Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564950",
    "label": "[Ecology] - Review of the California Ecology Corps (hearing before Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (2 of 3)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564950"
}

{
    "id": "118564950",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564950",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Ecology] - Review of the California Ecology Corps (hearing before Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (2 of 3)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564950",
    "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-P34-012-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-012-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-012-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564950",
    "naId": 118564950,
    "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-P34-012-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "954aaf90f48b125a",
    "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) (2 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/\nWhen I was talking with committee staff this morning and\nwas asked a question that, at that time I didn't have the answer\nto it and the question was, you know, why all the gripes? You\nknow, if people don't like a regular employee, if he doesn't like\nthat job situation, you know, he simply, you know, he either just\nleaves. And so I'd address myself just to this point. I wrote\nup a statement over noon and I don't have copies. I'll try to get\ncopies to you. (Appendix E)\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: We'd like to hear it. Proceed with your\nfirst statement.\nMR. WHITE: As Mr. Stearns pointed out, a major function\nof the Corps is to create a force of trained wildland fire\nfighters to replace the dwindling supply of inmates in the conser-\nvation camp program, I think is clearly understood. In order to\njustify this investment in training volunteers as fire fighters,\nthe Corps' administrators have also asked volunteers to commit\nthemselves for a six month period in the Corps. And forestry\npersonnel have talked - that I have talked with, have observed\nit took even a longer time. It takes a full fire season at least\nto properly train a fire fighter and that only after two sea-\nsons, does one really become a proficient fire fighter. I\nthink that was the statement on the conservation camp program that\nthe people in that are one of the best fire fighting forces in the\ncountry because they are well trained and they have been in the\nprogram for a while.\nIf allowed to go on it would seem highly advantageous to\noffer corpsmen a program sufficiently attractive to encourage re-\n-64-\nenlistment after the six months, if not at least to insure\nvolunteers will stay in the Corps for the initial six month period.\nVolunteers, speaking both for C.O.'s and the regular volunteers,\nright now a majority of C.O.'s as well as some volunteers have\ngiven up all hope of any corrective change occurring in the Corps\nand are almost ready to abandon the thing. I don't know whether\n.\nthis is true or not. Sometimes I have feelings like everyone\nis ready to abandon the Corps and other times I see a ray of hope.\nAnd, you know, the Corps is very definitely worth preserving and,\nyou know, we should, you know, work to make the changes.\nAnd, the question, you know, back to the question and that's\nI don't think that the corpsmen are asking, you know, these problems\nbe handled by their taking control of the administrative aspects\nof the program. And I think that's unrealistic and I don't think\nthey are asking that.\nI think what they are asking is they be given an opportunity\nto express their viewpoints and to make positive suggestions like\nwe have tried to make in the petition to the Corps administrator\nso that they can work together. We can work for responsible change\nin the program. I think all of us want to see the Corps work,\nthe administrator and the corpsmen.\nAnd now back to the question that I talked with committee staff\nabout and that is normally there are two avenues through which an\nemployee can protest unsatisfactory working conditions. They\ncan either talk to their people above them and express their dis-\nsatisfaction with the problems, about the problems, and hope that\na solution can be reached. And if that doesn't accomplish anything,\n--65-\nthen they can leave. They have the option of leaving us and\nfinding a better job. And I don't think at the present time that\neither of these avenues are really available to corpsmen and, I\nthink, this is why there is frustration in the situation.\nI think, you know, this is what they are. I would ask for\nat least a chance and what I'm asking for is that avenues be made\navailable to them.\nAs I said, most of the frustration felt by corpsmen is\nbecause of lack of contact and lack of response from administrators\nin the Corps. Primarily lack of contact where contact has been\nmade in grievances expressed to top administrators, there has\nbeen some, you know, hope of change. I think primarily when you\nare out - I know I speak from personal experience. When you\nare out in the field, the policy decisions that are made in Sacramento\nare a long way away from, you know, you and you have no real access\nto them.\nI personally came down twice last summer on my days off to\ntalk about change and I was very - I talked to Mr. Stearns and\nJerry Newton and, you know, I was --- felt like there was a chance.\nOne of the things we talked about was getting together corps-wide\nmeetings to discuss some of the problems and I felt that was a\nvery positive thing. Those meetings, by the way, have not been\ninstituted. And after the last hearing, the Senate Finance Committee\nhearing, Mr. Griggs said that they would not be instituted; that\nthere would no longer be any.\nI was very disappointed in that when he made that statement.\nSo that, you know, there hasn't been the ability or availability\n-66-\nof - for corpsmen to reach and talk to the top administrators,\nthe ones that can change the program unless they are at least\nthere.\nThere hasn't been a recognized program. A few individuals\nhave gone and talked to them, but not any organized program as\nsuch.\nAnd the second option that most of them have, that of\nquitting the jobs, you know, that if conditions are intolerable,\nisn't available really on a realistic basis to most of the --\neither the corpsmen or the volunteers at the present time. The\nvolunteers that are coming into the program until - well, in\nthe past they were in the past largely C.O.'s and while they had\nthe option in one sense of not going in, they had to find some\nsort of alternate service employment and I think many of them\ndid go into the Corps. I know myself personally I went in with\nthe hopes if it wasn't an Ecology Corps, that it would become an\nEcology Corps and the work would be a vital contribution. The\nconservation work is a valid contribution.\nBut once in the Corps, in order to leave the Corps you have\nto petition or ask for permission to leave the Corps and as Mr.\nStearns said, this is being granted, you know, where there are\nextenuating circumstances. But it isn't granted across the board.\nI have a personal friend at Calaveras that found another\njob in Oakland working with a -- driving a truck for a breakfast\nprogram down there that was approved by the State Selective\nService Director. The director of C.O. work, Paul - Mr. McCann,\nand he said it was approved on the basis that you get a release from -\n-67-\nhe was at the Calaveras Camp and he went back, did talk to Mr.\nPeterson. Mr. Peterson wouldn't grant him a release and so he\ndebated what he should do. And finally ended up quitting, taking\nthe chance of being prosecuted, and went into the other job. As\nit turned out, there was no prosecution. They have approved\nthe other job. But, you know, he was forced, you know, to take\nthat chance and the jail threat that hung over him.\nWith corpsmen there is a problem and I think it does\nprevent most corpsmen from just going out and finding a better job.\nStill, at the same time, many of them are doing exactly this,\ntaking a chance and finding other jobs. In some cases I think\nsome of the administrators are very freely letting corpsmen leave\nif they find a job and I think that's good.\nIn a personal case again, my present roommate was on special\nassignment down to the Department of Conservation also working with\nthe administrative aid. Since that type of position he found\nanother job with HRD that p d $700 a month that was approved by\nthe Selective Service and they released him and let him go into\nthe program, which I think should be the case with all C.O.'s if\nthey would allow them to be released, assuming that they are\ngoing into other alternate service. And that should be a question\nnot dealt with by the -- with the department or the Ecology Corps\nadministration, but should be left up to the Selective Service.\nIf Selective Service -- if this is agreeable to them, then I think\nthat should be turned over to them.\nThe other volunteers that are now in the program, most of\nthem are being recruited from the unemployed young men and they don't\n-68-\nhave a real option either, I don't think, because many of them\ndon't have a real option either, I don't think, because many of\nthem don't have skills. The present job situation keeps them\nfrom going out and finding a -- without skills, finding a job\nreadily and so they don't have a real option.\nThey either have the option of welfare or the Corps and\none corpsman, I don't have his name, but I talked to at Humboldt,\nyou know, said he was getting fat on welfare so he thought he would\ntry the Corps for a bit. And I think that's admirable because he's\ngoing to lower pay.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Mr. Carlson will probably request a\nhundred copies of that statement.\nMR. WHITE: Another thing, and I don't know what the case\nis, and I think that this - but I know of -- of one case at the\nTehama Ecology Center that I interviewed and I have heard of several\nother cases at the Inyo Ecology Center, of a person, young man\nthat was on -- was given the option of - he was up in - one was\nat Tehama and he was up for a sentence, criminal offense for\nevasion of driving tickets and he was given the option of either\nbeing put on probation or going into the Corps, and evidently this\nis being done in a number of cases more than I had expected, because\nI found - I heard about this also at Inyo.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: I'm going to have to pick up the pace\nbefore I start losing a couple of members. If you will conclude.\nMR. WHITE: So, they don't have a real option. And another\nthing I discovered, a friend of mine, his brother applied for the\nwork as a summer fire fighter and was told there are not many\n-69-\njobs available and was directed to join the Ecology Corps. So --\nand they don't have a real choice if they were to join the Corps\nfor the summer. And problems came up and they couldn't leave,\nthey wouldn't have the real choice of leaving the job to find\nother work because the jobs would already be taken. So that I\nthink that, you know, we need to change the conditions in the Corps\nso that these two options that most other employees have are\navailable.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right. You made your point there\nclear. Is that about it?\nMR. WHITE: That's about the sum of it.\nASSEMBLYMAN SEELEY: Just one question. What is your position?\nMR. WHITE: My position, I'm an ecology corpsman and I'm on\nspecial assignment as an assistant, a special assistant to the\nInformation Officer, Jerry Newton, to the Department of Conservation.\nAnd the work involves - has involved going out to the centers\nsome, going out to the centers, photographing the photographs that\nare on the attached sheets are one set I have taken, and going to\nthe centers photographing, doing the lay out on the news letter\nand other design jobs and some writing.\nASSEMBLYMAN SEELEY: Are you on the $40 a month salary?\nMR. WHITE: I'm on the $40 a month salary. Because I'm on\nspecial assignment, we are given $5 per day per diem to take care\nof living expenses down here in Sacramento.\nASSEMBLYMAN SEELEY: You ought to be in the Legislature. We\nget $30.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Do you know whether there are any other $40-\n-70-\na-month men in Sacramento?\nMR. WHITE: There was this other one, my roommate, and he's\nno longer - he's got this other job.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Are there any other witnesses that have\nanything to say?\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Can I ask a question?\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Excuse me. Just a minute. Mr. Wilson.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Yes. You indicated that people become\nmore proficient at fire fighting in their second year?\nMR. WHITE: This is what I was told when I was talking to\nsome of the forest fighters, forestry personnel.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Excuse me. Are the wages scaled up so\nthat a person would have an incentive to stay so that you would\nhave people coming into their second year? What I'm saying, do\nthe wages go up if you are there? The first year you get $40.\nIf you are there the second year, you get more, so they can retain\npeople, more skilled?\nMR. WHITE: As far as general policy, no. There is one\nopportunity and that is there is a pay difference between the Corps\nleaders. They have a position of Corps leader and Corps assistant\nleader, which an assistant leader gets $45 and a Corps leader gets\n$40 and -\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: No. You mean $50? Forty-five dollars and\n$50?\nMR. WHITE: Forty-five dollars and $50.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So then there is no increase in wages\nand, therefore, no incentive unless you go to a Corps leader.\n-71-\nIf you remain a corpsman and not a Corps leader, you would re-\nceive no wages, no increase in wages?\nMR. WHITE: None that I know of.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Young man, you may identify yourself.\nAPPEARANCE OF MR. RICHARD HANSON, CORPSMAN, INYO ECOLOGY\nCENTER.\nMR. RICHARD HANSON: My Name is Richard Hanson, Inyo Ecology\nCenter. I'm from Glenwood, Minesota. I was ordered here.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Excuse me. I want to interrupt. I\nthink we are finished with you three gentlemen, right? Okay. Would\nyou give up your seats and could I ask Major McCann, Mr. Griggs\nand Mr. Stearns to join us at the witness table.\nAPPEARANCE OF MAJOR WILLIAM D. McCANN, CHIEF, ALTERNATE SERVICE\nPROGRAM, CALIFORNIA HEADQUARTERS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, ACCOMPANIED\nBY MR. JAMES STEARNS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, AND MR.\nJOE GRIGGS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CALIFORNIA ECOLOGY CORPS.\nAll right. I intend to explore these men that have come in\nfrom out-of-state and, Major McCann, you are probably the best\nsource of authority as to the Selective Service Act.\nDo you recall what the food allowance is at any base or on\nboard any ship?\nMAJOR McCANN: I think the compensation given is $40, $45\nper month.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Well, I'm talking about the commissary\nstewards who expect to feed 150 men.\nMAJOR McCANN: I have never been in the Navy. I don't know\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: I thought maybe in the Army -\nMAJOR McCANN: I'm in the Air Force. I'm in the Air Force\nand I can't answer that.\n-72-\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right, sir, from Minnesota. Could\nyou tell us in some detail how the California Ecology Corps came\nto your attention and what alternatives were presented to you and\nby whom?\nMR. HANSON: As it worked out, after I finished my two years\nat a vocational school, I graduated from Alexander in Minnesota.\nI applied for my conscientious objector status and received it in\nSeptember, the middle of September, 1971. And then at that time I\nwas told that I would be given 30 days to find alternate service\nand present it to the local board, which they would decide whether\nit was appropriate or not.\nWell, I worked quite extensively trying to find a job. I\nwent to the state hospitals and they were telling me that funds\nwere being cut short and they were actually having to lay people\noff. I tried many different areas and was unable to come up\nwith a job.\nSo then I left it to them to find me a job, which was only -\nthe only alternative I had. And they came, I believe, it was in\nDecember and told me that the only opening that they had in the\nState for a conscientious objector was in -- was the Ecology Corps\nin California. And they said that -- well, I asked them if there\nwas anything else. They said no. This is the place we have got and\nwe are sending all of the C.O.'s there.\nAnd this was the only option I was given. It was said\nthat I was supposed to be given three options. I was not. They\ntold me that the only thing that -- they said I had a choice.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: When you say they, will you tell us who?\n-73-\nMR. HANSON: The local draft board. My papers, which were\norders, the information was okayed by the State Selective Service.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Were you talking to the secretary at the\nfront desk or to the chairman of the Board, or to whom?\nMR. HANSON: To the Selective Service secretary in our\ncounty and she told me that I - either I could either volunteer\nor I would be ordered. You know. That was my choice. I had to\neither volunteer or they'd order me here.\nSo that was the situation. It was cut and dired that I\nwould be going and that was the only alternative I had was to do\nthat. Otherwise if I refused to do it, then it would be like re-\nfusing an order to go into the military and I would be under the\nsame circumstances as that.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Who paid you passage?\nMR. HANSON: Being that I couldn't personally afford that,\nI was given a bus ticket and food tickets and I came out here on\nthe bus.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Who's going to pay your way back?\nMR. HANSON: I don't believe that there is any provisions for\npaying.\nMAJOR McCANN: There is.\nMR. HANSON: There may be. I haven't been notified of it,\nanyway.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: That is very interesting.\nMR. HANSON: All I wanted to re-emphasize is my support\nfor the petition and the feeling that it's unanimous at our camp\nthat these things must be resolved if the Corps is going to continue\n-74-\nas a satisfactory program. And if it was mentioned today that\nthe minimum wage, they, you know, feel that we should have the\nminimum wage, then I feel they should work for it and see that\nwe get it because the food -- if we got more money we could\nsupplement the extra food if we can't increase the food budget.\nAnd I think the pay and the overall thing would keep a better morale\nand conditions at the center.\nAnd the thing is, I feel real bad, there's people that\nhave been there from the beginning of it that have just - I mean,\nthey are just leaving, just steadily every week. There's more\nand more that are just leaving there trying to find other jobs\nto out of there. There is very few that feel any hope that they'll\nfinish all their time there. They just - you know, it's not\nsomething that they can really take pride in and enjoy and say\nthey are proud of it.\nSo, some of these things that we've mentioned, if they can\nbe brought about, I feel would make the program quite a successful\nthing and I personally feel that until these things come about\nto expand it and start more ecology centers and everything would\njust be wrong and the directors of the things can, you know, come\nup and make statements and everything and say that everything is\nall right. But we live there everyday and we know what it's like\nand these things are just coming to the point of just frustration\nand intolerability.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right, sir. We'll accept your endorse-\nment of the petition. I want to get back to Minnesota, the earlier\nwitness. Do you have a question, Mr. Wilson?\n-75-\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: I have been assuming throughout that your\nnet pay is $40 per month. Is that correct, or do you have things\ntaken out of that?\nMR. HANSON: No. It is just one flat check with no deductions\ntaken out of it.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: What is your colleague's name? What is\nyour name again?\nMR. BONANDER: Mark.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Would you run over again the conversation\nyou had with your draft board. Was it with the secretary or a\nmember of the Board?\nMR. BONANDER: Well, it was with, I don't know. The assistant\nto the State Director, I guess.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: And -\nMR. BONANDER: I asked him for job opportunities and, well,\nhe sent me, I don't know, a stack of things.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: What do you mean by stack?\nMR. BONANDER: Pages.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Pages of available jobs in Minnesota or\nthroughout the nation?\nMR. BONANDER: In Minnesota. I also contacted other states.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: When did the idea of California Ecology\nCorps come to your attention?\nMR. BONANDER: Well, they sent me a pamphlet and told me --\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Who's they?\nMR. BONANDER: Well, the assistant to the State Director of -\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right.\n-76-\nMR. BONANDER: Selective Service. And they told me, well,\nthis would probably be the best thing. Well, I looked and looked\nfor a job and found nothing. So, I went back and talked to them\nand he said, well, California Ecology Corps would be the best\nplace.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: I see.\nMR. BONANDER: Well, see, I had a time limit, too. I,\nyou know, they give you, you know, they are kind of, well, how\nwould you say, strict, I guess. They want you to perform your\nduty or your alternate service as quick as possible.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: But you weren't told in so many words\nlike your colleague that you either volunteered or they would\norder you regardless?\nMR. BONANDER: Well, I -\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Explicitly. Were you told as he was that\nwe could either volunteer or they'd order him?\nMR. BONANDER: No. I wasn't told that either I join or I'd\nhave to be ordered here.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right. Now, you were in the - near\nthe capitol. You were talking to the Minnesota State Director?\nMR. BONANDER: Mainly the assistant.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Whereas your colleague was talking to the\nlocal draft board?\nMR. BONANDER: Yes.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right. Let's turn to Major McCann.\nAs you presume, Major, it has come to the attention of the Legislature\napparently for the first time that the California Ecology Corps has\n-77-\na number of corpsmen from out of state and I'll find out how\nmany later, but what are the applicable federal laws with respect\nto cutting orders, sending a man from one state to another such as\nCalifornia in order to fulfill his federal obligation?\nMAJOR McCANN: There's no restriction in the Selective\nService law to restrict a man to perform his alternate service in\nthe state where he is from anymore than there is a law in the\nSelective Service law that says a person who's going to serve in\nthe armed forces must serve in his home state.\nAt the present time in California we have approximately\n1,000 out-of-state conscientious objectors performing their al-\nternate service in this state, which we are responsible for their\ntwo years of service. Conversely to that, we have a number of\nCalifornia boys who are serving their alternate service in other\nstates.\nThe men who come to California to serve their alternate\nservice, of course, come here under an order. In the Selective\nService law, Congress stipulated that there really are two types\nof service that young men can perform. He can either perform\nmilitary service or alternate service. Both types of service\nare parallel except that the man who is classified as a conscientious\nobjector can perform this work in some kind of a non-profit tax-\nexempt organization, either governmental or private.\nThe conscientious objector is given an opportunity to find\nhis own work that he would prefer to perform. Now, he is given a\ncertain amount of time to do this. Now, in this state we are quite\nliberal in this aspect. We give them as much time as we can to\n-78-\nplace them in work that they feel they could perform to the best\nadvantage. After a certain period of time, however, it becomes\nnecessary, the state director has the obligation to assign that\nman to an alternate service job. He must do this. If the man\nhimself either doesn't choose to find his own work or cannot, he\nmust be then assigned.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: And may he be assigned anywhere in the\nnation?\nMAJOR McCANN: He may with concurrence of the state director\nof that particular state. Now, we have a policy that we must\nmake sure it's an acceptable organization.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Do you keep records on those approximate\n1,000 C.O.'s, approximately, assigned to alternate jobs in\nCalifornia?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes, I do.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Do you know how many are assigned to\nCalifornia Ecology Corps?\nMAJOR McCANN: And I'm guessing becuase I didn't check\nbefore I came over here. I'd say between 40 and 50 C.O.'s. Now,\nthat's a question on my part.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Do you keep any statistics as to compen-\nsation afforded these C.O.'s in these various jobs?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes. The compensation spreads over a tremendous\nrange.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Are there many as low as 25 cents?\nMAJOR McCANN: There's some as low as zero on strictly\nvolunteer-type jobs. Actually, in California, we have approximately\n-79-\n1800 agencies that employ conscientious objectors.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Would you order a conscientious objector\nto an agency or an association where the compensation was zero?\nMAJOR McCANN: No.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Would you order them to one where the\ncompensation was 10 cents an hour?\nMAJOR McCANN: I would like to state that where there are\nthe essentials available for that man to receive food, lodging,\nmedical care, and a certain amount of compensation, those are\nessential. We have, for example, ordered people to Goodwill Industries,\nwhere the compensation may be as low as $60 a week. Now, this --\nlet's take for an example this man working in the Bay Area for that\namount of money. He may be making more in the pocket than a young\nman in the California Ecology Corps, but he really is not receiving\na comparable amount of compensation when you figure he has to\nprovide for his lodging, his food, et cetera.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Mr. Wilson.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Yes. I'm sorry. It was stated by one\nof the witnesses that the quarters were worth about a dollar a day.\nMAJOR McCANN: I'm sorry. What was that?\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: That the quarters were worth about a\ndollar a day.\nMAJOR McCANN: Well, let's put it this way. Before we\napprove an organization to be a participating employer in the al-\nternate service program, we conduct an investigation of it to make\nsure it meets the criteria established under the law and regulations.\nBefore we assign a conscientious objector to the California Ecology\n-80-\nCorps I personally visited the ecology centers. In addition to\nthis, I asked Dr. Curtis Tarr, Director of the Selective Services,\nto come out and also take a look at the ecology centers.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: What value per day would you place on\nthe quarters?\nMAJOR McCANN: I would say that it's certainly better than\na dollar a day or a dollar a month. What was it?\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: It's not like a Motel Six?\nMAJOR McCANN: Most certainly would not be. But it's cer-\ntainly as good as I had in the Air Force when I first went into the\nAir Force.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Was it like a ski lodge at Lake Tahoe?\nMAJOR McCANN: I'd say it's like a ski lodge, as good as\na ski lodge at Lake Tahoe. I'd classify them as fairly deluxe\nfacilities as far as living accomodations go.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: What you are saying, the way I under-\nstand it, is that a person in San Francisco, say, making $500\na month, he's really not getting as much money as a person that\nis getting $40 a month?\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Excuse me, Mr. Wilson, he said $60 a\nweek in San Francisco and not $500 a month.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: I see. Because there was someone that\ngot $700 a month along the way.\nMAJOR McCANN: That's right. I say there's a considerable\nrange in compensation in this program. I'm taking a man who has\nbeen -- could be ordered to a job that paid as low as $60 a week\nin Palo Alto, let's say. His living accomodations, I would assume,\n-81-\nwould not be as high as a man who's in the Ecology Corps.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: I wanted to ask you a couple of\nquestions. The way I understand the draft law is that if a\nperson is classified as a C.O. and then his number does not come\nup in the year in which he's eligible, then that person is not\nrequired to do alternate service. Is that correct?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's correct. He's treated exactly as\na man treated in Class 1-A and would be eligible for military\nservice.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: If a person had a number of 301 and\n95 was the highest number reached, then that person with the 301\nnumber would never be required to have alternate service?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's correct-\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So that in most respects, people who\nare C.O.'s are treated the same as people who would go into the\nactive military except when they are to be paid. Is that correct?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's not exactly correct either. The\nSelective Service law states that there should be an effort made\nto - now, this is the new regulations. This is not the law.\nThis is the Selective Service regulations.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Is this local board memorandums?\nMAJOR McCANN: No. This regulations is a Selective Service\nregulations that there should be an effort made to provide a\nconscientious objector with as closely as possible a comparable\nstandard of living that an entering man would have going into the\narmed forces. This is a waiverable provision, however, by the\nstate director mainly because it's absolutely impossible to create\n-82-\nan exactly parallel situation for alternate service with that of\na man in the armed services.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: I understand that, but since the\nmilitary pay raise and since the rates for military have gone up\nconsiderably, are you now looking for different alternate service\nwhich will reflect the degree to which the military pay went up?\nMAJOR McCANN: No.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So then you are not carrying out\nwhat the regulation says?\nMAJOR McCANN: And I said we are. It's as near as possible\na parallel standard of living. However, this is a waiverable\nposition by the state director of Selective Services. If he feels\nthat a particular job is in the national interest or it's - he's\nrequired to place conscientious objectors in alternate service.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Let me ask you this. A person in the\nmilitary, an E-5, after two years, how much would that person be\nmaking?\nMAJOR McCANN: Sorry. I don't have the pay scales for an\nE-5. I can't answer that.\nThe beginning, the entering private, is approximately $288\na month.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: That's $288?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: And then he would get in addition to the\n$288, I assume, this same type of accommodation, the same type of\nfood these people get?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's correct.\n-83-\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So that person in the military is\ngetting approximately $250 a month more?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes. But he may be in combat also.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: How much more does he get if he is in\ncombat, major?\nMAJOR McCANN: About $50 a month.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: I think then here the risk to a person's\nwell being might be greater in a fire fighting situation than it\nmay be, say, stationed in Saigon, for example.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: You don't have to respond to that. That's\nnot a question.\nAnymore questions?\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Yes. I wanted to ask one more thing.\nIt was brought out earlier that the regulation calls for no\nnational camp for C.O.'s?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's incorrect.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: That's incorrect?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes, it is. You will not find that in the\nSelective Service laws or regulations or any directives.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Major, would you be willing to provide a\ncopy of the regulations applicable to alternate service.\nMAJOR McCANN: I'd be happy to.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: We'll probably incorporate it into the\nrecord. (Appendix F)\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Are you saying there's no limitations\nwhere a person can be sent if he is classified as a C.O.?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes, there is a -- C.O.'s cannot work for\n-84-\na profit-making organization. The organization must contribute\nin some way to the national health, safety, or interest.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Now --\nMAJOR McCANN: We wouldn't assign a C.O. to a subversive\norganization or a profit-making organization.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Is there any provision whereby the\nfederal government reimburses different agencies where these people\nare sent to work?\nMAJOR McCANN: No. No, sir. There's no provision for\nreimbursement. In other words, the employment arrangement is\ndirectly between the conscientious objectors who perform the work\nand the employer. It's very closely an employee-employer relation-\nship that would fit the situation.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So then you have a situation where\nif the federal government inducts a man into the military service,\nthe federal government pays for it?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's correct.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: If a man is a C.O., then the State of\nCalifornia pays for that man. Is that correct?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's correct. If he's assigned to the\nCalifornia Ecology Corps. If he's assigned to one of the other\norganizations, that organization will compensate him.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Now, does the State of California make\nreports to the Selective Service System as to the progress that\nthe person is making?\nMAJOR McCANN: We periodically request that the organization\nthat employs the C.O. tell us how he's doing and whether his work\n-85-\nis satisfactory and whether he will remain with the organization.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Now, does the State of California pay\nfor the preparation of these reports?\nMAJOR McCANN: The report consists of a form letter that\nwe mail that requires a check mark, so, I don't think the cost\nwould be very great.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: But the answer is no?\nMAJOR McCANN: Correct.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: How long are these people - if a person\nis ordered to the Ecology Corps in California, I assume he has\norders and he stays there a definite period of time. Is that\ncorrect?\nMAJOR McCANN: The period of alternate service is 24 months,\nthe same as the requirement for a man to serve in the armed forces.\nWhen a man is assigned to a job, we assume he will stay there for\n24 months. This doesn't -- isn't always the case because a great\nmany fellows are transferred from one particular job to another.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Now, did the Selective Service play\nany role in establishing the wage at $40 an hour in California?\nMAJOR McCANN: No.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Now, when these people come into the\ndraft board and they are contemplating becoming a conscientious\nobjector, are the wages that C.O.'s are paid, is that used as\na tool to discourage people from becoming conscientious objectors\nand joining the military where their pay would be seven or eight\ntimes higher?\nMAJOR McCANN: Absolutely not.\n-86-\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So they find out about the rate after\nthey become a C.O. Is that correct?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's not exactly true. I'm sure there's\nno requirement. The board will not hold back any information.\nAs a matter of fact, there are conscientious objectors in this\nstate that are making considerably more than a man would in the\narmed forces. It depends on the job.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Do you know what the average C.O.\nis paid?\nMAJOR McCANN: I think the average would run probably about\n$300 a month.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So people like Goodwill and the Ecology\nCorps are not the average thing?\nMAJOR McCANN: As I said, some organizations pay nothing.\nIt's strictly a voluntary job.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: But those people, the way I understand\nyour testimony, are not required to take a job that pays nothing?\nMAJOR McCANN: If they select the job themselves, they\nare -- can be assigned if they can prove to me that they have\na means to provide for their livelihood.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Well, what is the lowest amount of pay\nthat a person is required to accept?\nMAJOR McCANN: Well, I don't understand your question.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Well, I'm asking you what is the lowest\namount of pay that a person is required to accept? In other words,\nyou order some people to take certain types of jobs?\nMAJOR McCANN: Every man in the alternate service program is\n-87-\nunder an order. He's ordered just the same as the man given an\ninduction order to go into military service. So, every man is\nordered.\nConscientious objectors are given an opportunity to select\nthe work that they would prefer to perform. They are given a\nperiod of time to do this. If they - they find a job and they come\nto me and say I would like to do this, this is what I want to do,\nthe local board will then issue an order assigning him to that\nwork.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Well, what happens if a person goes\nout and he can't find any jobs that pay more than, say, $40 a\nmonth and he has three of those. Then is he ordered to choose\nfrom among the three?\nMAJOR McCANN: If he says, \"I would like to perform that,\"\nI'll assign him to the one that he requests if it meets all the\ncriteria under the law.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: If you take a pragmatic approach,\nlet's say, a person cannot go out and find any jobs that would\npay anymore than, let's say, $40 a month, he would like to make\nmore, obviously?\nMAJOR McCANN: Are you talking about $40 a month straight\nacross the board with no room and board, medical care, and the\nother necessities?\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Let me be more specific.\nMAJOR McCANN: What are you talking about?\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: I'm talking about a program analogous\nto you.\n-88-\nMAJOR McCANN: Now, wait. What I'm saying, the person\ngoes out. He can find three programs like this. He could not\nfind a program that would pay more. In other words, he is re-\nstricted to these, not because he wants these, but because of\nnecessity and that's the situation. Then you order from among the\nthree? Is that correct?\nMAJOR McCANN: Let me tell you how the Selective Service\nregulation works at this time. A man is issued an order to al-\nternate service. He is given a period of 60 days to locate a job\nthat he would want to perform. If he has something that looks -\nthat he's working on, he'll get extra time.\nThe Selective Service is required from the date that that\norder is issued, they are required to have him assigned within\n330 days. So, we can give him so much time, but after - when we\nfinally get down to the wire, we have to order him somewhere. We'll\norder him to a job if we are - if it is necessary, that is avail-\nable, and that meets their criteria that he will have the necessities\nof life provided to him. In other words, that he's going to have\na roof over his head and he's going to have plenty to eat and a\ncertain amount of compensation.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: But California, the way I understand\nit then, is in a position knowing full well that it is difficult\nfor C.O.'s to get jobs that pay very much to set their standards or\ntheir wage low because these people, once the alternatives are set,\nthen they will be ordered.\nMAJOR McCANN: Let's put it this way. There's 4,100 con-\nscientious objectors working in the state of California right now.\n-89-\nThe C.O.'s are finding jobs. It doesn't mean that the California\nEcology Corps is the only place that these fellows can go. The\nCalifornia Ecology Corps is only one employer in approximately\n1800 in the state where C.O.'s are working.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Well, let me interject - can -\nMR. McCANN: This isn't the only last ditch available\nfor every conscientious objector.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: No.\nMAJOR McCANN: Most of the conscientious objectors selected\nthe Ecology Corps.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: But what I'm saying is that it seems\nto me that the wages are inordinately low and it seems to me that\nthe reason that they are is because the people really don't have\nmuch of an available alternative of where they go. Therefore, the\nState of California is in a position where they can set the wages\nsuch as they have here at $40 a month.\nMAJOR McCANN: That's not really true.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Wait a minute, Major. The Chair rules\nthat's not within the competence of the witness. The witness\nhas just testified that the only criteria of the Selective Service\nis that the C.O. have a means of livelihood afforded by these\njobs. Now, as to whether or not the State of California is\narbitrarily setting the wages higher or low is really not the\nmajor's responsibility. You need not answer, Major.\nGo on, Mr. Wilson.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Well, it appears that I can't get my\nquestion answered, so I'll withdraw it.\n-90-\nMAJOR McCANN: I'll explain it.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: No. I don't think we're going to because\nMr. Wilson apparently has his view as to the State of California\nand you are not a member of the government of the State of California.\nMr. Seeley.\nASSEMBLYMAN SEELEY: This is not a question either and I\ndon't expect any answer. I sat here this afternoon listening to\nthe hearing and Mr. Wilson is getting off on something I think is\nentirely away from the case here. Now, there's been no indi-\ncation to me that any of these people are even earning their board\nand room or said how much work they are doing or if they are good\nworkers or anything. I think if we are going to argue about how\nmuch they are getting paid, we should make some determination whether\nthey are worth anything or not. I'd be hesitant to say they are.\nWhat are they getting?\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: One minute. Mr. Billett has a question of\nthe Major.\nMR. BILLETT: Major, I'd like to ask a couple of questions\nabout the Ecology Corps. Do I understand any alternative service\nincluding the California Ecology Corps requires the approval of\nthe California Selective Service System before it can become an\nalternatate service?\nMAJOR McCANN: A participating employer, is that what you\nare saying?\nMR. BILLETT: What I'm saying is an alternate service cannot\nbe open to C.O.'s until it has the approval of the Selective\nService Board of the State of California?\n-91-\nMAJOR McCANN: In the state of California, yes.\nMR. BILLETT: Okay. How does the director of the Selective\nService in the state of California obtain his position?\nMAJOR McCANN: He was - he is appointed by the President\nwith the recommendation of the Governor.\nMR. BILLETT: And how do the members of the local boards in\nthe state of California obtain their positions?\nMAJOR McCANN: They are selected by the superior court\njudges and their names are presented to the President and they\nare appointed.\nMR. BILLETT: With respect to local board members, is\nanyone else's approval required?\nMAJOR McCANN: I think you are getting beyond my expertise\nsince my area is not selecting local board members.\nMR. BILLETT: I'll withdraw that, sir.\nMAJOR McCANN: All right.\nMR. BILLETT: But the members of the local boards are appointed\nby the President and the director of the Selective Service in\nCalifornia is appointed by the President. Now, when the decision -\napparently you are in charge of the conscientious objectors?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's the alternate service program, yes.\nMR. BILLETT: How were you appointed to your position, Major?\nMAJOR McCANN: I was recalled to active duty from a Selective\nService unit, the Sacramento Reserve Unit, which is an organization\nof a few officers who are maintained on a standby basis for augmenting\nthe Selective Service System. I'm an active duty member of the\nUnited States Air Force.\n-92-\nMR. BILLETT: You were recalled to active duty from retire-\nment?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's correct.\nMR. BILLETT: Not at your request?\nMAJOR McCANN: That's right.\nMR. BILLETT: And by the Sacramento Local Board?\nMAJOR McCANN: No, not by the Sacramento Board. This was by\nthe Director of the Selective Service.\nMR. BILLETT: In Washington?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes.\nMR. BILLETT: Director Tarr?\nMAJOR McCANN: General Hershey at that time.\nMR. BILLETT: And did you have any choice in your assign-\nment?\nMAJOR McCANN: Yes.\nMR. BILLETT: I have no further questions.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right. Thank you very much, Major.\nWe'll excuse you and the two corpsmen at the table. And, now,\nMr. Griggs and Mr. Stearns have been anxious to respond. I thought\nyou might prefer to, after you heard the others testify. It\ngives you an idea of the particular interest of the members of the\ncommittee. At this point it occurs that the committee might ask\nyou or might ask the State Personnel Board to perhaps formulate\na structure, a pay structure that might be more in conformity\nwith prevailing conditions in California. Whether those conditions\nprevail among welfare recipients or the PEP Program or what-have-\nyou, I don't know; or what your attitude will be, although Mr. Griggs\n-93-\nis the most qualified man in the room today who has been quoted\nas leaning toward a minimum wage for these corpsmen.\nI also would like to make the observation that virtually\nall the testimony by corpsmen have been laudatory of the ob-\njectives of the program. Most of it has concluded by urging that\nthe program be expanded and, I think, this is surprising to\nMr. Seeley and me. I think we were expecting people to come in and\nsay it ought to be eliminated and destroyed as not being beneficial\nto California. But that hasn't been the case at all.\nNow, who wants to lead off? Mr. Stearns, you have opened.\nDo you want Mr. Griggs to get his licks in?\nMR. STEARNS: Well, there are relatively general suggestions,\nso let me begin to respond.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: All right.\nMR. STEARNS: Our initial thoughts we have in this way, we\nhave made some progress in the nine months on the basis of the dollars\nthat were available to us on a relatively broad basis. The funds\nof the State of California supports the wildland fire fighting\nefforts all over the state with about $43 million. In addition to\nthat, we have some reimbursement. Although the total bill is big,\nwe have tried, as other departments have tried, to buy the most\nwith those available dollars that we possibly could.\nInitially when the camps were empty we had available to us\nat that time the fire crew foremen that are the real key to leading\nmen safely in dangerous situations. The point was made that two\nyears training would be better. This is true, but the real fire\nexpertise and safety leading the crews are the fire crew foremen that\n-94-\nhave worked for the state for many years.\nWe funded it within our means, within the dollar ceiling\nthat we had, and the goal we set ourselves, which was, if at\nall possible, to develop a program that would sit as well within\nthe historic funding pattern that we have had as possible and\nto the greatest extent would be possible during -- outside of\nthe fire missions to generate enough reimbursement to the maximum\npossible extent to fund itself. We've moved toward that goal to a\ndegree.\nIn 1970-71, the pay was $40 a month. We did apply to the\nDepartment of Finance and got permission to use the emergency\nfunds for the emergency overtime as of February 1. The budget we\nhave under consideration for 1972-73 would raise the pay to $100.\nWe are making some progress there.\nI think the - as a rough figure out of this budget a total\ncompensation or the total cost of support of individual corpsmen\nwill be someplace in the neighborhood of $200 or $250 a month. We\nare making some progress. Mr. Griggs has said, and I'll say again,\nthat ultimately the goal should be a free labor force of all\nvolunteers, acceptable human beings, you know, at least a minimum\nwage.\nI have not chosen to make a dollar request of the Legislature\nthat would fund that at this time. We are moving steadily in that\ndirection.\nWe have found that the answer to Mr. Seeley's question, that\nthe work produced by these crews has been superior in respect to\nany other crews that the state has ever furnished or the federal\nagencies using them have had available to them. The representatives\n-95-\nof the federal agencies have some prepared statements. If your\ntime doesn't allow it, I would ask they be made a part of the record\nas though testified to. (Appendices G,H,I)\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: We'd appreciate it.\nMR. STEARNS: The work produced per man day has been between\none and a half and two times what you would ordinarily expect\nfrom a hand crew. So, there has been a tremendous amount of\ndedication of interest on the part of these men and it's hard\nwork. There's no question but what it's hard work. So, I would\nsay that my department goal is to reach that.\nI think we are moving toward it; that we have done quite\na bit toward achieving it in a very short period of time. We are\naccommodating a change now where initially we thought we were going\nto be able to supply the Corps through conscientious objectors in\nour initial concept just a year ago and our picture has changed very\nradically. We have every indication that at the $100 a month we're\ngoing to have a lot of young men who are going to want to do this.\nIn the area of welfare recipients, we are going to have to\nmake deals with the separate counties because this deals with un-\nmarried young men and with the exception of those 18, 19, 20 year\nolds who are still going to college and are welfare recipients\nunder the Aid to Dependent Children Program, there really aren't\nall that many who are actually state welfare people as individual\nunemployed males.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: What about the food allotment when there's\ninflation?\nMR. STEARNS: The food?\n-96-\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Over a period the price of food goes up.\nMR. GRIGGS: Well, we don't stick -\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Mr. Griggs.\nMR. GRIGGS: We don't stick to a regular meal cost. We've\nbeen in this business a long time. We know that food is important,\ngood substantial food, and we serve it in all the centers regard-\nless of the cost.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Well, how much is the cost?\nMR. GRIGGS: About 66 cents per meal average.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Mr. Wilson.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Yes. Mr. Stearns, how was the $40 a\nmonth figure derived?\nMR. STEARNS: It was arrived at from the dollars we had\navailable to us from the work projects we had under contract in addi-\ntion to the dollars available to the department for our basic fire\ncrew leading mission, which did not -- does not anticipate any pay-\nment of wages because it has been state inmates. And in the budget\nbreakdown we have here the dollars that I must be responsible for,\ngeneral fund dollars to provide hand crews and fire emergency fighters\nand to construct and maintain the fuel breaks that are a part of\nthat system, the water tanks and the access roads are all part of\nthe state fire defense system and are $814,000. The cost for 1972- 73\nwill be $1.2 million. Now the difference in reimbursement we\nanticipate from our contracts of $408,000 is the slack we have for\nthe amount of wages we can pay.\nI mentioned once before that on August 1st we will have\nenough work to do and anticipate having enough people available\n-97-\nto us that we'll be able to offer a health insurance program\nincluding a life insurance benefit.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Just one other question. I got the\ninference earlier that a person can come and apply to work for the\nState of California as a fire fighter?\nMR. STEARNS: Yes.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: And he would receive, let's just say\nhypothetically, $350 a month.\nMR. STEARNS: That would be about right, yes.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Now, that person can be told there\nare no jobs available and that the Corps is available. And it\nseems to me that eventually the state would be getting fire fighters\nfor a heck of a lot less than when there's a job available and they\ngo ahead and take it.\nMR. STEARNS: We are budgeted for exactly the same number\nof men for the seasonal fire fighters that we always have been\nand these are the jobs that you are mentioning. There are about\n1800 positions of those a year that require from two to four to six\nor seven months depending on the part of the state where the fire\nseason is. Typically they are boys that are over 17, 17 or\nmore, who go to work in a fire station when their school is out and\nreturn when the school term begins. So, we have a very high peak\nof the number of people available.\nThis has been over the years. It has been established good\nbusiness to automatically return a boy to his job the next year if\nhe has done satisfactorily in one year SO as a matter of practice\nmost of the seasonal fire fighters are returnees from the year before.\n-98-\nThey keep these for the three or four years they go to college,\nso of the 1800 positions we have some 400 or 500 new seasonal positions\navailable to us each year. Of that number, we set aside 200\nfor disadvantaged unemployed boys who are selected for us by the\nemployment office up and down the state. So, we now have maybe\n300 available openings each -- the beginning of each fire season.\nWe have many thousands of applications.\nSummer jobs for boys are very hard to find. So, the reason\nthat we offered that was we said we don't have this job available\nfor you, you know. You have 10 or 20 apply for each one, but\nyou can, if you are not planning to return to school on the 15th\nof September, take this as an alternative if you want some kind\nof a job.\nNow, on a net basis with, you know, where the board and\nroom are furnished, they could save part of the $100 depending\non things. It's just in lieu of sending them a letter and saying,\n\"We don't have any job for you.\nMR. GRIGGS: Mr. Wilson, it is an entirely different\nsituation between the ecology corpsmen and the fire fighters. A\nfire fighter is initially attached to a station and mans a fire\ntruck. These are not hand crews. The ecology corpsmen are trained\n15 man hand crews with no fire fighting equipment other than tools.\nWe have 276 fire stations to man in the state.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Okay. Mr. Billett.\nMR. BILLETT: Mr. Stearns, who has the day-to-day super-\nvision of the program? I'm asking that question assuming that\nit's Mr. Griggs, but I want to be clear.\n-99-\nMR. STEARNS: That is correct, yes.\nMR. BILLETT: Mr. Griggs, I'd like to ask some questions\nthen about our visits to Tehama Camp and to the Humboldt Camp.\nMR. GRIGGS: All right.\nMR. BILLETT: What procedure do you have to determine\nwhether there is an equity in terms of food, living conditions,\nand enforcement of regulations between the camps? How is that\nsupervised?\nMR. GRIGGS: That is supervised partly by me and partly\nby the Division of Forestry Conservation Camp Coordinator in the\nfive divisions of forestry districts, and, of course, the center\ndirectors.\nMR. BILLETT: Well, you mentioned a few moments ago in\nyour testimony that the food budget really is now up to 66 cents\nper man, per meal?\nMR. GRIGGS: That's an average of what we are spending.\nMR. BILLETT: That is per meal?\nMR. GRIGGS: That is the average of what we are spending.\nWe don't have any firm budget.\nMR. BILLETT: Well, now the gentleman -- the corpsman who\nappeared here from the Inyo Center testifed that it's running\nsomewhere around 53.6 cents.\nMR. GRIGGS: That's entirely possible that that center main-\ntains its average at 56 cents there.\nMR. BILLETT: Let me then ask you this question. I'm going\nto draw some comparisons that I witnessed myself.\nAt the Tehama Center, the director of the camp, Mr. Cartwright,\n-100-\ntold us that he is spending in fact about 55 and a half cents\nper meal per day. They were not permitted to have fresh milk\nin the quantity they wanted. They were not supplied fresh fruit.\nTheir meals, we ate lunch and dinner, consisted primarily of potatoes,\nnoodles. They were good. They were well prepared, but they were\nstarch-base meals. There was a restriction in terms of the quantity\nof food that a corpsman was provided.\nNow, compare that to Humboldt. At the Humboldt Center\nagain we were there for two meals. They had milk, three meals a\nday, in whatever quantity they wished to consume. They had granola\nfor which they are spending $65 a hundred pounds to provide for\nbreakfast. They had special vegetarian meals prepared in a wok\nwith brown rice and fresh vegetables. When they were ready to go\nout on the grade in the morning they had an opportunity to make as\nmany sandwiches as they wished to carry with as many kinds of\nmeats as you and I could ever wish to have at any lunch we con-\nsumed.\nThe fresh fruit included bananas, and pineapples, and\noranges, and grapefruit. I looked at receipts from a local dairy,\n$220 a week. That included whole milk, skim milk, yogurt.\nThe gentleman from Inyo indicated that he is purchasing\nvitamin supplements. The camp director at Tehama said vitamin\nsupplements could not be provided, but at Humboldt they are, par-\nticularly an unlimited quantity of Vitamin C tablets which many\nof the corpsmen wish to have.\nAt the Tehama Camp the sideburns could not be longer than\n-101-\nyour lobe of your ear. Your hair could not be longer than your\ncollar as per Division of Forestry. At Humboldt not only the\ncorpsmen, but the Division of Forestry employees themselves were\npermitted to wear hair in excess of those regulations.\nAt Tehama the men had no means of their own to spend spare\ntime in the city of Red Bluff. There was no transportation, no\nmeans for transportation. At Humboldt, though, they were per-\nmitted to use State vehicles to travel to Eureka for spare time.\nI think I recounted to you the incident at Humboldt where\nthe - at the evening meal not only did they serve a meal with the\nbrown rice and vegetables and roast beef and homemade cake and,\nyou know, more food than you and I could afford to have on our own\ntables, probably; but, in addition, a group of corpsmen whom we\nvisited were presented with macaroni salad, potato salad, and\nhamburgers and they went and had a very nice picnic, a very nice\nsocial event.\nMy question, in light of all this, where is the standardization\nof regulations? Even the living conditions were different at\nHumboldt Camp. They had divided cubicles with standing foot lockers.\nAt Tehama they were specifically prohibited from dividing and they\ndidn't have standing foot lockers at all. They had lockers,\nthe four foot standing locker.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Let me change the question. It's not\nwhere are the regulations. Are there uniform regulations?\nMR. GRIGGS: There are in the center.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: And are they uniform for each center?\nMR. GRIGGS: Yes.\n-102-\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: What's the name of the agency that runs\nthe Tehama Center?\nMR. GRIGGS: I think Mr. Billett went to both places at\nthe wrong times.\nMR. BILLETT: I went unannounced.\nMR. GRIGGS: You weren't unannounced at Humboldt. You\nthought you were.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: I don't know whether there is a center\nthere or not.\nMR. STEARNS: This matter of standardization is a difficult\none, really, to administer. You have the option or I do as the\ndepartment director to decree every last little tiny thing in\nwriting out to everybody where things have to be met or you give\nyour center directors just as much opportunity they have. After\nall, they are the ones that are responsible to run a happy camp\nand to get the work done and so forth.\nThe things that Mr. Billett has mentioned indicate some\nneed for some standardization, yes, but in large organizations I\nthink that you could find in almost any part of the state of\ngovernment where the same kind of variation might apply.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Well, he was suggesting the overall\ncontrast. We are not about to suggest here cutting regulations,\nsterner or tightening up a little bit in terms, or loosening\nup. I don't know what we are about to suggest.\nYou have given testimony that these young men are perhaps\none and a half to two times as efficient as your regular crews. I\ndo have this spot. We'd like to get a report onto the free con-\n-103-\nference budget committee by May 15th. You've expressed a de-\nsire to bring this 340 man Corps up to its optimum. I would\nvery much appreciate it in the next couple of weeks if you could\nconfer with the State Personnel Board and let me know what the\nannual budget would be were it at optimum even though in your\nmind it may take two or three or five years on today's dollar.\nWhat are you talking about? What kind of medical benefits or\nworkmen's compensation or fringe benefits?\nThe State Personnel Board is used to this. They work it\nout every time they - someone suggests a new governmental\ndepartment. Well, let's look at this as a governmental department\nwhich is extensive, which has not reached the optimum because of\nperhaps the inadequate funds.\nCould you do that within the next couple of weeks?\nMR. STEARNS: Oh, yes.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: I know it's a burden. The conference\ncommittee is going to meet in the next month. We'd like to have\nit in the report. (Appendix J)\nI still haven't found too much criticism of the objectives\nof the Corps. Mr. Seeley, have you detected any criticism of the\nmission?\nASSEMBLYMAN SEELEY: No. I was surprised to hear that the\nmen were doing a good job and that makes me feel better. And I\nwould support a request for an increase to pay them more. I was\nin hopes of a statement like that. It remained for you to make that\nstatement, but I'm glad it came forth.\nMR. STEARNS: I think it's simply a matter we're not looking\n-104-\nat yesterday as much as we are looking at tomorrow and going like\nthis. We can anticipate that the state is going to have more\nand more of these million-dollar camp facilities available to\nus. They have been built and paid for. They are situated where\nwe need them for our fire missions. All these other kinds of\nthings and we anticipate in the years ahead that we are going\nto have to depend largely on free people to make up these crews to\ndo the year-around work for other agencies, and to be ready and\navailable and well trained for when we need them for fires. I\nthink it's unrealistic to weigh the future plans or anything else\non anything less than a minimum wage. This would be the minimum\nwage, less subsistence, you know.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Well, let's find --- let's find out what\nthe State Personnel Board could come up with. You give us those\nfigures.\nMR. STEARNS: We can give it to you much quicker. They\nhave all these figures available to them at all times.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: I'd like to wind up by 5:15, which is\nseven minutes and I would appreciate that the contract people\nsubmit their testimony and not present it here orally, and I do be-\nlieve there are more witnesses, I trust. Mr. Wilson.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Yes. I have just one question. You\nsaid the minimum wage less subsistence?\nMR. STEARNS: Yes.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: So that you would take one sixty-five\nan hour and you would place a value on the room, a value on the\nfood, deduct that from the $1.65?\n-105-\nMR. STEARNS: Yes,\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: And arrive --\nMR. STEARNS: This is what we would do with the seasonal\nworkers where subsistence and a bed is furnished. And the rent\nis minimal because it's a barracks situation and it amounts to\nnot much more than laundry and SO forth. But the meal charge set\nby the Board Control based on our overall is 66 cents a day. This\nis deducted from all our employees who eat at the state facilities.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Do you have any machines in these places\nfor candy bars and Cokes?\nMR. GRIGGS: We have vending machines in some places.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: One other quick question. Someone\nwas indicating that they were 40 or 50 miles from the nearest\ntown. Now, when you receive your pay check, how do you go about\ngetting it cashed? Do you have to spend one-eighth of what you\nget paid to go 25 miles to get your $40? Some people were nodding\nyes. I don't know.\nMR. GRIGGS: Well, you said 50 miles at first and then 25.\nASSEMBLYMAN WILSON: Well, I'm not -\nMR. STEARNS: Their checks are there and there are trans-\nportation problems from these remote areas. We have them from some\nof our fire stations where there are other people so remote they\njust give up going to town.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Don't you run a liberty bus?\nMR. STEARNS: Well, they are running a liberty bus at Humboldt\nand this is one of the kinds of internal shifts that we can make.\nIt depends on having someone to drive the bus and they have been\n-106-\nactive in some of the local baseball and basketball leagues and\ntransportation is provided to those things.\nCHAIRMAN CULLEN: Any further questions?\nGentlemen, thank you very much.\n-107-\nAPPENDICES\n-108-\nAPPENDIX A\nState of California\nResources Agency\nDepartment of Conservation\nTHE CALIFORNIA ECOLOGY CORPS\nThe California Ecology Corps is the solution Governor Reagan has adopted to\nmeet California's continuing need for a reserve of trained manpower to con-\nfront the ravages of wildland fire and to meet this State's commitment for\npreserving the environment.\nThe Corps was officially established in an Executive Order (see Attachment\nA) issued by Governor Reagan on April 27, 1971. That event marked the\nbeginning of the Corps as a legal entity, but it was by no means the first\nstep.\nTo find the first step we must go back in time more than 20 years ago when\nCalifornia's conservation camp program was inaugurated and even before that,\nback many decades to the days when state and county fire wardens conscripted\ncitizens off the street or out of a sawmill to fight forest fires. In the\nintervening years, science has produced modern methods of fire control and\nfire suppression, but these new tools have not eliminated the need for\ntrained manpower in organized crews.\nOver the years, the Division of Forestry, the State's wildland firefighting\nforce, has of necessity increased in efficiency and in manpower. Today,\nsome 3,000 men, whose job it is to meet the challenges of the wildland fires,\nare on the State's payroll. This force is augmented each summer by 1,800\nPresented by James G. Stearns, Director, California Department of Conservation,\nbefore the Assembly Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control, Sacramento,\nCalifornia, April 4, 1972.\n-109-\nAPPENDIX A\nyoung men who are employed as seasonal firefighters. Together, they man the\nfire stations, bulldozer crews and air bases that are three of the basic\ncomponents available to us for wildland firefighting.\nConservation Camp Program\nIn the late 1940's, the need for trained hand crews became evident to the\nState's professional wildland firefighters as the fourth component. In\ncooperation with the State Department of Corrections and the California\nYouth Authority, the conservation camp program became a reality and was\nformally organized.\nThis program enabled foresters to utilize minimum security inmates as fire-\nfighting hand crews and to assist in the construction of our fire defense\nsystem, working out of a new camp environment in the State's forest lands.\nWorking with the leadership of forestry personnel, the inmates have proven\nto be a tremendous asset.\nAnd then came social changes -- and new concepts in penology and dealing\nwith prison inmates. A new probation subsidy program was initiated in 1966,\nproviding for payment to the counties on a per-case basis so that county\nprobation staffs could be beefed up and the less serious felons who formerly\nended up in conservation camps could be dealt with at home.\nSince the probation subsidy program started in 1966, the prison population --\nand, of course the camp population -- began to decrease rather rapidly. In\nrecent years, the prison population had dropped from 28,800 to under 20,000,\nas of this week.\n-110-\nAPPENDIX A\nA study was conducted in 1970-71 to find the alternative manpower sources\nnecessary to replace the dwindling camp population. A partial solution\nwas to contract with counties to use local prisoners to provide the man-\npower. (San Diego County now supplies manpower for two camps; another\ncamp will soon be manned by county prisoners from Shasta and four other\nnorthern California counties.)\nAs this narration indicates, the Department of Conservation was faced with\na problem, and with an obligation to find broader solutions.\nCalifornia Ecology Corps is ONE of the solutions. But it is more than\nthat: it is a unique experiment in bringing concerned young men into the\nfield of conservation in this State to provide the work experience and job\ntraining that can open career doors in many conservation fields.\nThe Problem Becomes Acute\nAlthough we in the Department of Conservation had long been aware that\nsome day the conservation camp program would no longer provide the total\nanswer to the manpower reserve problem, and although we had been searching\nfor alternatives for a long time, the need became acute just over a year\nago when, simply stated, there were not enough inmates to adequately man\nthe camps then in existence. Looking at the program as it then existed,\nit was obvious, from a purely financial point of view, that as many as\nfive of the conservation camps must be closed by June 30, 1971. That\nprospect was not satisfactory to Governor Reagan or to the Legislature.\nThe question remained -- what shall we do?\n-111-\nAPPENDIX A\nIn our earlier examination, we had thought of some type of program where\nyoung men who had completed their high schooling and yet who had not\ndecided where their lives would lead them could serve for, hopefully, up\nto two years. Such a program, we decided, would be patterned after\nexperiences in other programs we have administered using young men;\nexcept that we would have these young people in our employ on a year-\naround basis rather than just during the critical months that we know as\nthe \"fire season.\" On the other hand, we knew that this program would\naugment the conservation camp program to the extent that the young men\nwould engage in a variety of ecology and conservation-related work\nprojects similar to the federal government's Civilian Conservation Corps\nof the pre-World War II era, including work on federal land where inmates\ncan only work on an emergency basis.\nThus, with this concept in mind and the problem at hand, the California\nEcology Corps became a fact. To implement a new program would obviously\nrequire considerable attention to detail, including recruitment. We\nasked ourselves, \"Where can we find young men who are readily accessible,\nwho are unemployed, and who could be put to work quickly within the\nlimits of funds available to us\"?\nIt was at this point that we turned to the Selective Service System and\nspecifically to those with conscientious objector classification.\nConscientious Objectors\nLet me remind you that the Executive Order signed by Governor Reagan and\nsubsequently ratified by the Legislature as part of the Budget Act of\n1971 did not limit the California Ecology Corps to conscientious objectors.\n-112-\nAPPENDIX A\nThe language of the Executive Order does not, in fact, set forth any\nqualifications for persons employed in the program.\nNevertheless, we did ask that the Corps be designed as alternate service\nfor young men who had been classified as conscientious objectors by\nlocal draft boards. Conscientious objector officials from the California\nheadquarters of the Selective Service System studied our request and\nvisited the facilities we proposed to use to house the Corpsmen. Dr.\nCurtis Tarr, Director of the Selective Service System in Washington, D.C.,\nalso made a personal inspection trip, as did various representatives of\nconscientious objector associations.\nIn the spring of 1971 there were approximately 5,000 consicentious ob-\njectors in California, and many of them were looking for alternate ser-\nvice. Alternate service, incidentally, is easily defined as a 24-month\nperiod when conscientious objectors must work for a non-profit or public\nservice agency, thus serving a time comparable to the time a draftee into\nthe armed services must serve.\nAnd so to meet the immediate problem, namely the prospect of closing five\nconservation camps, we had a program and we had an immediate source from\nwhich to recruit. In the meantime, we had arrived at satisfactory\narrangements offsetting the additional costs of the new program (camp\noverhead, corpsmen pay and subsistence) through cooperative agreements\nwith other conservation agencies of the State and federal governments.\nBasically, these agreements allowed the Department of Conservation to\ncharge the other agencies on a man-day basis for the environmental and\nconservation work to be done by the new California Ecology Corps. The net\n-113-\nAPPENDIX A\ncost of the Ecology Corps to the State of California in 1972-73 is\nbudgeted at $814,398 based on a corpsman population of 340. (See Attach-\nment B for a list of projects; see Attachment C for budget summary.)\nThe agreements were negotiated; and we decided to convert inmate-manned\nconservation camps in Humboldt, Tehama, and Calaveras counties into\ncenters to house the new Ecology Corps. These sites were selected be-\ncause they were the closest to the work projects that were the subject\nof the various agreements that had been negotiated. (A fourth center\nwas later added in Inyo County.)\nDraft Law Expires\nWe set July 1, 1971, as the date to officially launch the Ecology Corps;\nbut, as it turned out, this was not a good day insofar as the Nation's\ndraft law was concerned. The law expired on that date, and it would be\nmonths before Congress would agree on a new law. In the meantime, al-\nthough many of the conscientious objectors did respond and select the\nCalifornia Ecology Corps as their alternate service, many others con-\ncluded that in the absence of a draft law, they were under no selective\nservice obligation whatsoever. Consequently, we did not fulfill our\nearlier expectation of quickly filling the new Ecology Centers with\nminimums of 80 men each.\nThe availability of conscientious objectors remains questionable.\nDespite this, there is no plan to phase conscientious objectors out of\nthe California Ecology Corps, but rather continue the Corps as qualified\nalternate service for those who volunteer.\n-114-\nAPPENDIX A\nRecruitment Expanded\nOn December 1, 1971, in keeping with the original concept of the Corps, I\nauthorized the recruitment of any qualified young men for six-month en-\nlistments; and this meant that we would no longer rely solely on our\noriginal source for recruitment, the conscientious objectors. We have\nbeen successful in the weeks since December 1 in recruiting young men\nand more than doubling the size of the Corps. The attached graph\n(Attachment D) illustrates our recruitment success, and I particularly\ncall your attention to the increase since the first of the year. I am\nconfident that each of the four centers will be at minimum capacity\nwithin a few weeks, thereby giving us at least 340 men.\nAs of today, there are slightly over 100 corpsmen who are conscientious\nobjectors. These are men whose average age is 22, who average two years\nof college. These are the \"seniors\" in the program; and the majority\nare, and have been, highly-productive and dedicated workers whose extra\neffort made the whole idea work.\nMany of the newer members of the Corps are in the program as a result of\nother forms of recruitment. Some are, for example, young men out of\nhigh school -- and out of work. There are some Vietnam veterans in the\nprogram now, and more are expected.\nBenefits and Requirements\nCorpsmen are not regular state employees: they are exempt contractees.\nThey do receive some benefits comparable to our regular employees,\nsuch as vacations, holidays and workmen's compensation insurance. A\ncomprehensive health benefit program will be implemented August 1, 1972.\n-115-\nAPPENDIX A\nSince the beginning of the program, we have provided Corpsmen with food,\nlodging, clothing and personal care items and have paid them $40 each\nmonth. Beginning July 1, 1972, Corpsmen will receive at least $100 per\nmonth plus the other items I have listed. On February 1, the overtime\nrate for most emergency work was set at $2.80 per hour.\nCorpsmen are entitled to approximately the same grievance procedure as\nallowed regular State employees, including the permanent employees of\nthe Department of Conservation. A Corpsman with a grievance discusses\nthe problem with his immediate supervisor (generally a crew foreman of\nthe Division of Forestry) and, failing to receive acceptable adjudication\nat this level can appeal to the Center Director, the Corps Administrator,\nand ultimately to me.\nDuring the summer fire season, Corpsmen must remain at their duty post\nfor a continuous five-day period. At other times, they are required to\nperform their normal eight-hour work shift, Monday through Friday. These\nrequirements are not unique to the Ecology Corps, but are the same\nrequirements applied to all fire station personnel.\nOffers Individual Potential\nThe California Ecology Corps has much to offer the young men who partici-\npate. Educational institutions, such as the North American School of\nConservation and Ecology, for example, are working with us in recruiting\nCorpsmen. Several of that school's recent graduates are now Corpsmen\nobtaining actual on-the-job experience in ecology and conservation work.\nAlready, some Corpsmen have gone on to employment for public and private\n-116-\nAPPENDIX A\nenvironmental agencies, since service in the Corps qualifies as job\nexperience for civil service examinations and for other employment.\nCommunity colleges are looking at the California Ecology Corps as a\npossible supplement to their environmental and forestry curriculum\nfor the same reasons.\nLet me also emphasize the potential the Corps offers the State of\nCalifornia as a training resource for future employees of the Division\nof Forestry, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and other units\nof all levels of government concerned with environmental protection.\nAs I have said, four centers are now in operation. The centers and a\nbrief description follows:\nTehama Ecology Center. Located 25 miles east of Red Bluff in\nTehama County near the community of Paynes Creek, Corpsmen are\nperforming a valuable service of habitat improvement on the nearby\nTehama Winter Deer Range for the Department of Fish and Game.\nCalaveras Ecology Center. This center, four miles from Angels\nCamp, houses Corpsmen who are engaging in numerous conservation\nprojects in the Sierras for several agencies, primarily the United\nStates Forest Service, National Park Service, and Department of\nParks and Recreation.\nHumboldt Ecology Center. Situated in the midst of California's\nState Parks, Corpsmen at this center are performing vital work in\nrecreational development for our State Park system.\n-117-\nAPPENDIX A\nInyo Ecology Center. This center is 10 miles from the city of Bishop.\nThe Corpsmen here will be involved in trail construction and other\nconservation projects in the High Sierra for National Park Service,\nBureau of Land Management, and Department of Parks and Recreation.\nIn addition to the Centers, several spike camps are in operation. Corps-\nmen assigned to these camps, such as those at the Sequoia-Kings Canyon\nNational Park Headquarters at Ash Mountain and at E1 Portal near Yosemite\nValley are engaged in special work projects for the National Park Service\nexcept when they are needed for fire dispatch. (Photographs of the\nprojects are shown in Attachment E.)\nThe Corpsmen have performed, and performed well, in a wide variety of\nprojects since July 1, 1971. Representatives of several of the contract-\ning departments have prepared testimony for your information, and a\ncomplete list of current or completed projects as of today is attached.\nBeyond its mission in ecology work and emergency firefighting, the Corps\nperforms yet another valuable service. A skilled, trained mountain\nrescue team is now available to local authorities throughout the State\nto assist in the rescue of persons trapped in mountainous areas and\ncliffs.\nThere may be some confusion between the role of the California Ecology\nCorps and that of the Youth Conservation Corps, established last year,\nand/or the California Youth Conservation Corps, which was authorized in\nlegislation proposed last year by Assemblyman Mobley.\nThe programs and the concepts are entirely different. The California\nEcology Corps is a permanent year-around program employing men who are\n-118-\nAPPENDIX A\nat least 18 years old. The other programs are primarily designed as a\nsummer work program for younger people, both boys and girls. Both of\nthese programs have definite roles in the protection of California's\nenvironment; and, as a matter of fact, each should compliment the work\nof the other.\nSummary of Comments\nTo summarize the present situation with the Ecology Corps, I would like\nto refer again to the situation the Department found itself in just\nabout a year ago.\nWe had five fine state facilities about to be vacated and a continuing\nand pressing need for the trained hand crews that have become a part\nof the State's resource management and protection system.\nA continuing success of the Department of Corrections rehabilitation\nprogram made it plain that it was vitally necessary to establish a work\nforce of free people to continue these worthwhile public efforts into\nthe years ahead.\nWe have succeeded in establishing the Ecology Corps in less than a year\nand have found that we can recruit and organize into productive crews\nthe young men that have participated up to this point. We can look\nbeyond work projects now contracted for to a substantial expansion in\nthe program as other public agencies turn to these crews more and more\nto accomplish the purposes for which they receive public funds.\nThe comparison must be drawn when we look to the future with the old\nCivilian Conservation Corps we all remember from the depression. That\nagency built practically the entire network of roads and trails and\n-119-\nAPPENDIX A\ncampgrounds available to the Forest Service and Park Service today, and\nopened an area of employment for thousands of young men whose oppor-\ntunities were extremely limited. Some of those same men are high in\nstate government positions today, as they are in conservation agencies\nacross the country.\nWith careful management, the Ecology Corps can fulfill those purposes\nin California again; and at the same time we can continue our partner-\nships with the Department of Corrections, California Youth Authority,\nand the counties to the end that existing facilities can be utilized,\nand the vital work can go on. I will say, again, the California\nEcology Corps was developed to make up the difference between the in-\nmates and wards available to us and our manpower needs, and not to\nsupplant them. These proven programs will continue, with the\nCalifornia Ecology Corps a new and exciting element.\nI would ask your support and understanding to that end.\n#\n#\n#\n-120-\nAPPENDIX A\nATTACHMENT A\nEXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT\nState of California\nEXECUTIVE ORDER NO. R-27-71\nPreservation and protection of the bountiful resources with which this state\nhas been enriched demand ever increasing vigil and continuing effort.\nTo meet this responsibility, it has been determined there is a need for an\norganized group of citizens who are willing to join in a common purpose to\nconserve California's great natural resources.\nTherefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor of the State\nof California, the following is ordered:\nSection 1. California Ecology Corps. The California Ecology Corps is hereby\nestablished and shall activate on July 1, 1971. The Corps will be headed by the\nDirector of Conservation.\nSection 2. The Director shall have authority to direct and supervise all\npersonnel and activities thereof. The Director shall take all actions as may be\nnecessary to organize the corps so as to carry out the functions and to achieve\nthe purposes set forth in this order.\nSection 3. Functions. The Corps shall:\n(1) Recruit and employ members to aid in the maintenance of the natural\necology and the preservation of the beauty and natural resources of this\nstate.\n(2) Utilize its members in conservation and emergency projects to effect full\nutilization and protection of the natural resources for the greatest possible\nnumber of people.\nShall assist in the protection of natural resources, which will include, but will\nnot be limited to, forests, grasses, vegetation, soil, air, water, wildlife,\nrecreational and scenic resources.\n(3) Assist in fire prevention and fire protection.\nSection 4. Cooperation. The corps shall cooperate with all sectors of\ngovernment in carrying out its objectives. All state departments shall, whenever\npossible or feasible, cooperate with the Corps in the protection of environment\nor preservation of natural resources.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great\nSeal of the State of California to be affixed hereto this 27th day of April, 1971.\nOF\nRONALD REAGAN\nGREAT EUREKA STATE\nGovernor of California\nAttest:\nEDMUND G. BROWN, JR.\nCALIFORNIA\nSecretary of State\n-121-\nATTACHMENT B\nCALIFORNIA ECOLOGY CORPS\n1971-72 Fiscal Year\nCENTER\nPROJECTS\nSUPPORTING AGENCY\nHumboldt\n1. Construct 1,000 picnic tables, 750 camp cupboards, 750 camp stoves,\nCalif. Department of Parks\n200 fire rings, 750 stove grills, 1,000 assorted signs.\nand Recreation\n2. Construct roadside rest -- 1,400 man days\nCalif. Department of Parks\nand Recreation\n3. Construct 75-unit campground.\nCalif. Department of Parks\nand Recreation\n4. San Simeon State Beach - expand camping facilities.\nOffice of Architecture and\nConstruction\nTehama\n1. Rehabilitation of the Tehama Winter Deer Range, including spring\ndevelopment, big game water guzzlers, Ishi fire road construction\nCalif. Department of Fish\nand fence building.\nand Game\n-122-\n2. Construct big game water guzzlers with exclosures in Modoc County\nCalif. Department of Fish\nand Game\n3. Mechanical and hand drill planting of browse species (brush) for\ninterstate deer herd and rehabilitation of burned over area in\nCalif. Department of Fish\nModoc County. (Snag falling and planting.)\nand Game\n4. Lopping mountain mahogany for re-sprouting deer browse on Hot Creek\nCalif. Department of Fish\nRidge, Shasta County.\nand Game\n5. Flood control maintenance on Sacramento River - Colusa area\nDepartment of Water Resources\nCalaveras\n1. Road stabilization -- water drains, culverts, and berms.\nStanislaus National Forest\n2. Timber stand improvement -- brushing, clearing.\nStanislaus National Forest\n3. Fuel break construction.\nStanislaus National Forest\n4. Lake boundary cleanup.\nStanislaus National Forest\nAPPENDIX A\nPage 2\nCENTER\nPROJECTS\nSUPPORTING AGENCY\nCalaveras\n5. Cover type conversion -- range improvement, construct pre-attack road\n(Cont. )\nsigns\nStanislaus National Forest\n6. Fire station and fire access road maintenance\nCalif. Division of Forestry\n7. Water system maintenance.\nCalif. Division of Forestry\n8. Construct nursery potting flats and shipping tops\nCalif. Division of Forestry\n9. Surplus property acquisition and distribution.\nCalif. Division of Forestry\n10. Mountain rescue training\nCalif. Division of Forestry\n11. Training and development of visual aids for Fire Academy\nCalif. Division of Forestry\n12. Mapping for water pollution control and soil study classification\nCalif. Division of Forestry\n13. Campground maintenance.\nEl Dorado National Forest\n14. Beach cleanup - Lake Tahoe.\nEl Dorado National Forest\n15. Slip planting for Genetics Lab (Lab located in Placerville)\nEl Dorado National Forest\n16. Fertilizing plants for seed and soil experiments\nE1 Dorado National Forest\n17. On site planting -- storing and shipping seedlings.\nEl Dorado National Forest\n18. Hazard reduction -- tree removal.\nSequioa-Kings Canyon N. P.\n19. Campground cleanup\nSequioa-Kings Canyon N. P.\n20. Hogan Reservior Recreation area development.\nCorps of Engineers\n21. Tree planting -- Kaweah Reservoir.\nCorps of Engineers\nPage 3\nAPPENDIX A\nCENTER\nPROJECTS\nSUPPORTING AGENCY\nCalaveras\n22. Trail maintenance - fire break construction, campground cleanup,\nCalif. Department of Parks\n(Cont.)\nCalaveras Big Trees State Park.\nand Recreation\n23. Emergency snow removal\nCalif. Division of Highways\nInyo\n1. White Mountain Research Station maintenance and operations.\nU. C. Riverside\n2. Construct three dams on Owens River for fish habitat improvement.\nCalif. Department of Fish\nand Game\n3. Pup fish sanctuary development.\nCalif. Department of Fish\nand Game\n4. Construct drift fences on Tule Elk winter range.\nCalif. Department of Fish\nand Game\n5. Stream improvements.\nBureau of Land Management\n124\n6. Water development, campground improvement, trail construction in\nNew York Mountain area.\nBureau of Land Management\n7. Campground development.\nCounty of Inyo\n8. Water development, campground improvement, trail work -- Death Valley National Monument\n9. Restoration of Ghost Town -- Bodie.\nCalif. Department of Parks\nand Recreation\nATTACHMENT C\nAPPENDIX A\n1972-73\nLINE ITEM DETAIL\nBUDGET FOR ECOLOGY CENTERS\nAPRIL 1, 1972\nHumboldt\nTehama\nCalaveras\nInyo\nTotal\nEcology\nEcology\nEcology\nEcology\nAll\nPERSONAL SERVICES\nCenter\nCenter\nCenter\nCenter\nCenters\nSalaries & Wages\nForest Ranger II\n(1)\n14,114\n(1)\n14,114\n(1)\n14,114\n(1)\n14,113\n(4)\n56,455\nFire Crew Foreman\n(5)\n59,258\n(5)\n59,258\n(5)\n59,258\n(6)\n71,110\n(21)\n248,884\nHeavy Fire Equip. Oper.\n(1)\n10,878\n(1)\n10,878\n(1)\n10,878\n(1)\n10,878\n(4)\n43,512\nForestry Cook II\n(2)\n15,088\n(2)\n15,088\n(2)\n15,088\n(.5)\n3,772\n(6.5)\n49,036\nTotal Salaries & Wages\n(9)\n99,338\n(9)\n99,338\n(9)\n99,338\n(8.5) 99,873\n(35.5)\n397,887\nStaff Benefits\nRetirement (Staff Only)\n14,900\n14,900\n14,900\n14,980\n59,680\nHealth & Welfare\n(Staff Only)\n1,728\n1,728\n1,728\n1,632\n6,816\nWorkmen's Comp. (Staff)\n1,818\n1,818\n1,818\n1,828\n7,282\nWorkmen's Comp. (Corpsmen)\n9,000\n9,000\n12,000\n9,000\n39,000\nTotal Staff Benefits\n27,446\n27,446\n30,446\n27,440\n112,778\nTotal, Personal Services\n126,784\n126,784\n129,784\n127,313\n510,665\nOPERATING EXPENSES AND\nEQUIPMENT\nGeneral Expense\n8,000\n8,000\n8,100\n8,000\n32,100\nSmall Tools\n891\n891\n1,518\n891\n4,191\nHousing\n3,726\n3,726\n6,348\n6,348\n20,148\nOper. Supp. & Exp.\n891\n891\n1,518\n1,518\n4,818\nCommunications\n1,215\n1,215\n2,070\n2,070\n6,570\nTravel-in-State\n1,377\n1,377\n2,346\n2,346\n7,446\nMotor Vehicle Oper.\n18,063\n18,063\n30,774\n30,774\n97,674\nEmp. Relocation\n480\n480\n840\n480\n2,28C\nUtilities\n10,692\n10,692\n18,216\n18,216\n57,816\nRecreation & Lib. Supp.\n972\n972\n1,656\n972\n4,572\nRepair & Maint. of Fac.\n4,293\n4,293\n7,314\n7,314\n23,214\nSubsistence\n42,300\n42,300\n56,400\n42,300\n183,300\nCorpsmen Clothing\n13,950\n13,950\n18,600\n13,950\n60,450\nMedical & Dental Supp.\n1,782\n1,782\n3,036\n1,782\n8,382\nSearch & Rescue\n-\n-\n2,000\n2,000\n4,000\nCorpsman Pay\n36,775\n36,775\n45,970\n36,775\n156,29'\nExp. Acct. Property\n1,000\n1,000\n1,000\n1,000\n4,000\nEquipment\n8,744\n8,744\n8,744\n8,745\n34,971\nTotal O. E. & E.\n155,151\n155,151\n216,450\n185,481\n712,231\nGross Total Cost\n281,935\n281,935\n346,234\n312,794\n1,222,89\nReimbursements\n-104,000\n-104,000\n-120,000\n-80,500\n-408,50\nNet Total Cost\n177,935\n177,935\n226,234\n232,294\n814,39\nB&SO\n-125-\nAPPENDIX A\nCalifornia Ecology Corps\nDivision of Porestry\nConservation Camps\nJuly 1971 - April 1972\nJuly 1970 -- April 1972\n340\n22\n21\n300\n20\n250\n19\n18\n200\n17\n16\n150\n15\n11\n-\n14\n100\nI\n12\n1:\n50\nTO\nO\nC.\nA\nS\n0\nN\nD\nJ\nF\nM\nA\nJ A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D F N\n-126-\n1971\n1972\n1970\n197\n972\nAPPENDIX A\nTREATIFORNIA\nThe California Ecology Corps in fotos\nHOUSE\nCORPS\nMountain rescue training\nclimbing, and will be given additional training in\ncold weather survival, snow and ice-field climbing,\nand cross-country skiing. They will also be trained\nMembers of the Ecology Corps' new mountain\nin first aid and follow-up field medical treatment, as\nrescue team have been going through an intensive\nwell as litter handling.\ntraining program which will eventually prepare them\nOperating out of the Calaveras Ecology Center,\nto handle rescue missions in difficult terrain and\nthe mountain rescue team will be available to public\nunder all-weather conditions.\nagencies, statewide, for rescue missions in any of\nRescue team members have already received\nCalifornia's rugged terrain, but especially in the\nprofessional instruction in both free and aid rock\nSierra-Nevada range.\n-127-\nAPPENDIX A\nTimber stand\nimprovement\nand fuel break\nconstruction\nCorpsmen working for the\nStanislaus National Forest have\nbeen engaged primarily in tim-\nber stand improvement and fuel\nbreak construction.\nTimber stand improvement\ninvolves thinning overcrowded\ntimber stands to promote better\ntree growth, clearing brush from\nareas to be planted as timber\nplantations, and disposing of\nroad-side slash with motorized\nchippers.\nThe construction of fuel\nbreaks generally involves clear-\ning a swath of brush from\nalongside fire access roads. Fuel\nbreaks provide an early defense\nagainst wildland fires.\n-128-\nAPPENDIX A\nInstructing COD trainees\nFour corpsmen were given a tem-\nporary assignment this January to in-\nstruct Career Opportunity Develop-\nment trainees attending a five week\nsession at the Division of Forestry\nFire Academy in lone.\nUtilizing special program learning\naids, the corpsmen helped the C.O.D.\ntrainees review high school level\ncourse material in English, mathe-\nmatics and physical sciences.\nFire road\nconstruction\nA major project at the Tehama\nEcology Center has been constructing\nthe Ishi road, an unpaved all vehicle\nroad that will serve both as a major\nfire access road and as a major link\ninto the Tehama Winter Deer Range.\nCorpsmen on the project are en-\ngaged drilling blasting holes, and con-\nstructing culverts and header walls\naround the culverts.\nConstructing\ncamp ground equipment\nCorpsmen working in the carpen-\ntry shop at the Humboldt Ecology\nCenter are presently constructing pic-\nnic tables and camp cupboards for\nthe State Department of Parks and\nRecreation.\nThe carpentry shop will also pro-\nduce assorted signs for the Depart-\nment of Parks and Recreation.\nAPPENDIX A\nCampsite development\nAt the Humboldt Ecology\nCenter, there are two crews of\ncorpsmen assigned to campsite\ndevelopment at Benbow Lake\nState Park.\nFunded by the State De-\npartment of Parks and Recrea-\ntion, the project involves clear-\ning the land, leveling campsites,\ninstalling pipe lines, building\nfences, and constructing roads\nand parking areas.\nCorpsmen are also engaged\nin removing hazardous limbs,\nsnags and dead trunks that\nmight endanger children playing\nin the park; thinning trees to\nmake the campsites more access-\nable for campers, and construc-\nting gates and log banks to pre-\nvent cars from parking\nimproperly.\nAPPENDIX B\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA--RESOURCES AGENCY\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION\nP.O. BOX 2390\nSACRAMENTO 95811\nMarch 31, 1972\nHonorable Mike Cullen, Chairman\nCommittee on Efficiency and Cost Control\nRoom 440-B, State Capitol\nSacramento, California 95814\nDear Mr. Cullen and Members of the Committee:\nThank you for the opportunity to present testimony to your\ncommittee concerning the experiences of the Department of\nParks and Recreation with the Ecology Corps Program.\nAt the beginning of this fiscal year, we contracted with the\nDivision of Forestry, Department of Conservation for $203, 400\nof work to be performed by the Ecology Corps. $105,400 of the\nwork was financed directly by our Department and $98,000 is\nto be furnished by the United States Bureau of Reclamation\nfrom the Land and Water Conservation Fund on a reimbursement\nbasis.\nWork to be accomplished for us through this program is as\nfollows:\n1. Construction of the following facilities for state-\nwide distribution to units of the State Park System.\n1,000 Picnic Tables\n750 Camp Cupboards\n750 Camp Stoves\n200 Fire Rings\n1,000 Assorted Signs\nOf the above facilities, 50 tables are complete and the\nmaterial for another 200 has been cut and prepared and\n30 cupboards have been completed. The balance of the\nfacilities are expected to be completed by July 1.\n2. Construction of a roadside rest at Franklyn K. Lane Grove\nin Humboldt Redwoods which includes clearing, fill, park-\ning area, rest room building and water line. This will\nbe complete by July 1.\n3. Relocate a 50 unit campground from Reynolds Wayside\nCamp in Mendocino County to Benbow Lake State Recreation\nArea in Humboldt County. This work is 50% complete and\nwill be finished by July 1.\n-131-\nAPPENDIX B\nHonorable Mike Cullen, Chairman\n-2-\nMarch 31, 1972\n0\n4. Construction of trails in Calaveras Big Trees State\nPark. 96 man days have been expended to date and 510\nman days remain to be used before July 1.\n5. Construction of a 54-unit campground at San Simeon\nState Beach which includes brush clearing, site\npreparation, tables, stoves, rest room buildings,\nwater tanks, and campsite posts will be completed by\nJuly 1.\nCooperation in the development and implementation of this\nprogram by Division of Forestry headquarters and field personnel\nhas been outstanding.\nThe Department of Parks and Recreation believes it will be\naccomplishing about twice as much work and receiving at least\ndouble the facilities through the Ecology Corps program. The\nabove programs have been accomplished by the Department of Parks\nand Recreation personnel or day labor forces from the Office of\nArchitecture and Construction in the past. The campground\nconstruction is of the primitive type; the restroom buildings,\nof the vault or chemical toilet variety.\nExtreme care and understanding have been exhibited by the\nEcology Corps regarding the effects of the development of this\nprimitive campground upon the environment and in providing a\nbetter public service for recreation needs.\nSincerely\nWilliam Penn Mot Jr.\nDirector\n-132-\nAPPENDIX C\nStatement by Nathanial Stone, Corpsman\nHumboldt Ecology Center, Weott, Cal.\nto Department of Conservation Subcommittee,\nFinance Committee, California Senate\nMarch 15, 1972\nAmong all the COs at Humboldt Ecology Center there seem to be complaints\nof some aspects of the Corps and, simultaneously, appreciation of other aspects.\nWith only one exception so far, the negative aspects outweigh the positive\nones at some point before a man's alternate service is done, and he leaves. Of\nthe 22 men that were at Humboldt at the end of last summer, only nine are still\nhere, and of those three are very close to leaving. The director of our camp\nhas said repeatedly that the COs have done a better job than what the California\nDivision of Forestry has seen from others doing our same job, and Parks Department\npersonnel we have worked with have supported that opinion. And yet, we find\nthese working conditions eventually intolerable.\nLiving in the mountains, working outside, and getting some firefighting\nexperience are pretty shining inducements to join and even to stay. Until one\nreally gets to know the Corps, the potential of actually doing ecology oriented\nwork is also a very important reason for joining and, at first, for staying.\nMost of us are quite concerned with the ecology of this country and more speci-\nfically of this state, and we saw in the California Ecology Corps a real chance\nto do something about it and really feel that we were having a worthwhile and\npositive effect upon the ecology. Except for possibly the newest arrivals, we\nhave all been sorely disappointed. The director of our center has said repeatedly\nthat the California Ecology Corps is not really meant to be an \"ecology corps\" --\nits function is to fight fires! He has told us, and claims to even have\nsuggested to the Director of the Ecology Corps, Joe Griggs, that the name of\nthe Corps be changed so as not to mislead prospective corpsmen. Prospective\n-133-\nAPPENDIX C\nNathanial Stone\n2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-\ncorpsmen are not the only ones being misled -- the people of the state of\nCalifornia have been led to believe that their governor, through concern for\nthe environment, actually established an agency to do something about it. We\ncorpsmen have suggested many projects that would benefit the environment, but\nthat have been refused by either our camp director or someone over him. Among\nthem was a proposal to do such simple things as cleaning up litter from the\nhighways, parks, and woods, and cleaning up debris from the beaches in our\narea. We proposed teach-ins, ecologically oriented tours, and literature\ndissemination for the general public in order to increase an environmental\nawareness. We asked to be allowed to work on stream clearance and assist with\nthe fish hatcheries. And we also asked to be allowed to work with Dr. Becking\nof Humboldt State College on projects he deems necessary to safeguard the\nendangered Redwoods of the Rockefeller Forest area of the Humboldt Redwoods\nState Park. To all of the requests we have gotten the answers of \"We are not\nfunded to do ecology work,\" or \"You can do it on your own time but we can't take\nstate time for that kind of work.\" Instead, our projects are things like\nconstructing picnic tables, clearing camp sites in a future park, removing\nPark Department equipment from a park so the Highway Department could put a\nnew stretch of freeway through it, splitting downed redwoods into fence rails,\nand digging culverts along park roads to help keep them open. A small amount of\nreseeding of bared areas has been done by a few Humboldt corpsmen, but even\nthere the man hours put in on state time was so minimal that next to what the\nSierra Club does in one day, on one hillside, our efforts were dwarfed. The\nadministration has, however, allowed one man to take state time one day a week\nto work with the local recycling center. Other than that, any ecology oriented\nwork that gets done has to be done on one's own time.\n-134-\nAPPENDIX C\nNathanial Stone\n3-3-3-3-3-3-3-\nOf course, we do fight fires during the fire season and have been lauded\nas very good fire crews by the CDF personnel we have worked with on the fires.\nI would in turn also like to praise our foremen for their conscientiousness\nwhen it comes to our safety on a fire.\nThe safety consciousness of our foreman, however, contrasts sharply to\nthat of whoever orders our clothing. The boots we are issued and expected to\nwear to a fire have soles that are dangerously slick -- so much so that the US\nForest Service will not allow any man on a fire line with that kind of sole.\nThe rest of our clothing is fair to excellent with the exception of the blue\njeans, which cost the Ecology Corps somewhere around $3.50 per pair and aren't\nworth a buck. I've seen a few pair of them just fall apart at the seams during\nthe first wearing. We're issued other good clothes, however. The shirts,\njackets, coats and rain gear are all good quality.\nAt the Humboldt Center we are served good food. Allowances are made for\nthe large number of vegetarians among us and although when we first got there\nthe food was not really what I could call good, improvements have been made.\nWe have a committee of corpsmen, cooks, and a foremen to discuss food problems.\nThe relations between the corpsmen and the foremen and director change\nso much all the time that it is hard to make a definitive statement about what\nit is like, except that through it all, there has been a general trend from\ncongenial with the director and somewhere between congenial and tense with the\nforemen, to the present condition of generally worsened relations. At present\nthe Director, Moises Estrada, has made us not only feel that he no longer cares\nabout us, but moreover, that he would much prefer to have the COs out of the\nprogram and employ just the volunteers. In fact, he has directly said as much\nto me. Relations with the foremen are actually very good on the job (with the\nexception of in the kitchen and with the in-camp foremen). However, off the\njob there is a growing distance between the foremen and corpsmen resulting in a\n-135-\nAPPENDIX C\nNathanial Stone\n4-4-4-4-4-4-4\ngrowing dissonance in the camp. I personally have experienced one of the\nCDF personnel swearing at me and I found myself cussing out another one about\na month earlier.\nJudging from many comments made at the bi-weekly staff meetings, many of\nthe CDF personnel have lost any respect at all for our human values. For\ninstance, there has been stealing at the center since the introduction of\nthe non-CO volunteers and the solution that two foremen came up with for it\nwas for us to catch the thief ourselves and beat him up.\nAnother personnel relations problem we have experienced is a new one with\nthe advent of the men hired through the Public Employment Program. There are\nfour per camp. Of our four, three of them are really very easy to get along\nwith. Except for one man, who has caused a lot of disruption at the camp, the\nproblems are not caused by the individuals themselves but rather by the fact\nof the disparate pay for equal or virtually equal jobs. Regardless of the\nclaims that the PEP men are not doing jobs formerly done by corpsmen, two of\nthem at Humboldt are. One of them replaced the corpsman maintenance man and\none filled the clerk vacancy that opened when our clerk finished his alternate\nservice and went home. It is demoralizing to see someone else who is no more\nqualified than yourself, or possibly less qualified, doing virtually the same\njob next to you and having authority over you and getting paid about ten times\nas much.\nAnother aspect of the wage differential has been a source of discontent.\nFor example, a total of approximately thirty-three hundred dollars per month\nis all that is paid for the salaries of a total of 80 men at Humboldt, while more\nthan twice that much (about $7500) is divided among just seven others there. A\ncorpsman gets just forty dollars a month or fifty if he is a leader, dishwasher,\nor night watchman. That comes out to $.25 per hour. Sometime, just to see\nwhat it is like, try to spend no more than fifty dollars a month, discounting\n-136-\nAPPENDIX C\nNathanial Stone\n5-5-5-5-5-5-5\nthe cost of your clothes, meals, and household expenses, such as rent and\nmaintenance. And then, in addition to that, try to save enough at the end of\nsix months or a year of living that way, so that you would have enough to keep\nyourself alive until you find another job. It is unrealistic. It is slave\nlabor. If you find you can't do it on forty a month, try it on $100 a month,\nwhich is what is promised to us by July 1. I am convinced that we will still\nfind it impossible to save any toward the day when we will have to be job\nhunting again. I am sure that you are well aware that with the present economic\nsituation, job hunting can be an extremely long ordeal.\nI do not want to see the California Ecology Corps fold up. I would like\nto see it change. It comes back to the old question of change from working\nwithin the system or destroying it altogether. I personally am in favor of\nthe change rather than the destruction of the California Ecology Corps, and\nthat is why I am here today. It has such tremendous potential but is now such\na farce and blatant attempt by the Governor to dupe the people of the state\ninto believing he is doing something about the ecological crisis when he is not.\nThat is the basis for one of what I consider our two most important requests\nhere today. In other words, let's have an Ecology Corps.\nThe other important request is nothing greater than a little justice with\nregard to our wages. Let the pay equal the task. Give us what a private in\nthe Army gets, or minimum wage. Give us a wage equal to the work we give you,\nthe people of the State.\nRespectfully submitted,\nNathanial Stone\n-137-\nAPPENDIX D\nTo: The Honorable Ronald Reagan, Governor of the State of California\nFrom: Members of the California Ecology Corps, Inyo Boology Center\nPetition\nThe purpose of this petition is threefold. It will show that dissatisfaction\namong the members of the California Ecology Corps (CEC) is more widespread than\nthe Governor has been led to believe. It will ask that the original intent of\nthe CEC be recalled and reviewed. It will request a discussion of executive\nsupport for state funding of CEC projects.\nI.\nSince its inception, the CEC has shown a trend toward a low corpsman\npopulation and a high corpsman turnover rate. Low morale has led to disputes,\nresignations and general dissatisfaction within the Corps.\nSuch negative aspects tend to overshadow positive elements: satisfaction in\nwork accomplished and pride in readiness for emergency are undermined by anger\nand frustrated depression over a lack of response to questions and grievances.\nThe undersigned believe that behind these grievances, and the low morale\nengendered by them, are several definite causes.\nThe main function of the Ecology Corps is to provide trained hand crews for\nthe fighting of wildfires, according to Mr. Joe Griggs, Director of CEC.\nWildfire fighting is difficult and dangerous work, yet corpsmen have no life\ninsurance, no health insurance, and receive meager wages. Corpsmen receive a\nminimal food allotment. During fire season corpsmen remain on call twenty-four\nhours a day, five days a week without compensation.\n-138-\nAPPENDIX D\nAlthough Workman's Compensation provides some death benefits, Corps\npersonnel who are not working or on base are not covered in case of accident.\nTwo corpemen have drewmed since the beginning of the program and neither\nleft any bequest for the simple reason that they could not afford insurance\npremiums, Life insurance is a distressing subject, but it would seen only\nright that corpemen be provided some coverage over and above Workman's\nCompensation as death can occur at any time.\nOur only health plan is Workman's Compensation, which has never been\nfully explained to us. Direct injuries incurred on the job or at the Ecology\nCenter are fully covered; but, even though we live in state barracks, only\none visit per man to a doctor has been allowed in the case of illness, and\nmedication or furthar visits to a doctor must be paid for out of the corpsman's\n$40.00/month compensation. Corpsmen need a more comprehensive medical health\nplan, and should be provided some dental care. In the case of a prolonged\nillness a corpsman is discharged for being ill. Discharged corpsman are not\ngiven any severance pay.\nDespite the fact that our room and board and other essentials are provided\nby the state, our wages are inadequate compensation for the type of work\ncorpsmen do. Our day to day projects are largely manual labor. For this work\nwe receive $2.00 per day. When on the fireline corpsmen receive only $.25 per\nhour ($.60 after July 1, 1972) for the first eight hours, after which we receive\n$2.80 per hour overtime wages. This totals $13.20 per day ($16.00 after Julyl),\nor $1.10 per hour ($1.33 after July 1) averaged over a standard twelve hour\nshift. CEC Director Joe Griggs has publicly stated that corpsmen should receive\nthe legal minimum wage at the very least.\n-139-\nAPPENDIX D\nOur food allotment of $.534 per-man/per-meal remains static while food costs\nrise. While our liklihood of strenuous fire-duty increases, our nourishment\ndecreases. (See appended food-cost statistics.)\nDuring the eight month fire season corpsmen must remain on base for 120 hours;\nfive consecutive days on standby alert without compensation for the sixteen daily\nhours off work but still confined to the Center. This situation, according to\nthose who have experienced it, leads to boredom and irritability. This might be\nalleviated by a general improvement in the areas previously mentioned.\nAt the Inyo Ecology Center the corpsmen are ananimous in their concern that\nthe above points be resolved, and that their dissatisfaction with current\nconditions be known.\nII.\nThe work performed by corpsmen at the Inyo Center is largely the same as\nwas performed by the previous, inmate population under the California Department\nof Corrections. Corpsmen fight fires; are leased to other agencies for manual\nlabor projects, such as the building of rock and earth dams; and perform camp\nchores. With few exceptions, these are the tasks which Inyo corpsmen perform\nin the name of ecology. These tasks were all performed at Inyo by inmates\nunder CDC's Conservation Center program.\nThe undersigned request a discussion with the California Division of Forestry\nand the Office of the Governor to define the types of work, ecologically\noriented or not, which are to be expected of CEC. We believe that \"ecology\" is\na misnomer for the work the Corps performs.\n-140-\nAPPENDIX D\nLII.\nAt the present time, the Ecology Corps 18 a self-supporting state agency.\nBecause of the limited funds of other state and federal agencies to which\ncorpsmen are leased, it is impossible to achieve the previously mentioned\nrequests without state funding. The undersigned ask the Governor to consider\nexecutive support in the legislature oriented toward general funding of the\nEcology Corps to cover higher wages, health and life insurance, and a larger\nfood-cost allotment. We also ask the Governor to support limited funding for\nspecific ecology-oriented projects; such projects might be suggested by faculty\nmembers of state colleges and universities. We believe that these measures\nwould appreciably improve morale, work-quality, and sense of pride in the Corps.\nIV.\nConclusion\nWe request that the items mentioned in the first section be carefully\nconsidered by the Governor, the legislature, and the California Division of\nForestry, and that response be made to each.\nWe request that the CEC's work profile be defined by the executive branch\nand CDF.\nIf CEC work remains in the field of conservation, we request that the word\n\"ecology\" be dropped from the Corps' name, and that a more realistic one, such\nas \"forestry\" or \"environment\" be substituted.\n-141-\nAPPENDIX D\nWe request that prospective corpsmen be shown lists of projects completed\nor ongoing, and that the projects be in order according to man-hours spent\non each. There should be a separate listing for each Ecology Center.\nWe request a regular, quarterly meeting be held between the CEC Director,\nthe Center Directors, and Corpsmen Representatives from all Centers.\nWe request a direct response to this petition from the Governor of the\nState of California.\nThe undersigned believe in the present and potential worth of the California\nEcology Corps. We believe that CEC can do much in the field of environmental\nprotection. However, we also believe that poor wages, poor food, lack of\nseverance pay and lack of insurance must be corrected; these factors limit\nthe Corps' attractiveness as an employment.\nWe hope that the California Ecology Corps will expand and improve as a force\nfor ecology in the State of California.\nCopies given to:\nThe Honorable Ronald Reagan, Governor of the State of California\nMr. Joe Griggs, Director of the California Ecology Corps\nAssemblyman Mike Cullen and Members of the Assembly Committee on Efficiency\nand Cost Control\nMembers of the Press\nSigniatures\nPaul McKay C.O.\n-142-\nAPPENDIX D\nSigniatures\nJerry young C.O.\nandrew Kemper C.O.\ncraig Bianchi C.O.\nJordan R. Blakeney Jr. C.O.\nC C\nOscar Mayorga Val.\nJodd G. Bensen (cD)\nMark Bonander C.U.\nPatrice Zall Co.\nJames C. Done C.O.\nLynn Gallaher) 20\nGeenn N. Kageyama C.O.\nGuy pull C.O.\nDavid W. alraham e.o.\nJuly D.Willams CO.\nSary Binker CO\nStove Winers C.O.\nRussell law C.O.\nThomas B. Robinson C.O.\nBurlan C.O,\nBrian 8 manigg C.O.\nRafael D. Barraga vol.\nRow Smith C.O.\nstep- n. Duln 6.0.\nBur TII. Camp hell C-O\nStephen Walb C.O.\nJ. Thaddeus Easto C.O.\nRoger W. Bergmann C.O.\nScott Edgett C.O.\nJas. P.Celle\nC.O.\nRep Bech\nC.O\npersephilles\nJohn R Robertson C.O.\nGary R. Stalnaker C.O.\nJohn Muller C.O.\nDonald John Cans\n-143-\nAPPENDIX D\nIn Absentia\nRobert Heberleco(p.m.k)\nSteve Baer C.O (P. McK)\nCraig Thumbercol P. mck)\nRichard Droper CO (P. mcK)\nBruce Engerholm C.O, (P. mck)\nJon merritt C.O(P. mckl\nSt. John minaberryc.a P. mck)\nGary mulder C.OCP. mck)\nRay Latham C.OC P. mcK)\nJeff middlehook C.O (P.M.K)\nTom Geen C.O (P.Mck)\n-144-\nI\nPT1\npam)\nCha\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch\nUnit Cost\nPercentage Cost\nMeat\n1971\n1971\n1971\n1971\n1972\n1972\n1972\nIncrease/Decrease\nIncrease/Decrease\nLink Sausage\n$.55#\n$.67#\n$.55\n$.55\n$.57\n$.61\n$.63\nUp $.08#\nUp 13%\nCom. Top Round\n.95\n.95\n.95\n.95\n.98\nUp .03\nUp 4%\nCorned Beef\n.83\n.83\n.87\n.89\n.92\n.95\nUp .12\nUp 13%\nPork Loin\n.63\n.69\n.69\n.79\n.83\n.75\nUp\n.12\nUp 16%\nHam Shanks\n.59\n.59\n.59\n.59\n.60\nUp .01\nUp 2%\nWieners\n.63\n.63\n.63\n.63\n.67\n.68\nUp .05\nUp 7.5%\nSpare Ribs\n.65\n.69\n.69\n.69\n.73\n.70\nUp .05\n'Up 7%\nStewing Hens\n.47\n.48\n.47\nNo Change\nNo Change\nPear Ham\n.89\n.89\n.89\n.92\n.94\n.99\n.99\nUp .10\nUp 10%\nGround Beef\n.59\n.63\n.63\n.63\n.63\nUp\n.04\nUp 6%\n-145-\nBacon\n.67\n.67\n.67\n.69\n.78\n.78\nUp\n.11\nUp 13%\nAPPENDIX D\nLiversausage\n.55\n.55\n.55\n.55\n.55\n.59\nUp\n.04\nUp 7%\nBologna\n.55\n.55\n.55\n.59\n.59\n.59\nUp\n.04\nUp 7%\nChili Meat\n.61\n.63\n.63\n.63\nUp\n.02\nUp 3%\nChopped Ham\n.79\n.79\n.79\n.79\n.87\n.87\nUp\n.08\nUp 9%\nBeef Heart\n.49\nXXXXX\n.53\n.55\nUp .06\nUp 11%\nStew Meat\n.92\n.92\n.92\n.93\nUp .01\nUp 1%\nShort Ribs\n.59\n.49\n.59\n.69\n.75\nUp .16\nUp 22%\nLeg of Pork\n.67\n.67\n.67\n.72\nUp .05\nUp 7%\nFryers\n.43\n.45\n.39\nDown.O4\nDown 10%\nFilet of Cod\n.69\n.69\n.89\n.93\nUp\n.24\nUp 26%\nBeef Clod\n.89\n.87\n.98\n.98\n1.05\nUp .16\nUp 15%"
}