShepherd Peak and Buena Vista Fires of 1971 and the Cherry Flat\nFire of 1968. This work has included erosion control, fuel\nhazard reduction, and naturalization of old fire lines.\nHazard Tree Removal\nNinety-seven man days were spent in removal of hazardous trees\nat Lodgepole and Clough Cave.\nInformation Desk\nOne man has been on duty Monday through Friday on the\ninformation desk in the Chief Ranger's Office.\nOther Duties\nThe Interpretive Division has been using one man part time\nto work in their darkroom developing and enlarging photographs.\nThey have also been involved in fire tool repair, hose testing,\nwood cutting, boundary survey and snow survey work.\nThe availability of this crew for fire and search and rescue\noperations is an invaluable asset to these Parks. Two corpsmen\nwill attend the Search and Rescue Training in Cedar Grove during\nApril.\n-178-\nAPPENDIX I\nAll except two Corpsmen have had actual fire experience, and all\nof them have had fire training. They are experienced in working\nas a large organized crew or in smaller groups on Class A fires.\nFor any emergency requiring sizable manpower, they are extremely\nvaluable because of the size of the crew, their excellent physical\ncondition, their knowledge of the area, and their ability to work\nas a disciplined crew.\nMost of the above-mentioned work could not have been accomplished\nwithout the use of the Ecology Corps due to shortages of funds\nand manpower. The relatively low labor costs of the Corpsmen\nhave allowed us to accomplish approximately twice the work we would\nhave had if we had hired IGS-3 fire control aids for these\nprojects. It should be noted that costs for the Ecology Corps will\ngo up approximately 50 percent July 1, 1972.\nThrough March 31, 1972, we have utilized 787 man-days at a total\ncost of $8459.21.\nJohn P. Bowdler\n-179-\nAPPENDIX J\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION\nDIVISION OF FORESTRY\nALIFORND\nDIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY\nDIVISION OF OIL AND GAS\nDIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION\nSACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA\n1416 Ninth Street\nMay 9, 1972\nHonorable Mike Cullen, Chairman\nAssembly Committee on Efficiency\nand Cost Control\nCalifornia Legislature\nRoom 440B, State Capitol\nSacramento, California\nDear Assemblyman Cullen:\nThis is in response to a request of May 8 by your staff member, Dean\nCromwell, concerning the proposed July 1 increase of Ecology Corpsmen\nsalaries from $40 to $100 per month. The total additional cost to\nimplement this increase based on the four existing Ecology Centers\nwill be $245,000. To offset this additional cost, the department\nis increasing the reimbursement rate for Ecology Corps projects from\n$8.50 per man day to $12.50 per man day effective July 1. This\nrate increase will result in additional reimbursements of $198,000.\nAll State and Federal agencies concerned have been notified of the\nincrease.\nSincerely,\nJames just G. Stearns, Director\ncc: Verne Orr\nN. B. Livermore, Jr.\n-181-\nCONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN\nSTATEMENTS, LETTERS, ETC., SUBMITTED\n-182-\nCOMMITTEE ON EFFICIENCY AND COST CONTROL\nRoom 440-B, State Capitol\nSacramento, California 95814\nApril 6, 1972\nMr. Joe Griggs, Administrator\nCalifornia Ecology Corps\n1416 Ninth Street, Room 1550\nSacramento, California 95814\nDear Mr. Griggs:\nI would appreciate it if you could supply a written response\nto the following questions by Friday, April 14:\n1. Please explain the difference between ecology work\nand conservation work as referred to on Page 4 of Director\nStearns' prepared statement;\n2. Please provide the details of the \"comprehensive\nhealth benefit program\" to be implemented August 1, 1972;\n3. Please itemize the personal care items referred to\non Page 8 of Director Stearns' prepared statement;\n4. With regard to the grievance procedure, please itemize\nby name, date, complaint, and disposition those grievances which\nhave reached you for decision;\n5. Please provide names of those corpsmen and their\nemployers referred to on Page 8 of Director Stearns' prepared\nstatement;\n6. Please provide names, salaries, and benefits received,\nand work performed by corpsmen assigned in Sacramento since\nthe inception of the program;\n7. Please indicate the qualifications of volunteers as\nstated on Page 7 of Director Stearns' prepared statement;\n8. Please explain why the Department now will charge\n$12.50 per man day in support of $100/month wages and did\nnot charge this rate at the beginning of the program;\n9. Are meetings of corpsmen permitted during work time;\n10. Please explain how contracts are negotiated;\n11. Please list the man-hours spent firefighting by the\nconservation camps during the last three years and by men from\nthe Ecology Corps since its inception; and\n-183-\nMr. Joe Griggs\n-2-\nApril 6, 1972\n12. Since the Humboldt Ecology Center is being permitted\nto expend 66¢ per man per meal and your budget limitation is\n's 53.6¢ per man per meal, how is the difference recaptured for\nbudgetary purposes?\nThank you for your consideration of this request.\nYours very truly,\nBot Wilson\nBOB WILSON\nCommittee Member\nBW:ts\n-184-\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION\nDIVISION OF FORESTRY\nDIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY\nDIVISION OF OIL AND GAS\nDIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION\nSACRAMENTO, CA 95814\n1416 Ninth Street\nApril 18, 1972\nHonorable Bob Wilson\nThe State Assembly\nState Capitol, Room 440-B\nSacramento, California 95814\nDear Assemblyman Wilson:\nI appreciate your interest in the California Ecology Corps. This\nletter is in response to the questions you posed to Joe E. Griggs,\nEcology Corps Administrator, on April 6, 1972.\nItem #1:\nThe type of ecological work performed by corpsmen include,\nby the nature of the work, conserving and protecting the\nState's natural resources. There is very little difference\nin ecology work as performed by the Ecology Corps and certain\nconservation work performed by state, federal and local\npublic agencies.\nItem #2:\nThe insurance policy that will be available for corpsmen\non August 1, 1972 is a basic health plan that will also\nprovide a life insurance benefit. We are working out the\ndetails of coverage. This policy will be paid entirely\nby the State and will cover all corpsmen.\nItem #3:\nPersonal care items include razors, razor blades, shaving\ncream, toothpaste, toothbrushes, hair tonic, shoe polish,\nshaving kits, combs, etc.\nItem #4:\nThe following is a list of grievances received in this\noffice from corpsmen and their disposition:\nOn December 12, 1971, grievance was received from D. R.\nLantz, corpsman at Calaveras Ecology Center, requesting a\nraise in pay, health insurance other than workmen's\ncompensation, and relaxing our regulations concerning\nlong hair. This Department has worked very diligently\nto increase pay and will, in fact, raise the wages from\n$40 to $100 per month plus room, board and clothing,\neffective July 1, 1972. All emergency overtime work\n(except search and rescue) has been paid at the rate of\n$2.80 per hour since February 1, 1972.\n-185-\nCONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN\nAssemblyman Bob Wilson\n-2-\nApril 18, 1972\nAs to the question of long hair, we are continuing to follow\nthe safety rules of the California Division of Forestry for\nfiremen which requires no hair will be allowed to extend\nbeyond the top of the shirt collar and no beards are allowed.\nThere is a limitation on the size and shape of mustaches.\nOn December 27, 1971, we received a petition from virtually\nall corpsmen requesting a raise in pay. This has been\nanswered above.\nOn December 12, 1971, we received a petition from the corpsmen\nat Ash Mountain Spike Camp of the Calaveras Ecology Center\nrequesting that Friday, December 24, 1971, be declared a\nholiday for corpsmen. This had been taken care of previously\nby administrative action and that day was declared an informal\ntime-off for all State employees and Ecology Corpsmen. This\nwas a matter of the corpsmen initiating a petition based on\nan unfounded rumor that they would have to work on Friday,\nDecember 24.\nWe have received letters from corpsmen stating that they are\nnot doing ecology work. We think they are and have tried to\nexplain to all corpsmen the nature of the work in such a way\nthat will allow them to make a connection between the work\nthat they are doing and the ecological and environmental\nimportance of that work.\nAlmost all grievances at the Centers are based on corpsmen\nrumor and misunderstanding and are handled to the satisfac-\ntion of everyone concerned at the Centers by the Center\nDirector and his staff.\nItem #5:\nMelvin D. Brim\nDepartment of Parks and Recreation\nSamuel Magill\nDepartment of Human Resources Development\nBernard Marquez\nUnited States Forest Service\nJohn Yeakel\nDepartment of Fish and Game\nMany other corpsmen have transferred to other alternative\nservice work from the Ecology Corps. Selective Service\nmaintains these records; we do not. However, we have never\nrefused to approve a transfer to other alternate service\nwork when recommended by Selective Service.\nItem #6:\nSamuel Magill -- $50 per month plus $5 per day expenses,\n7 days per week. Work schedule -- 40 hours per week. Duties\nincluded assignment as assistant to the Departmental Employ-\nment Opportunities Officer. Magill also served as a Career\nOpportunities tutor for career opportunities development\nemployees.\n-186-\nAssemblyman Bob Wilson\n-3-\nApril 18, 1972\nTim White -- $40 per month plus $5 per day expenses, 7 days\nper week. Work assignment -- 40 hours per week. Assignment\nas assistant to the Departmental Public Information Officer\npreparing information, material and news releases relating\nto the Corps.\nItem #7: Qualifications for non-conscientious objector corpsmen are\nas follows: at least 18 years old - not over 31 - in good\nphysical condition - willing to work long and irregular hours\nand be on duty 24 hours per day, 5 days per week during the\ndeclared fire season - not on probation or parole.\nItem #8: At the beginning of the program, the $8.50 per day was based\non the difference between our cost to operate the Centers\npaying $40 per month, and the amount of money already budgeted\nfor the Centers. Our decision to raise the base pay and the\nper day charge for reimbursable work is based on our ability\nto secure contracts from other agencies. This ability was\nlargely unknown until the Corps became operational and the\nsupporting agencies had time to plan projects and budget\nfor supporting funds.\nItem #9: Yes.\nItem #10: Contracts are negotiated between the Ecology Corps Adminis-\ntrator, the California Division of Forestry District Deputy\nState Forester, and the contracting agency involved. Only\nthose projects that are geographically located in areas that\ncan be economically serviced are considered. Also, we do not\ncontract to do work that is not of an environmental nature.\nItem #11: Total man hours spent firefighting by conservation camp\npersonnel during 1969-70-71 were 1,679,656 hours. Since the\nbeginning of the Ecology Corps July 1, 1971, corpsmen spent\na total of 8,040 hours fighting fires.\nItem #12: Differences between actual meal costs and budget costs are\nmade up by adjusting other budget operating items. Please\nkeep in mind that most budget operating items are estimated\nand that internal adjustments are common practice.\nEcology Center meal costs were especially difficult to\nestimate the first year because of the corpsman option of\ntaking meals on days off and unknown vacancy rate.\nIf you need any further information concerning the California Ecology\nCorps do not hesitate to let me know.\nOriginal Stened by\nfor\nJames G. Stearns, Director\nCC: Members, Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control\nMr. John Billett\n-187-\nCOMMITTEE STAFF\nMEMBERS\nJOHN W. BILLETT\nMIKE CULLEN. CHAIRMAN\nAssembly Committee\nSENIOR CONSULTANT\nLONG BEACH\nJAN SHARPLESS\nERNEST MOBLEY, VICE CHAIRMAN\nASSOCIATE CONBULTANT\nBANGER\non\nJUDY CHAIX\nRESEARCH ASSISTANT\nKENNETH CORY\nWESTMINSIER\nEfficiency and Cost Control\nDEAN CROMWELL\nLEGISLATIVE INTERN\nRAYMOND T. SEELEY\nMARGARET CUMMINGS\nBLYTHE\nCOMMITTEE SECRETARY\nVINCENT THOMAS\nTERRY STATHOS\nSAN PEDRO\nBOB WILSON\nSAN DIEGO\nCalifornia Legislature\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nTELEPHONE:\n916-445-1958\nMIKE CULLEN\nCHAIRMAN\nApril 19, 1972\nMr. James G. Stearns, Director\nDepartment of Conservation\n1416 Ninth Street\nSacramento, California 95814\nDear Mr. Stearns:\nPertaining to the committee's investigation of the operation of\nthe Ecology Corps, would you please provide a written response to\nthe following questions by Tuesday, April 25, 1972:\n1.\nWhat are the work projects currently engaged in by each of\nthe conservation camps? Please include a short description\nof the nature of each project. Also, please list the con-\ntracting agency and reimbursements for each project by the\nagencies to the Department of Conservation.\n2.\nWhat were the work projects for each of the four conserva-\ntion camps, which are now ecology centers, for three years\nprior to their conversion? Please include a short descrip-\ntion of the nature of the work. Also, please list the con-\ntracting agency and reimbursements for each project by the\nagencies to the Department of Conservation.\n3.\nHow was the figure of $8.50 per man day established as the\nfee to charge to contracting agencies for services of the\ncorpsmen?\n4.\nHas the Department of Conservation ever attempted to pay the\ncorpsmen at a level commensurate with the federal minimum\nwage? If so, please explain such attempts in detail.\n5.\nPlease explain the procedure by which corpsmen obtain a\ntransfer from one ecology center to another. Does the\nDepartment keep records of such requests?\n-188-\nROOM 440B\nSTATE CAPITOL\nSACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814\nMr. James G. Stearns\n-2-\nApril 19, 1972\n6.\nDo you keep any record of volunteers who resign from the\nEcology Corps? If so, please provide a list of such corps-\nmen for each camp since the beginning of the corps indicat-\ning length of service.\n7.\nDo you keep any record of conscientious objectors who resign\nfrom the Ecology Corps? If so, please provide a list of\nsuch corpsmen for each camp since the beginning of the corps\nindicating length of service.\n8.\nWhat is the Department's policy with respect to releasing\nconscientious objectors who request release?\nMibe\nMIKE CULLEN\nChairman\nMC:JB:ts\n-189-\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION\nDIVISION OF FORESTRY\nALIFORM\nDIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY\nDIVISION OF OIL AND GAS\nDIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION\nSACRAMENTO, CA 95814\n1416 Ninth Street\nApril 26, 1972\nHonorable Mike Cullen, Chairman\nAssembly Committee on Efficiency\nand Cost Control\nCalifornia Legislature\nRoom 440B, State Capitol\nSacramento, California\nDear Assemblyman Cullen:\nThis is in response to your letter of April 19, 1972, concerning\nthe California Ecology Corps and the Conservation Camp Program.\nReplies to the eight questions included in your letter are\nattached.\nSincerely,\nthe\nJames G. Stearns, Director\nJGS:mnr\nCC: Members of the Committee\n-190-\nCONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN\nRESPONSES TO THE EIGHT QUESTIONS OF APRIL 19, 1972\n1. WHAT ARE THE WORK PROJECTS CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN BY EACH OF THE\nCONSERVATION CAMPS? PLEASE INCLUDE A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE\nNATURE OF EACH PROJECT. ALSO, PLEASE LIST THE CONTRACTING AGENCY\nAND REIMBURSEMENTS FOR EACH PROJECT BY THE AGENCIES TO THE\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.\nThe attached Conservation Camp Annual Report provides a good overview of\nthe Conservation Camp Program.\nThe following is a listing of conservation camps that are doing reimbursable\nprojects in the 1971-72 fiscal year including a description of the work and\nthe dollar value of each job by contracting agency.\n1. Alder Conservation Camp\n(a) Stream clearance - removing log jams and other debris to allow passage\nof fish to and from spawning grounds - $2,600 - Department of Fish and\nGame.\n2. Black Mountain Conservation Camp\n(a) Stream clearance - same work as 1(a) - $7,000 - Department of Fish\nand Game.\n3. Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camp\n(a) Sign construction - manufacturing signs of a permanent nature for\nthe guidance of the public - $800 - Department of Fish and Game.\n4. Eel River Conservation Camp\n(a) Stream clearance - same work as (a) - $5,000 - Department of Fish\nand Game.\n5. Antelope Conservation Camp\n(a) General enhancement of big game and upland game habitat maintenance\nand improvement by collection of seeds of plants used for replanting\nranges, thinning of brush fields to improve habitat of border species,\ninstalling gallenaceous guzzlers to provide water in dry areas where\nfood and cover exist, building of camping facilities for the public -\n$5,400 - Department of Fish and Game.\n(b) Construction of three pavilions (kiosks) for the use of the public\nnear lakes - $6,000 - Department of Water Resources.\n-191-\n6. Intermountain Conservation Camp\n(a) Maintenance of facilities such as fish ladders, fish counting stations,\nfish screens and fish hatcheries. Enhancement of big game and upland\ngame habitat by collection of seeds of plants used in improving game\nranges, thinning of brush fields to improve habitat of border species\nsuch as quail and deer - $5,700 - Department of Fish and Game.\n7. Deadwood Conservation Camp\nFacility maintenance similar to 6(a) - $1,500 - Department of Fish and Game.\n8. Magalia Conservation Camp\n(a) Building and maintenance of a fish diverter and maintenance of\nfacilities at Gray Lodge Wildlife Refuge - $2,100 - Department of\nFish and Game.\n(b) Removal of debris from Oroville Lake to reduce boating hazards -\n$7,000 - Department of Water Resources.\n9. Baseline Conservation Camp\n(a) Removal of snow from roofs of state-owned buildings at Dorrington -\n$1,000 - Division of Highways.\n10. Pilot Rock Conservation Camp\n(a) Clean up hazard to the public the removal of old buildings, move\ntrees and grass in a recreation area, maintain sites of various rain\ngauge stations - $4,700 - Department of Water Resources.\n2. WHAT WERE THE WORK PROJECTS FOR EACH OF THE FOUR CONSERVATION CAMPS, WHICH\nARE NOW ECOLOGY CENTERS, FOR THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THEIR CONVERSION? PLEASE\nINCLUDE A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE WORK. ALSO, PLEASE LIST\nTHE CONTRACTING AGENCY AND REIMBURSEMENTS FOR EACH PROJECT BY THE AGENCIES\nTO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.\nThe following is a listing of the work projects for each of the four conservation\ncamps which are now ecology centers, for three years prior to their conversion.\nThese figures are approximate because of lack of records. The contracting agency\nand approximate dollar figure for reimbursements and a short description of the\nwork is given.\n1. High Rock Conservation Camp (Humboldt Ecology Center)\n(a) 1970\n(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $10,000 worth\nof campground improvement, cleanup, trail building and general\nmaintenance work.\n-192-\n(b) 1969\n(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $14,000 worth\nof the same type of work as 1(a) (1) above.\n(2) Department of Water Resources - Approximately $1,500 for flood\ncontrol work\n(c) 1968\n(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $6,000 worth of stream\nclearance work consisting of removal of debris from streams to\nenable fish life to move up and down the streams.\n(2) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $18,000 worth\nof the same type of work as 1(a) (1) above.\n2. Plum Creek Conservation Camp (Tehama Ecology Center)\n(a) 1970\n(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $5,000 worth of work\non enhancement of habitat for upland game.\n(2) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $1,500 worth\nof work consisting of maintenance of recreational areas.\n(b) 1969\n(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $4,000 worth of work\nof the same nature as 2(a)(1).\n(c) 1968\n(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $3,000 worth of work\nof the same nature as 2(a)(1).\n3. Inyo-Mono Conservation Camp (Inyo Ecology Center)\n(a) 1970\n(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $10,800 worth of fish\nand wildlife habitat improvement.\n(2) University of California - Approximately $1,500 worth of\nmaintenance work at the White Mountain Research Center.\n(b) 1969\n(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $18,000 worth of\nwork similar to 3(a) (1).\n(2) University of California - Approximately $700 worth of work\nsimilar to 3(a) (2).\n-193-\n(c) 1968\n(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $24,000 worth of\nwork similar to 3(a)(1).\n(2) University of California - Approximately $1,100 worth of work\nsimilar to (a) (2).\n4. Vallecito Conservation Center (Calaveras Ecology Center)\n(a) 1970\n(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $6,000 worth\nof work similar to (a) (1).\n(b) 1969\n(1) Department of Parks and Recreation : - Approximately $12,000 worth\nof work similar to (a) (1).\n(2) Department of Water Resources - Approximately $1,500 worth of flood\ncontrol work.\n(c) 1968\n(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $7,500 worth of\nwork similar to 1(a)(1).\n3. HOW WAS THE FIGURE OF $8.50 PER MAN DAY ESTABLISHED AS THE FEE TO CHARGE TO\nCONTRACTING AGENCIES FOR SERVICES OF THE CORPSMEN?\nThis question was answered in response to Question 8 of Assemblyman Wilson's\nletter of April 6, 1972, to Joe Griggs, in a letter dated April 18, 1972, and\nsigned by A. Alan Hill for James G. Stearns.\n\"At the beginning of the program, the $8.50 per day was based on difference\nbetween our cost to operate the Centers paying $40 per month, and the amount\nof money already budgeted for the Centers. Our decision to raise the base\npay and the per day charge for reimbursable work is based on our ability to\nsecure contracts from other agencies. This ability was largely unknown\nuntil the Corps became operational and the supporting agencies had time to\nplan projects and budget for supporting funds.\"\n4. HAS THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION EVER ATTEMPTED TO PAY THE CORPSMEN AT A\nLEVEL COMMENSURATE WITH THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE? IF SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN\nSUCH ATTEMPTS IN DETAIL.\nYes, the Department of Conservation actively attempted to place the Ecology\nCorps under the Federal Emergency Employment Act of 1971 at the minimum wage.\nOn September 3, 1971, the Department formally applied through HRD to the Federal\nDepartment of Labor for grant funds to employ corpsmen at $1.60 per hour. This\n-194-\nrequest was denied by the Department of Labor on October 28, 1971, because\nthe centers were not located within one hour's commuting distance of the\nparticipants' residences.\n5. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH CORPSMEN OBTAIN A TRANSFER FROM\nONE ECOLOGY CENTER TO ANOTHER. DOES THE DEPARTMENT KEEP RECORDS OF\nSUCH REQUESTS?\nCorpsmen obtain transfers by notifying their Center Director that they\nwish to transfer to another Center, giving the reasons for the request.\nIf the corpsman's work and conduct have been satisfactory, the Center\nDirector notifies the Director of the Center the corpsman wishes to trans-\nfer to. If there is a vacancy, the Corps Administrator is notified and\nthe transfer is accomplished.\n6. DO YOU KEEP ANY RECORD OF VOLUNTEERS WHO RESIGN FROM THE ECOLOGY CORPS?\nIF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF SUCH CORPSMEN FOR EACH CAMP SINCE THE\nBEGINNING OF THE CORPS INDICATING LENGTH OF SERVICE.\nNumber of volunteers resigned from California Ecology Corps since inception:\nCenter\nCorpsmen\nHired\nResigned\nCalaveras Ecology Center\nNone\nInyo Ecology Center\nJ. Barnett\n3/3/72\n3/20/72\nJ. A. Bond\n1/1/72\n1/31/72\nR. A. Reese\n2/25/72\n3/21/72\nTehama Ecology Center\nM. Catalano\n1/24/72\n3/14/72\nJ. S. Howie\n12/20/71\n3/7/72\nD. May\n2/7/72\n2/18/72\nG. F. Nemeth\n3/1/72\n3/30/72\nC. Querfurth\n1/19/72\n3/3/72\nM. L. Thomason\n1/28/72\n2/29/72\nR. P. Yowell\n3/9/72\n4/12/72\nHumboldt Ecology Center\nE. C. Barnes\n2/29/72\n3/8/72\nG. A. Bennett\n2/24/72\n3/10/72\nM. D. Brim\n1/6/72\n3/3/72\nR. D. Buffham\n3/17/72\n3/21/72\nC. L. Chamberlin\n1/31/72\n2/8/72\nM. A. Coffey\n2/3/72\n3/1/72\nR. M. Corey\n2/7/72\n3/27/72\nC. W. Crowder\n3/21/72\n3/29/72\nS. Darling\n1/25/72\n2/29/72\nW.K.Grimm\n1/31/72\n3/20/72\nJ. L. Honegger\n2/29/72\n3/13/72\nR. Johnson\n1/9/72\n2/9/72\n-195-\nNumber of volunteers resigned from California Ecology Corps since inception\n(continued):\nCenter\nCorpsmen\nHired\nResigned\nHumboldt Ecology Center\nD. L. Jones\n3/21/72\n4/3/72\n(continued)\nM. K. Jones\n2/3/72\n2/15/72\nC. L. Lonewolf\n3/7/72\n4/6/72\nR. G. Madonia\n1/27/72\n2/14/72\nJ. A. McCrea\n4/3/72\n4/7/72\nT. O'Neill\n1/9/72\n2/9/72\nJ. Reeves\n1/19/72\n2/22/72\nP. I. Sax\n1/24/72\n3/17/72\nG. Sherman\n1/19/72\n1/31/72\nB. Van Tassel\n1/24/72\n3/21/72\nG. Wagner\n1/24/72\n2/8/72\nR. N. Williams\n12/13/71\n3/13/72\n7. DO YOU KEEP ANY RECORD OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS WHO RESIGN FROM THE\nECOLOGY CORPS? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF SUCH CORPSMEN FOR EACH\nCAMP SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CORPS INDICATING LENGTH OF SERVICE.\nThe following conscientious objectors have left the California Ecology Corps\nbecause of resignation, transfers to other alternate service work, or be-\ncause they have completed their alternate service obligations. (A breakdown\nas to the specific reason for each separation is not kept.)\nNumber of conscientious objectors resigned from California Ecology Corps\nsince its inception on July 1, 1971:\nCenter\nCorpsmen\nHired\nResigned\nCalaveras Ecology Center\nB. N. McKarley\n7/8/71\n2/23/72\nS. H. Morrell\n1/24/72\n3/31/72\nR. Pierce\n7/8/71\n8/6/71\nV. J. Strawmier\n7/1/71\n2/14/72\nInyo Ecology Center\nD. Anka\n11/31/71\n2/15/72\nJ. C. Dore\n2/24/72\n4/11/72\nT. M. Green\n7/1/71\n4/4/72\nA. R. Hiibel\n12/13/71\n3/31/72\nL. W. Klepper\n7/22/71\n2/15/72\nM. R. Kuhns\n1/31/72\n2/18/72\nG. K. Lambert\n9/16/71\n2/15/72\nJ. C. Mottl\n7/1/71\n3/22/72\nJ. K. O'Brien\n12/4/71\n2/15/72\nD. M. Pepple\n12/6/71\n2/15/72\nJ. W. Rafferty\n2/28/72\n3/29/72\nR. V. White\n7/1/71\n3/16/72\nTehama Ecology Center\nE. R. Clark\n9/9/71\n9/20/71\nJ. C. Coronado\n7/1/71\n3/12/72\nM. C. Flynn\n7/2/71\n4/5/72\n-196-\nNumber of conscientious objectors resigned from California Ecology Corps\nsince its inception on July 1, 1971 (continued):\nCenter\nCorpsmen\nHired\nResigned\nTehama Ecology Center\nJ. W. Honeycutt\n11/29/71\n3/20/72\n(continued)\nS.H. Jones\n7/2/71\n2/14/72\nW. R. Lacey\n3/30/72\n3/31/72\nG. W. McCall\n7/12/71\n1/19/72\nL. McKinney\n11/2/71\n2/28/71\nW. R. Nordby\n7/22/71\n2/23/72\nB. L. Pethoud\n7/1/71\n2/14/72\nB. G. Ramentas\n7/15/71\n3/10/72\nK. L. Schultz\n7/1/71\n3/16/72\nT.N. Tracy\n7/1/71\n2/14/72\nJ. J. Yeakel\n11/29/71\n3/14/72\nHumboldt Ecology Center\nD. L. Archibald\n7/29/71\n10/12/71\nR. N. Bayless\n7/1/71\n9/30/71\nD. T. Botner\n2/8/72\n2/16/72\nR. T. Corrigan\n7/15/71\n9/22/71\nB. Dahlquist\n11/9/71\n3/2/72\nF. G. Deneau\n2/9/72\n3/3/72\nR. L. Etienne\n7/1/71\n9/30/71\nR. E. Frizzell\n7/1/71\n3/31/72\nW. J. Glotzl\n7/1/71\n12/28/71\nJ. P. Juckema\n3/1/72\n3/2/72\nA. T. Kendrick\n7/1/71\n10/11/71\nS. D. Lynch\n7/1/71\n8/16/71\nR. A. Lyon\n7/6/71\n10/18/71\nS. P. Magill\n8/2/71\n3/10/72\nJ. B. Marquez\n7/1/71\n2/29/72\nB. C. Meinholz\n7/1/71\n12/21/71\nP. R. Nicolosi\n7/1/71\n3/31/72\nC. M. Parker\n7/15/71\n10/14/71\nJ. W. Perry\n8/17/71\n2/7/72\nJ. Rice\n7/13/71\n11/29/71\nB. A. Stone\n9/1/71\n2/12/72\nJ. M. Witkowski\n7/8/71\n10/25/71\n8. WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY WITH RESPECT TO RELEASING CONSCIENTIOUS\nOBJECTORS WHO REQUEST RELEASE?\nThe Department does not release conscientious objectors. That is a function\nof Selective Service.\n-197-\nMEMBERS\nCOMMITTEE STATE\nJOHN W. BILLETT\nMIFT Current\nAssembly Committee\nSENIOR CONSULTANT\nLENO in\nJAN SHARPLESS\nTRNFET MOREY, Vide CHARMAN\nASSOCIAT CONSULTIN\nSANGER\n1111\nJuny CHAIX\nCory\nRESEARCH ABSISTAN\nWESHING this\nEfficiency and Cost Control\nDEAN CROMWELL\nLEGISLATIVE INTERN\nRAYMOND T. SEELEY\nMARGARET CUMMINGS\nBLYTHE\nCOMMITTEE SECRETT*\nVIRGENT THOMAS\nTERRY STATHOS\nSAN\nnon WILSON\nSAN Disco\nCalifornia Tegislature\nSTATE SECURITARY\nTHEREHONE\n916-445-1956\nMIKE CULLEN\nCHAIRMAN\nApril 20, 1972\nMr. James G. Stearns, Director\nDepartment of Conservation\n1416 Ninth Street\nSacramento, California 95814\nDear Mr. Stearns:\nAfter reviewing your April 18th letter to Assemblyman Wilson, I\nhave the following questions relating to the answers you provided:\n1.\nPlease explain the \"little difference\" that exists\nbetween Ecology Corps projects and \"certain conservation\nwork\";\n2.\nWhat are the \"certain conservation works performed by state,\nfederal and local agencies\";\n3.\nWhat is the status of the insurance plan and with whom are\ndiscussions about it being held;\n4.\nPlease supply copies of all grievances you have received;\n5.\nPlease elaborate on the statement, \"Almost all grievances\nat the Centers are based on corpsmen rumor and misunder-\nstanding\";\n6.\nPlease explain why meetings of corpsmen are permitted\nduring work time;\n7.\nBeginning July 1, 1971, how much time has been expended\neach month at each Center for such meetings;\n8.\nPlease describe the criteria you use in determining \"those\nprojects that are geographically located in areas that can\nbe economically serviced\";\n-198-\nFOOM\nSTATE CAPITOL\nSACRAMENIO, CALIFORNIA\nMr. James G. Stearns\n-2-\nApril 20, 1972\n9.\nPlease describe the criteria you use to determine a contract\nis \"not of an environmental nature\";\n10.\nBeginning with July 1, 1969, and for each month thereafter,\nitemize, by conservation camp, the manhours expended fire-\nfighting;\n11.\nBeginning with July 1, 1971, itemize, by ecology center, the\nmanhours expended each month for firefighting; and\n12.\nPlease itemize for each month, since July 1, 1971, the average\ncost per man per meal at each ecology center.\nThank you for your assistance in this matter. I would appreciate\nreceiving your response by Friday, April 28th.\nCordially\nMibe\nMIKE CULLEN\nChairman\nMC:JB:ts\n-199-\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION\nDIVISION OF FORESTRY\nDIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY\nDIVISION OF OIL AND GAS\nDIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION\nSACRAMENTO, CA 95814\n1416 Ninth Street\nMay 1, 1972\nHonorable Mike Cullen, Chairman\nAssembly Committee on Efficiency\nand Cost Control\nCalifornia Legislature\nRoom 440B, State Capitol\nSacramento, California\nDear Assemblyman Cullen:\nThis letter responds to yours of April 20, 1972, in which you present twelve\nadditional questions concerning the operation of the California Ecology\nCorps and the Conservation Camp Programs administered by this department.\n1. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE \"LITTLE DIFFERENCE\" THAT EXISTS BETWEEN ECOLOGY CORPS\nPROJECTS AND \"CERTAIN CONSERVATION WORK:\"\nIt would be appropriate here to simply refer back to the statement I made to\nyour Committee on April 4. I used Ecology and \"conservation-related work\nprojects\" as basically synonymous terms.\n2. WHAT ARE THE \"CERTAIN CONSERVATION WORKS PERFORMED BY STATE, FEDERAL AND\nLOCAL AGENCIES\"?\nI included a complete list of ecology corps projects in my written testimony\nbefore your committee on April 4, 1972.\n3. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE INSURANCE PLAN, AND WITH WHOM ARE DISCUSSIONS\nABOUT IT BEING HELD?\nDetails of the health benefit package are being finalized by the Department.\nThe Department is working with the Department of General Services.\n4. PLEASE SUPPLY COPIES OF ALL GRIEVANCES YOU HAVE RECEIVED:\nCopies of the grievances are attached.\n5. PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE STATEMENT, \"ALMOST ALL GRIEVANCES AT THE CENTERS\nARE BASED ON CORPSMEN RUMOR AND MISUNDERSTANDING:\"\nAn example of a grievance based on rumor and misunderstanding is cited in my\nApril 18, 1972, letter to Assemblyman Wilson. (See Item 4, Paragraph 4; copy\nattached.)\n-200-\nCONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN\nHonorable Mike Cullen\n-2-\nMay 1, 1972\n6. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY MEETINGS OF CORPSMEN ARE PERMITTED DURING WORK TIME:\nIt is accepted practice in business and government for meetings relating to\norientation, information and instruction of employees during normal work\nhours and accordingly such sessions are periodically scheduled. Corpsmen\nand their Division of Forestry supervisors attend.\n7. BEGINNING JULY 1, 1971, HOW MUCH TIME HAS BEEN EXPENDED EACH MONTH AT\nEACH CENTER FOR SUCH MEETINGS?\nGenerally, about six hours each month, since July 1, 1971, have been\ndevoted to the meetings described in Item No. 6, above.\n8. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE CRITERIA YOU USE IN DETERMINING \"THOSE PROJECTS\nTHAT ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED IN AREAS THAT CAN BE ECONOMICALLY SERVICED:\"\nGenerally, it is felt that projects which are within one hour's travel\ntime from the Center can be economically serviced from the Center.\n9. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE CRITERIA YOU USE TO DETERMINE A CONTRACT IS \"NOT\nOF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NATURE:'\nProjects not of an environmental nature would, for example, involve\nmaintenance of facilities or general office work.\nAttachments to this letter respond to Questions 10, 11, and 12.\nSincerely yours\nJames G. Stearns, Director\nJGS:mnr :\nAttachments\ncc: Members, Assembly Committee\non Efficiency and Cost Control\n-201-\nCopies of grievances provided by the De-\npartment of Conservation may be examined\nin the committee office.\n-202-\nDepartment of Conservation\nDivision of Forestry\nConservation Camp Fire Suppression Man-hours calendar years 1969, 1970,\n1971\nNAME OF CAMP\n1969\n1970\n1971\nAlder\n11,768\n14,312\n2,432\nBlack Mountain\n11,896\n19,280\n12,784\nChamberlain Creek\n19,216\n23,616\n13,688\nEel River\n19,392\n23,816\n9,504\nHigh Rock\n16,040\n17,232\n2,696\nKonocti\n16,088\n24,976\n15,088\nParlin Fork\n15,632\n16,496\n11,728\nAntelope\n15,712\n10,832\n5,488\nCrystal Creek\n8,552\n21,264\n13,424\nDeadwood\n6,816\n6,184\n3,560\nIntermountain\n5,872\n9,992\n1,960\nIron Mine\n12,472\n26,160\n13,952\nMagalia\n10,736\n23,896\n8,056\nPlum Creek\n11,288\n13,464\n264\nBaseline\n24,032\n31,240\n18,720\nGrowlersburg\n14,376\n22,112\n17,496\nMiramonte\n29,184\n40,336\n14,968\nMountain Home\n27,944\n38,792\n15,696\nVallecito\n20,848\n27,296\n3,288\nCuesta\n15,760\n20,024\n1,256\nSlack Canyon\n17,704\n23,688\n19,048\nInyo-Mono\n20,112\n33,592\n1,792\nOak Glen\n16,440\n33,240\n11,072\nLa Cima\n11,368\n26,128\n6,200\nMorena\n11,616\n33,864\n8,960\nPilot Rock\n15,832\n38,424\n10,512\nPrado\n15,344\n27,472\n9,920\nPuerta La Cruz\n14,584\n23,760\n5,936\nRainbow\n17,192\n29,760\n8,608\nWashington Ridge\n15,200\n29,160\n13,416\nMt. Bullion\n25,152\n40,032\n11,808\nPine Grove\n12,080\n37,480\n22,720\nBen Lomond\n12,888\n20,992\n12,608\n522,136\n828,912\n336,648\nEcology Center Fire Suppression Man-hours for 1971 (6 months) and 1972\nto date.\n1971\nHumboldt Ecology Center\n2,696\nTehama Ecology Center\n264\nInyo Ecology Center\n1,792\nCalaveras Ecology Center\n3,288\n-203-\n8,040\nCalifornia Ecology Corps\nAverage cost per man per meal by month.\nHUMBOLDT\nTEHAMA\nCALAVERAS\nINYO\nJULY, 1971\n$ .604\n$ .630\n$ .571\n$\nAUGUST\n.462\n.636\n.531\nSEPTEMBER\n.595\n.930\n.484\n* .56\nOCTOBER\n.625\n.634\n.422\n.587\nNOVEMBER\n.610\n.695\n.479\n.58\nDECEMBER\n.594\n.628\n.493\n.57\nJANUARY, 1972\n.595\n.705\n.496\n.55\nFEBRUARY\n.610\n.617\n.506\n.56\nMARCH\n.571\n.600\n.517\n.513\n*\nThis figure is for the period August 16, 1971 to October 1, 1971.\n-204-\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION\nDIVISION OF FORESTRY\nDIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY\nDIVISION OF OIL AND GAS\nDIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION\nCalifornia Ecology Corps\nSACRAMENTO, CA 95814\n1416 Ninth Street\nThank you for your recent inquiry concerning the California Ecology Corps.\nThe California Ecology Corps was created by executive order of Governor Reagan on April 27, 1971. The Corps\nbecame operational on July 1, 1971 with the opening of three ecology Centers in Humboldt, Tehama and Calaveras\nCounties. The fourth center was opened on August 16, 1971 in Inyo County. The primary purpose of this program\nis to develop organized, well-trained wildland firefighters for use by the Division of Forestry throughout the state.\nAs you perhaps know, the Corps program initially was limited to young men who have been classified as\nconscientious objectors by the Selective Service System. It might be well at this point to clarify the term\n\"conscientious objector\". The conscientious objectors involved in the Corps program are those young men who are\nregistered under the Selective Service Act who have been classified as conscientious objectors (I-O) by their local\ndraft boards. The Corps program is not intended as a means of becoming exempt from military duty - it is merely\none alternative civilian work a person holding the conscientious objector classification can perform. He must do this\nfor two years, just as a person actually serving in the military.\nWe are happy to report, however, that California Ecology Corps membership has very recently been expanded to\ninclude all young men who want to volunteer for this state's unique environmental protection program. We will also\ncontinue to utilize C.O. participants. Volunteers, like their C.O. counterparts. will receive room, board and work\nclothing at no cost, and are paid $40 a month for working eight hours per day, five days per week until 7/1/72; on\nJuly 1, 1972 corpsmen will receive a minimum of $100 per month. They are required to remain at the center\nduring the five-day work week during the declared fire season, which normally runs from June 1 to October 15.\nDuring their two days off they are free to come and go as they choose. During the non-fire season period, October\n15 to June 1 usually, they perform a regular 40-hour work week with nights and weekends free. Corpsmen also\nreceive ten days vacation each year, plus all State holidays (about 13). If corpsmen are required to work on fires or\nother emergency work beyond the eight-hour work day, they are paid $2.80 per hour overtime.\nThe physical plants of the ecology centers are very modern. There is barracks accommodations for corpsmen and no\nfamily members are allowed at the center, except for visiting purposes. The Corps is operated by the California\nDivision of Forestry. The corpsmen do a variety of work. first priority being wildland firefighting and general\nconservation work. They also work on recreation projects in state and national parks, and in the desert area. Timber\nstand improvement and fire defense improvement work are also assigned to the Corps. In addition, we have a search\nand rescue team in training at present at our Calaveras Center.\nThe procedure to be followed in joining the Corps if you have your I-0 classification from your local draft board\nis to contact your draft board and inform them of your desire to serve with the California Ecology Corps. If they\nare not aware of the program, they can contact Major William D. McCann, Chief, Conscientious Objector Division,\nU.S. Selective Service System, 801 \"I\" Street, Sacramento, California 95814 for details. All hiring arrangements\nwill be made through that office.\nIf you are not a conscientious objector. and still wish to volunteer for the Corps program, please fill out the\nenclosed application and return it to the Ecology Corps address listed at the bottom of the form. We will then\nnotify you by mail when the interview date is set in your area. The requirements for non-C.O. volunteers are as\nfollows: You must be from 18 to 31 years of age, in good physical condition, and must agree to serve with the\nCorps for a minimum of six months, due to the training effort necessary for new corpsmen.\nThank you again for your interest in the California Ecology Corps. We look forward to hearing from you soon.\nJoe Joe Sincerely, E. Griggs, No Administrator Triggs\nCalifornia Ecology Corps\nEnclosure\n-205-\nCONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN\nState of California\nTHE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA\nMemorandum\nTo\n:\nEcology Center Directors\nDate :\nJanuary 10, 1972\nSubject:\nCalifornia Ecology Corps\nCorpsmen Salary\nFrom : Department of Conservation - - California Ecology Corps\nAttached for your information and for the information of your staff and corpsmen,\nis a letter from Director Stearns approving a pay raise for corpsmen.\nIt should be understood by everyone that on State fires only, the $2.80 per hour\nis for overtime worked only. The $2.80 per hour for fires and other emergencies\nthat are the responsibility of another agency, will be for all work, not just\novertime. These rates may change before July 1, 1972. If they do, you will\nreceive an insert for the Fire Control Handbook stating the new hourly rate.\nAlso, it should be understood by everyone that on other than State fires, when\ncorpsmen are receiving the $2.80 per hour emergency rate, they will not receive\nthe $.60 per hour base rate. In other words, when corpsmen are dispatched to a\nUnited States Forest Service fire, floods, or other emergencies that are the\nresponsibility of another agency, they will receive the skilled firefighter rate,\nbut they will not receive the base rate of $.60 per hour.\nOn fires that are the responsibility of the Division of Forestry, the $2.80 per\nhour will be paid for overtime only and corpsmen will continue to receive the\n$.60 per hour for their regular 8 hours of work.\nAlso, beginning July 1, 1972, corpsmen will receive pay for only those hours\nworked. It will be necessary for each Center to keep records of the number of\nhours not worked by corpsmen for each day, to be submitted at the end of the\nmonth for payroll purposes.\nThe only emergency work or overtime that corpsmen will be engaged in that they\nwill not be paid for is search and rescue operations. This will have to be\nhandled by compensatory time off, except on very special occasions.\nIf you have any questions concerning the pay policy, please advise.\nJoe Griggp\nJoe E. Griggs, Administrator\nCalifornia Ecology Corps\nmn\ncc: All Districts\n-206-\nMIKE WITTEL*\nCCCO western region\nRegional Secretary\nDAVE McFADDEN\nField Secretary\nan agency for military and draft counseling\nROBERT S. RIVKIN\nStaff Attorney\n140 leavenworth street\nsuite 201\nWILLIAM H. LYNCH\nsan francisco ca 94102\n(415) 441-3700\nStaff Attorney\n28 March 1972\nAssemblyman Mike Cullen\nState Capitol Building\nSacramento, CA 95814\nDear Assemblyman Cullen:\nI recently read that your Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control\nwill be conducting hearings on the California Ecology Corps beginning\nApril 4.\nCCC0-Western Region has been working closely with conscientious\nobjectors in the Ecology Corps since its inception. We were largely\nresponsible for the questions raised at the Senate Finance Committee\nhearings on March 15. Our testimony and that of Corpsmen Nathanial\nStone are enclosed.\nWe feel that any hearings held should have the views of corpsmen\nrepresented, and we strongly urge you to ask that as many corpsmen\nas wish to be allowed to come to the hearings to present testimony.\nWe would also be glad to share our views with you and your committee.\nPlease let us know the time and location of the hearings.\nSincerely,\nKare Madden Dave McFadden\nencl.\n-207-\nNational Office: 2016 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19403\n(215) 568-7971\nMidwest Committee for Draft Counseling: 711 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, III. 60605\n(312) 427-3350\nSouthern Region: 734 Monroe Drive N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308\n(404) 874 0288\nSTATEMENT BY DAVE MCFADDEN, FIELD SECRETARY,\nWESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS\nTO DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SUBCOMMITTEE,\nCALIFORNIA SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE\nMarch 15, 1972\nMr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:\nAs Field Secretary of the Western Regional Office of the Central Committee for\nConscientious Objectors (CCCO) in San Francisco, I work daily with counselors,\nattorneys, and young men on various aspects of the draft law and regulations.\nCCCO, an Agency for Military and Draft Counseling, was founded in 1948. Its\nWestern Regional Office in San Francisco was established in 1966.\nSince the inception of the California Ecology Corps in April, 1971, and\nthe opening of its first center on July 1, I have been in close touch with\nconscientious objectors interested in the Corps, Corpsmen themselves, Ecology\nCorps and Conservation Department officials, and other interested persons. I\nhave visited all four centers of the CEC, and have talked at length with Corpsmen\nand state foresters. Based upon both our experience with conscientious objectors\nover the last 25 years, and our recent experience with the California Ecology\nCorps, we would like to make a few observations concerning the operations of\nthe Corps and the attitude of Corpsmen toward it. Although the Corps is now open\nto all male volunteers between the ages of 18 and 31, it was begun with\nconscientious objectors only, and it is this group of Corpsmen which I know best.\nThe overwhelming majority of Corpsmen with whom I have come in contact think\nthe California Ecology Corps is a great idea - and one that they hope will work.\nBut they are bitterly disappointed that the reality has not lived up to the\npromise. The criticisms they make -- and which I will attempt to detail in this\ntestimony -- are not made because they hope the Ecology Corps will fail. Rather,\nthey hope that such criticism will help make it an ECOLOGY Corps. The process\nof disillusionment pays a price. Since the Corps began, it has lost 61 CO volunteers\n-208-\nDave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972\n2\nout of a total work force of 130. What is wrong?\n1) THE CALIFORNIA ECOLOGY CORPS HAS NOT LIVED UP TO ITS PROMISE TO BE A FORCE\nTO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT.\nThe purpose of the California Ecology Corps, as outlined in Governor\nReagan's Executive Order of April 27, 1971, was three fold: 1) to aid in the\nmaintenance of the natural ecology and preservation of the beauty and natural\nresources of the state; 2) to assist in conservation and emergency projects for\nprotection of natural resources; and 3) to assist in fire prevention and fire\nprotection. To this date, the Corps has performed admirably in fulfilling\npurpose 3) and to some extent purpose 2). But there is little that can be\nshown to indicate that the California Ecology Corps is doing work to maintain\nand preserve the ecology and natural environment of the state of California.\nThe Corps can be most simply described as a renamed California Conservation\nCorps. The men in the Corps have done what honor inmates in the Conservation\nCamps always did: fight forest firest, clear brush, work on reforestation,\nfire prevention, and maintenance and construction of campsites. Since work is\naccepted on a contract basis with state and federal agencies, the criteria seem\nto be what work needs to be done and what money there is to do it -- rather than\nmaking decisions about projects according to ecology standards. There are even\nsome blatant examples of distinctly non-ecological projects performed by\nEcology Corpsmen; such as the Pacific Lumber Company logging road improvement\ncarried out at the Calaveras Center, the splitting of downed Redwoods and the\nclearing away of park equipment to allow the construction of a section of highway\nthrough the Redwoods at the Humboldt Center, the construction of rock and wire\ndams at the Inyo Center to improve fishing, and the improvement of deer feeding\nareas to improve hunting at the Tehama Center. Corpsmen at the different centers\nhave requested on many different occasions permission to engage in ecological\n-209-\nDave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972\n3\nwork but have always been turned down. It is time that it is recognized\nthat this program is not an ecology corps. Rather, as Director of the Corps\nJoe Griggs has said, \"the primary purpose of this program is to develop\norganized, well-trained wildland firefighters to use by the Division of\nForestry throughout the State.\"\n2) AS EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ECOLOGY CORPSMEN RECEIVE NEITHER\nCOMMENSURATE WAGES NOR BENEFITS FOR THE WORK THEY DO.\nThough employed by the State of California, Ecology Corpsmen are not\nregistered on the civil service rolls -- their salary of $40 per month plus\nroom and board is considered compensation. Thus benefits accorded to most\nstate employees to do not have to be paid. Ecology Corpsmen are not eligible\nfor Medi-Cal, nor for health or life insurance or retirement benefits accorded\nother employees of the State of California. Their only benefit is Workman's\nCompensation, as required by law. Two Ecology Corpsmen have died while employed\nby the Corps, and no compensation has been paid to their families. There are\nno benefits for Corpsmen with dependents -- nor are there facilities provided.\nSuch Corpsmen are also not eligible for welfare, because they work 40 hours\nper week. During the fire season Corpsmen are required to remain in camp\nwithin hearing distance of the fire whistle 24 hours per day five days per week.\nForesters in ssimilar situations receive \"premium pay\" for such alert duty.\nCorpsmen receive only overtime pay ($2.80 per hour if over eight hours) for\ntime actually spent on the fire. And if they are called out but not used, even\nif bussed 2 hours to a fire site, they receive no compensation. The $40 per\nmonth presently paid to Corpsmen includes no provision for \"severance pay\" when\nthey leave the Corps and have to find other jobs.\nFalse hopes regarding higher wages have continually been raised. An\nattempt was made to get money from the federal Emergency Employment Act to\nraise wages to the $1.60 per hour federal minimum, but this did not occur. The\n-210-\nDave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972\n4\npersistent rumor that wages would be raised to 60, per hour (or $100 month\nminimum) has constantly cropped up -- and is finally supposed to be implemented\nJuly 1. Overtime fire pay, raised from 30¢ to $2.80 per hour February 1, in\nmany cases has not yet been paid.\nIt would not seem to be too much to ask that Ecology Corpsmen, performing\nwork in lieu of military service, should receive pay which would provide a\n\"standard of living reasonably comparable to that of a man in the armed forces\"\n(Selective Service Regulation 1660.6), Base pay for a private, E-1 in the Army\nis now $288 per month plus room, board, and numerous benefits.\n3) PRESENT REGULATIONS AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN MANY CASES ARE AN UNWARRANTED\nAND UNNECESSARY RESTRICTION OF PERSONAL FREEDOMS.\nEcology Corpsmen are told they must abide by all regulations of the\nCalifornia Division of Forestry, even though they are not considered employees\nof the State for wage and benefit purposes. California Division of Forestry\nemployees in charge of the centers can determine if corpsmen are performing\n\"according to Ecology Corps standards.\" If the standards are not met by the\nindividual corpsman or his conduct is in violation of Corps rules and regulations,\nhe may be dismissed from the Corps. Periodic inspections of living quarters and\nfood facilities are made to insure compliance. \"Ecology Corps standards\" include\nno drugs or alcoholic beverages on the premises; no women allowed in the barracks,\nor in the camp after 10 p.m. or after dark in one center; hair length must be\nabove the collar with short sideburns, trimmed mustaches, and no beards. While\nsome of these regulations may be reasonable, they have been abused and the\ndiscretionary power vested in the CDF officials has been an infringement of the\nrights of Corpsmen on numerous occasions. The rationale for hair length, for\nexample, has always been safety. But corpsmen are not allowed to let it grow\neven during the winter months when there are no fires to fight. One corpsman\nat the Calaveras Center was fired when his wife moved to Angeles Camp to be\n-211-\nDave McFadden on Califernia Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972\n5\nable to spend more time with him.\nThere have recently been two Corpsmen papers, to aid in communication\namong the centers and to encourage thought among the Corpsmen -- The Humboldt\nHash of the Humboldt Center, and Angels C.O. Ment of the Calaveras Center. Angels\nC.O. Ment was discontinued by the Corpsmen because they \"did not feel it\nrepresented how they felt.\" Each issue was censored by the center director\nbefore publication. The Humboldt Hash was published independently of the\nHumboldt Center. But staff members of the Hash have been threatened with\n\"separation\" from the center for publishing editorials and articles which were\ncritical of the administration and operation of the Ecology Corps. Although\nthese threats have been countermanded from higher up, the implication remains.\nMeals are budgeted at a cost of $.536 per man per meal -- and no allowance\nis made for higher prices at different centers. Each center seems to be run\ndifferently in terms of food. Some centers go over their budgeted amount, and\nhave plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables for the vegetarian corpsmen, and\nother centers have little fresh produce, and allow fresh milk only at breakfast.\nStarch is a major component of the diet at all centers.\nEach present center formerly housed 80 inmates - in barracks situations,\nwith little room or privacy and little storage space for personal belongings.\nThe same situation exists today for the Corpsmen. There are too many men and not\nenough room.\n4) CORPSMEN ARE ALLOWED LITTLE CHANCE TO DISCUSS THEIR GRIEVANCES, OR TO CONTROL\nDAY TO DAY OPERATIONS IN THE ECOLOGY CORPS CENTERS.\nAt the beginning of the Corps, the administration promised that there\nwould be meetings at each center to discuss operational rules, projects,\nrecreational needs, food and other common concerns. The impression was that the\nCorpsmen would have some say over their own living situations. Common meetings\namong corpsmen of the various centers and department of Conservation and Forestry\n-212-\nDave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972\n6\nofficials were also promised. Individual center meetings have in fact been\ninfrequent, and have never been more than gripe sessions: Corpsmen do not have\nany say over the day-to-day operations, but rather follow orders of the foremen.\nA Corps-wide meeting of representatives from each camp has never been held,\nalthough it has been promised for 7 months. There is no grievance procedure\nthat is established or uniform, and certain petitións have never been afforded\nthe courtesy of a reply. For example, December 27 petitions from each Ecology\nCenter, with over 100 signatures of Corpsmen, asking Director Stearns to\nraise wages have never been answered. The scheduled corpsmen meeting has been\nspecifically set to exclude the following topics of discussion: hair regulations,\nclothing regulations, barracks regulations, work hours, choice of work, food.\nIf any corpsman raised one of these issues, the meeting would be over.\nIN SUMMARY:\nThe California Ecology Corps is seen by most Corpsmen as an exciting\npossibility, but at the moment only that. In order for it to live up to\nits promise, a few basic changes need to be made: 1) Either ecological and\nenvironmental projects should be instituted, or the name Ecology Corps should\nbe dropped and Conservation or Forestry Corps substituted; 2) Corpsmen deserve\nto be treated as other employees of the State of California, with corresponding\nfair wages and benefits; 3) Regulations and working conditions need to be\nchanged to recognize that corpsmen are not prisoners, but free men doing a job;\n4) Corpsmen should be furnished a grievance procedure, and a chance to meet\nwith each other and forestry officials to discuss common concerns.\nIf these changes are made, we are confident that the Corps can yet be a\nforce for the protection of the environment of the State of California.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDave McFadden\nCCCO-Western Region\n140 Leavenworth Street\n-213-\nSan Francisco, CA 94102"
}