Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564952
label
[Ecology] - Review of the California Ecology Corps (hearing before Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (3 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564952
contentType
document
title
[Ecology] - Review of the California Ecology Corps (hearing before Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (3 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564952
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3fda1ab2a75d9c3a
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Ecology] - Review of the California
Ecology Corps (hearing before Committee on
Efficiency and Cost Control, June 1972) (3 of 3)
Box: P34
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Food Price Sample Chart
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
March
Unit Cost
Percentage Cost
Vegetables
1971
1971
1971
1971
1972
1972
1972
Increase/Decrease
Increase/Decrease
Head Lettuce
$.205
$.225
$.31
$.27
$.31
$.205
No Change
No Change
Head Cabbage
.24#
.28#
.21#
.31#
.26#
.32#
$.39#
Up $.15
Up 48%
Bell Pepper
.19#
.24#
.21#
.39#
.43#
.43#
.41#
Up .22
Up 54%
Tomatoes
.20#
.20#
.31#
@
.25#
Uop .05
Up 25%
Celery
.225#
.21#
.30#
.35#
.40#
.40#
.36#
Up .135
Up 40%
Fruits
Bananas
.15#
.15#
.15#
.13#
.14#
.15#
.14#
Down .01
Down 7%
Apples
.19#
.17#
.20#
.15#
.19#
No Change
No Change
Oranges
.15#
.19#
.19#
.15#
.16#
Up .01
Up 7%
-146-
CI APPENDIX
APPENDIX E
REPORT ON PROBLEM AREAS IN THE ECOLOGY CORPS
by Timothy White
April 12, 1972
Before proceeding to enumerate the problems confronting the Corps, I would
like to make some preliminary observations.
Virtually every corpsman I have talked with, including the so-called rabble-
rousers, would sincerely like the Corps to succeed if it would actually under-
take its expressed functions, and if its administrators would seriously commit
themselves to solving the problems I will attempt to outline below.
Until recently, most C.O.'s have tried to stick it out in the Corps because
they felt the program, in spite of its many problems, had a great deal of poten-
tial. Since many of the problems were obviously hangovers from the way things
were done in the Conservation Camp program, most corpsmen were at first hopeful
that the Corps would gradually outgrow those undesirable vestiges, and would, in
due time, iniate constructive changes on its own.
After nearly a year of waiting and numerous unsuccessful attempts to get
Corps administrators to look seriously at the Corps' problems had produced re-
gretably few positive, and even a few negative, changes in the Corps, corpsmen
felt they had no choice but to air their grievances publicly at the two recent
legislative hearings. Hopefully, the hearings will have impressed upon Corps
administrators the need to effect some significant changes in the Corps soon,
before the already low morale among corpsmen deteriorates even further.
It has not been difficult for me to develop a list of problem areas in the
Corps. Most of the problems are ones that I have personally experienced as a
corpsman, and the other problems I have observed first hand on my field trips to
the various centers. For the Governor to discount these problems as complaints
coming from "a fcw dissidents who found they didn't like the blisters that they
-147-
page 2
APPENDIX E
were getting blisters on their hands " is a gross injustice. The problems are
very real and must be corrected as soon as possible.
In addition to describing the problems I have observed in the Corps, I have
attempted to formulate some viable solutions to the problems. I believe that
most of the solutions I have suggested could be implemented within the present
structure of the Corps, and would, at the same time, be acceptable to corpsmen.
I hope they can at least serve as a starting point for further discussions and
eventual change in the Corps.
Failure of the Corps to involve itself in ecological work
Perhaps the greatest single objection that corpsmen, particularly the C.O.'s,
have had about the Corps is that, beyond the role of fire fighting, corpsmen
have not been involved in what they would call truly ecological or environmental
protection work. Again, I think it was deplorable for the Governor to shrug off
the corpsmen's strong feelings on this issue as the views of a few dissidents that
have sounded off without seeing the big picture. My position in the Corps has-
given me an unique opportunity to "see the big picture", and, in spite of state-
ments by Joe Griggs and others to the contrary, I must agree with the corpsmen
that most Corps projects cannot honestly be called "ecological".
The most obvious and only accurate description of what the Corps has been
doing is "conservation work". Although to many people the two terms; ecology
and conservation, are synonymous, there is a fundamental difference between them,
particularly at the program level. Ecological programs are directed at minimizing
the affect of man on the environment so that a more naturally balanced, mutually
benefitial environment can be realized. Conservation programs, on the other hand,
are aimed at managing natural resources in order to insure man's maximum uteli-
zation of those resources without completely exhausting or destroying them.
Both approaches are applaudable, but the difference between the two must be
-148-
page 3
APPENDIX E
recognized.
Ecology action, or environmental protection, is something that is very
dear to most C.O,'s. If the Corps were in fact an Ecology Corps that was serious-
1y committed to and involved in ecological work, I do not think it would have had
any trouble recruiting enough volunteers to fill its camps last year, even at
the low pay and without a draft law to coerce them to join. Many of the C.O.'s
who joined the Corps last summer did so in spite of the absence of a draft law,
because they were hopeful that the Corps would actually undertake its stated
purpose "to aid in the maintenance of the natural ecology and the preservation
of the beauty and natural resources of this state." The failure of the Corps
to involve itself in ecological work has alienated many corpsmen, and has cer-
tainly aggravated the low morale caused by the other problems.
At this point, I think it is significant to point out that the majority of
corpsmen do not object so much to doing conservation work, as they object to the
Corps being called an Ecology Corps without its actually getting involved in
predominantly ecological programs. To continue misleading prospective voluntcers,
as well as the general public, by using the name of Ecology Corps without chang-
ing its primary thrust to ecological programs is simply not fair.
It has been pointed out to corpsmen on numerous occaisions that the Corps
has a very limited budget of its own and that it simply cannot afford to develop
its own ecology programs. Hopefully, Corps administrators will eventually develop
a list of ecological projects and submit a request to the legislature for the
funds needed to implement them. In the mean time, however, I think a significant
portion of ecology-oriented projects could be incorporated into the Corps' work
program if a really serious effort would be made, in soliciting contracts, to
specifically seck out more contracts such as working for fish hatcheries, re-
seeding bared land, clearing litter from along streams and campgrounds, and main-
taining foot trails. Regrettably, I do not see much hope of this happening as
-149-
page. 4
APPENDIX E
long as Corps contracts continue to be negotiated by the same personnel that
negotiate Conservation Camp projects.
In summary, the Corps has a critical decision to make - to be or not to be
an Ecology Corps. Either it should commit itself to getting involved in more
ecological work, or the name of the Corps should be change to something more
appropriate like the California Environment Corps or the California Conservation
Corps. I would personally rather see the Corps become progressively more involved
in ecological projects until it can truly claim to be an Ecology Corps.
Inadequate compensation
Nearly everyone agrees that the present $40 a month allowance is totally
unrealistic. I commend the Department of Conservation for recognizing that and
working to provide an increase to $100 a month effective July 1st.
It remains to be seen whether or not the $100 a month will be sufficient
inducement to keep corpsmen in the program for the recommended 6 months, but it
is certainly not enough to encourage many re-enlistments. While the $100.
month should be sufficient to cover most routine expenses (recreation, trans-
portation, incidentals, etc.), it still doesn't provide corpsmen any margin for
repaying outstanding financial obligations, like student loans or car payments;
for meeting emergency expenses, like dental care or emergency trips home; or for
saving money toward the day they finally get out of the corps and need to go job
hunting or return to school. Since corpsmen do not receive veterans benefits,
or end-of-service bonuses such as given in the Peace Corps and VISTA, it would
be considerate to give them a wage that would allow them to set aside their own
funds to meet future needs.
Corpsmen should be paid wages commensurate to the work they are producing,
and $100 a month is simply not adequate compensation for the type of hard manual
labor being done by corpsmen, or for the dangers to which corpsmen are exposed
page 5
APPENDIX E
to in fighting wildland fires. In view of the fact that corpsmen are producing
1½ to 2 times the production of regular hand-crews that are paid well over the
minimum wage, I don't think it is unreasonable for corpsmen to ask for and be
given approximately a minimum wage.
Implementing a minimum wage for corpsmen would almost certainly require di-
rect appropriations from the state legislature, since it is highly improbable
that the increase could be met entirely by increasing contract rates. Since the
state assembly seems receptive to the idea of providing corpsmen a minimum wage,
it appears the fate of the pay increase may well depend upon whether or not the
Department of Conservation is ready to ask for the necessary appropriations. In
making this decision, the Department is going to have to ask itself whether it
really needs the fire fighting force provided by the corpsmen. If they do, then
I think it is their responsibility and duty to ask the state to provide just com-
pensation to corpsmen for their services. I am confident that the legislature,
as well as the general public, will recognize that even paying a minimum wage it
will still be cheaper to use corpsmen, particularly since they would still be
partially self-supporting, than to go without the fire protection, or have to
hire additional seasonal fire-fighters at the prevaling rates.
Another problem I have observed in regard to wages is that it does not seem
fair to keep corpsmen on call 24 hrs. a day at the centers during fire season
without some form of compensation. Regular forestry employees are paid an extra
15% during fire season for being on call at home, and are given C.T.O. when they
have night duty at the centers. It is only fair that corpsmen be compensated
for the extra 16 hrs. they are held on call, by either paying them an hourly
rate of 15% of their regular hourly wage, or giving them one day of C.T.O. for
every five evenings they are on call.
In summary, I would recommend that the Department of Conservation commit it-
self to the goal of increasing the wage to approximately the minimum wage starting
page 6
APPENDIX E
this July if at all possible, and, if not, by July 1973 at the latest. Starting
this fire season, compensation in one form or the other should be provided corps-
men for being held on call during the fire season.
Need for health care protection
Another persistent concern of corpsmen has been the lack of adequate health
coverage provided corpsmen. Workmen's Compensation Insurance hardly provides the
comprehensive medical, life insurance, and dental coverage needed today. Corpsmen
should not be punished for getting sick or injured on their time off - proper
medical care needs to be provided for any illness or injury regardless of the
cause. While it is one thing to say that corpsmen should buy their own coverage
like other state employees, it must not be forgotten that other state employees
receive salaries sufficiently high that they can afford to buy adequate coverage
if they wish.
Corpsmen attending the April 4th Cost and Efficiency hearing were pleased
to learn that a comprehensive group plan, covering both medical care and life;
would be implemented August 1st once corpsmen are financially able to help pay
for the plan. Details of this plan should be made public to corpsmen now, so
they can determine if the plan does in fact provide adequate coverage. And un-
til a minimum wage is provided, I think it would be impractical to expect corps-
men to pay more than $5 a month of the cost. Picking up the remainder of the
cost should be the responsibility of the Corps. Moreover, until the minimum
wage is instituted, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that corpsmen be
provided basic dental care.
In summary, the fact that corpsmen are exempt contractees rather than regu-
lar state employees should not be held against them particularly when it comes to
basic health needs.
-152-
page 7
APPENDIX E
Overcrowded living accommodations
Until recently the problems created by overcrowded living facilities were
insignificant in comparison to the other problems. However, now that the cen-
ters are beginning to reach their quota of corpsmen, these problems are becoming
more accute.
Living facilities at most of the centers were designed to house 80 inmates,
not 80 free individuals. Living in barracks with row after row of bunk beds
provides very little privacy and can be nerve-racking. The corpsmen's practice
of building cubicles of privacy out of lockers and blankets is indicative of
the need for privacy. The severe restrictions on personal freedoms caused by
such close quarters were perhaps excusable when the facilities were being used
by inmates who were being punished for committing crimes. However, neither the
C.O,'s nor the regular volunteers have committed any such crimes, and they should
not be subjected to the same restrictions.
As the center populations continue to increase, the noise and activity levels
in the barracks will increase and the space available each individual will de-
crease. Such overcrowding will undoubtedly have an adverse affect on the general
morale level, and thus indirectly affect work production. It is relevant to note
that the Conservation Camp program itself has got more work production per man-
hour since their own camps have been operating at a reduced level of 60 inmates,
instead of the maximum of 80.
For the above reasons, I recommend that the populations at each center be
limited to no more than 50 corpsmen (including support positions such as corpsmen
cooks, laundrymen, etc.). If fire protection needs make it necessary to keep
80 men in each area, additional facilities (possibly in fire stations, highway
maintenance facilities, etc.) should be requisitioned to accommodate the extra
corpsmen. In addition, the existing center facilities should be remodeled into
partitioned "rooms" so that some privacy can be achieved. The institution of a
-153-
page 8
APPENDIX E
minimum wage could also help in regard to the housing situation. First, the
difference in cost between housing 50 men and 80 men at each center could be
absorbed in a slightly higher housing fee. Secondly, once a minimum wage were
effected, corpsmen would be able to take advantage of the option to live off-
camp during the non-fire season.
Disparity in food quality
The poor quality and nature of food served at several centers has been a
major concern of the corpsmen at those centers. The present suggested 53.6 $
a meal food budget is inadequate for feeding persons doing largely hard manual
labor. Where camp administrators and cooks have tried to stay within that budget
(at Inyo and Calaveras), the food quality and nuitrition, and indirectly the morale
of corpsmen, have suffered.
Having grown up eating institutional food in a boarding school and having
been a cook in the Corps for six months, I realize it is difficult to satisfy
the many different tastes and preferences found in any large group. However,
I think many positive accommodations could be made by setting up. food commit-
tees (composed of the regular cooks, the camp director or a foreman, the corps-
men cooks, and perhaps two representatives elected by corpsmen) at each center.
At Humboldt where such a food committee has been functioning, there have been
some welcomed improvements in the overall quality and nature of the food.
No matter how conscientious and creative the cooks may be, it is very
difficult to provide a well-balanced, nuitritional diet on a 53.6 C a meal food
budget. I would recommend that all centers adopt a more realistic food budget
of around 65 C to 70 c a meal. Dispority in food costs at the various centers
should be taken into consideration in setting the food budgets. Finally, I would
suggest corpsmen be given vitamins to supplement their diet.
-154-
APPENDIX E
page 9
Clothing needs
While most of the clothing issued corpsmen is of adequate quality, the
boo in particular of very poor quality. I know that there have been some
administrative obstacles to getting boots, but sending corpsmen into fire situ-
ations in such slick-soled boots creates a dangerous safety problem. Another
sub-standard item of clothing is the blue jeans. Corpsmen should be provided
heavier, more durable pants, or be allowed to purchase their own as long as they
conform to the general uniform. Finally, some type of thermal or fish-net long-
johns should be provided all corpsmen who work out-of-doors in the winter.
Objectionable recruiting practices
While it is understandable that the centers need to be filled as soon as
possible, the Corps' present recruiting practices may prove to be more of a
handicap than a solution to this problem in the long run. The present recruit-
ing practices are inefficient because they provoke considerable distrust and
resentment of Corps administrators among corpsmen, which contribute indirectly,
and in some cases directly, to the extraordinarily high turnover rate of corps-
men.
Since the inception of the Corps, a great deal of misleading information
has been given out to prospective recruits. A few improvements have been made
in this area - notably the replacement of that highly objectionable "Do your
thing" leaflet with a new Corps leaflet which I attempted to keep as objective
as possible. According to a few of the new recruits I have talked with; however,
some of the people who are now recruiting volunteers are evidently less concerned
about being objective and are continuing to mislead volunteers. Whether this
has been intentional or unintentional, it should be stopped. New recruits should
not be asked to sign contracts until they are fully informed about Corps regula-
-155-
page 10
APPENDIX E
tions and about the nature of the work projects they will be involved in at each
center, and until they have a chance to visit with corpsmen at a center.
Another concern that I have personally is that the exceptionally good work
records established last year by the C.O.'s not be sacraficed simply in order to
fill the centers as soon as possible. It appears that the only criteria being
used now in recruiting corpsmen is to take anyone who is willing to join the
Corps and sign a six month contract. I do not want to derogate the volunteers
in the Corps, but a number of the volunteers recruited since January have been
of such low mental ability that they could actually become dangerous handicaps
in any fire situation. Humboldt, for instance, actually recruited six mentally
retarded persons. And while I all for giving everyone a chance to be productive,
the Corps is not capable of providing the specialized help needed to integrate
such persons into its work programs, much less develop them into trained fire
fighters. Recruiting such persons, and then ruthlessly weeding out those unable
to meet even minimal work standards seems to me to be a cruel and unproductive
recruiting practice. In view of these past experiences, I think it is essential
that certain minimum physical and mental standards be established for volunteers
recruited for the Corps.
In regard to the recruitment of C.O.'s, I would like to make two additional
recommendations. First, service in the Corps should be entirely voluntary. In
other words, C.O.'s should not be ordered into the Corps unless they volunteer
for it. Second, C.O.'s should only be asked to make the same 6 month commitment
as regular volunteers. Those C.O.'s who are satisfied with the Corps would pre-
sumably re-enlist every 6 months until their two year obligation was over. Those
C.O.'s who were not happy in the Corps would have the option of taking another
alternative service job. The question of fulfilling the two year alternative
service obligation should be settled between the C.O. and Selective Service,
and should not be handled by the Corps. Establishing such a policy might help
-156-
APPENDIX E
page 11
some in the recruitment of C.O.'s, since many of those who are now hesitant
to commit themselves to the Corps for the full two years might be willing to
give the Corps a try for six months.
Need to relax grooming standards
Grooming standards, specifically hair lengths, have been a touchy point of
contention between corpsmen and Corps administrators. Obviously both groups have
strong feelings about this issue, but hopefully a compromise solution can still
be worked out that would be acceptable to both sides.
Jim Stearn's effort last fall to accommodate some change in hair regulations
was received very favorably by the corpsmen at Tehama. Why the corpsmen there
did not follow through on this by formulating a viable standard, I do not know.
However, I do know that corpsmen have not responded well to the conservative in-
terpretation given the forestry grooming standards by some center directors and
Joe Griggs. While the hair question has temporarily subsided in difference to
the other more over-riding issues, it will undoubtedly crop up again and again
until a mutually satisfactory compromise is reached.
Therefore, I would suggest the Department of Conservation take the iniative
and establish the following new grooming standards. During the fire season,
corpsmen would be required to follow the state forestry grooming standards for
fire fighters. It should be made clear that these standards do not mean tapered
sides like some center directors have implied. During the off-fire season, hair
standards should be relaxed to the standards set by the Federal Forest Service for
their fire fighters: i.e. hair can extend no longer than one inch below the collar
and should not break the shoulders; and beards, sideburns, and moustaches are
acceptable as long as they are tidily groomed.
-157-
page 12
APPENDIX E
Need for continuing dialog and an impartial grievance procedure
Most of the above problems could probably have been taken care of long aga
without their turning into crisis situations, if the Corps had iniated regular
dialog between corpsmen and administrators, as was promised last summer, and if
a more impartial grievance procedure were in operation.
Recognizing that the morale problem was being aggravated by the frustrating
lack of access to those administrators capable of changing Corps policies and
regulations, another corpsman and I talked with Jim Stearns last summer about
the need for regular communication and dialog between corpsmen and administrators.
Two suggestions were made, and received the approval of Mr. Stearns. One was to
set up regular meetings between corpsmen representatives and administrators, both
at the center level, and on a corps-wide basis. The other was to start a new
Corps newsletter as another vehicle for dialog. Except at Humboldt where regular
center meetings have been held, none of the above suggestions have been implement-
ed.
When Joe Griggs announced after the March 15th Finance Committee hearing
that corpsmen would not be allowed to attend the long promised, and often post-
poned, corps-wide meeting even if it were ever held, I was personally incensed.
Corpsmen have not asked that they be given administrative control over the pro-
gram - that is unrealistic. But they are asking that they be given regular op-
portunities to express their viewpoints and make positive suggestions to Corps
administrators. Unless the Department of Conservation supports Joe Griggs'
statement that there will be no discussion in the Corps, I think it is absolute-
ly essential that such a corps-wide meeting be called for the immediate future,
and that plans be formulated to hold such meetings on a regular basis (perhaps
quarterly) from now on. I realize that such meeting are difficult to arrange,
but I cannot help but feel that they would take considerably less time and effort
-158-
page 13
APPENDIX E
to hold than it takes to deal with each problem after it turns into a crisis
situation.
It appears the proposed Corps newsletter is going to suffer the same fate
at the corps-wide meetings unless something is done quickly. In February I
formulated an editorial policy for the newsletter, which with a few minor changes
was approved by the Director. Joe Griggs felt that it would be best if wrote
a letter to the center directors informing them about the newsletter and authoriz-
ing them to allow corpsmen to spend work time preparing material for the news-
letter. Over a month and a half have elapsed since then without any action on
his part, in spite of the fact that I pestered him nearly every other day to
send the letter out so we could start getting material back in from the centers.
Since an early release from the Alternative Service Program and the Corps has
been arranged for me (effective April 17), I will no longer be able to follow
through on the newsletter. As it stands now, I do not know whether or not
there is any point in publishing a newsletter, or even if there is any corpsman
who would be interested in editing it.
Another obstacle to solving problems in the Corps has been the total
absence of a clearly defined, impartial grievance procedure. Although there is
always the built-in grievance procedure of taking grievances up the bureaucratic
hierarchy, as Mr. Stearns pointed out, this has been available to only a few
corpsmen who have not been intimidated by veiled threats from center adminis-
trators and who have had the iniative to take their grievances to Sacramento.
In one case that I know of personally, a corpsman was fired precisely because
he tried to utelize that natural grievance procedure. In most cases, however,
the grievances have simply been allowed to fester until they exploded in a
crisis situation. I don't think it is necessary to re-state the need for such
a basic element of good employee - employer relations.
-159-
APPENDIX F
SECTION SERVICE august SYSTEM
CALIFORNIA HEADQUARTERS
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
FEDERAL BUILDING
801 I STREET
IN REPLYING ADDRESS
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
THE STATE DIRECTOR AND REFER TO
SUBJECT BELOW
12 April 1972
9-CO-11
Assemblyman Mike Cullen, Chairman
Assembly Committee on Efficiency
and Cost Control
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Subject: Alternate Service Program
Dear Mr. Cullen:
As you requested, I am forwarding a copy of the Selective
Service Regulations which pertain to the administration of the
Alternate Service Program for conscientious objectors. Probably
your main interest will be in the Sections 1660.5 and 1660.6, which
cover eligible employers and eligible jobs for conscientious objec-
tors assigned to alternate service. I appreciated the opportunity
to appear before your committee and discuss the assignment of con-
scientious objectors to the California Ecology Corps. If I can be
of further service to you in any way, please feel free to call on
me.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
BILL D. MC CANN
Chief, Alternate
Service Program
Attachments
-160-
APPENDIX F
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
National Headquarters
Office of the Director
Amendments to Selective Service Regulations
Whereas, on November 5, 1971, the Director of Selective
Service published a Notice of Proposed Amendments of Selective
Service Regulations 36 Federal Register 21294 of November 5, 1971;
and
Whereas more than thirty days have elapsed subsequent
to such publication during which period comments from the public
have been received and considered.
Now therefore by virtue of the authority vested in me
by Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act, as amended
(50 App. U.S.C. sections 451 et seq.), the Selective Service
Regulations, constituting a portion of Chapter XVI of Title 32
of the Code of Federal Regulations, are hereby amended, effective
7:00 a.m. E.S.T. on December 10, 1971, as follows:
-161-
APPENDIX F
Part 1660 Alternate Service is added to read as follows:
"Part 1660 - Alternate Service
Sec.
1660.1
Responsibility for Administration.
1660.2
Examination of Registrants.
1660.3
Volunteer for Alternate Service.
1660.4
Selection of Non-Volunteer for Alternate Service.
1660.5
Eligible Employers of Registrants Performing Alternate
Service.
1660.6
Eligible Jobs for Registrants Performing Alternate
Service.
1660.7
Assigning Alternate Service.
1660.8
Performance of Alternate Service.
1660.9
Administration of Alternate Service.
1660.10
Release from Alternate Service.
1660.11
Completion of Alternate Service.
1660.12
Information Concerning Alternate Service.
-162-
APPENDIX F
"1660.1 Responsibility for Administration. (a) The state
director, under the supervision of the Director, will assure com-
pliance with the law, the regulations, and Selective Service policy
concerning the program of alternate service for registrants who have
been classified in Class 1-0.
"(b) The state director of the state in which a registrant
is registered will have primary responsibility for the initial place-
ment of the registrant in alternate service. That state director
will coordinate any job placement activities in any state outside
his own with the state director of that state. In assigning a reg-
istrant outside his own state, the assigning state director must
have the approval of the 'receiving' state director or the Director
of Selective Service.
"(c) Alternate service to be performed outside the
geographical area under the jurisdiction of a state director will be
administered by the Director of Selective Service after the assign-
ment to such work has been made by the state director.
"1660.2 Examination of Registrants. -A registrant clas-
sified in Class 1-0 shall be ordered to report for Armed Forces
examination in the same manner as any other registrant. If he
-163-
APPENDIX F
fails to report for or submit to this examination, or if he is
found to be qualified for service, he shall be ordered to the
appropriate alternate service job when his Random Sequence Number
is reached.
"1660.3 Volunteer for Alternate Service.-Only registrants
classified In Class 1-0 may volunteer for alternate service in lieu
of induction. Any registrant in Class 1-0 may submit SSS Form 151
(Application of Volunteer for Alternate Service) to his local board.
If the volunteer wishes to propose jobs which he feels would be
approved for his alternate service he will submit each job on an
SSS Form 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a Job as
Alternate Service) simultaneously with his completed SSS Form 151
(Application of Volunteer for Alternate Service). The state director
will approve or disapprove the proposed jobs. If the registrant
fails to locate a suitable job or if the jobs submitted on the SSS
Form 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a Job as Alternate
Service) are not approved, the state director will take no action
until sixty days after the registrant would have begun processing
in accordance with section 1660.4 had he not volunteered. After
the sixty days the state director may order the registrant to an
available job.
-164-
APPENDIX F
"1660.4 Selection of Non-Volunteer for Alternate Service.- -
(a) A non-volunteer will not be ordered to perform alternate service
in lieu of induction before registrants with his RSN who are clas-
sified in Class 1-A or 1-A-0 are ordered for induction.
"(b) When a registrant in the medical, dental, or allied
specialist category is classified in Class 1-0, he will be ordered
to alternate service in lieu of induction at the time that he would
have been called for induction if he were in Class 1-A or 1-A-0.
"(c) When the RSN of a registrant classified in Class 1-0
is reached ('reached' means the national cutoff number is equal to
or higher than the registrant's RSN) the local board will send him
SSS Form 155 (Selection for Alternate Service; Rights and Obligations
of Conscientious Objectors in the Alternate Service Assignment
Process), and retain a copy in the cover sheet of the registrant.
SSS Form 152 (Conscientious Objectors Skills Questionnaire) and three
copies of SSS Form 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a
Job as Alternate Service) will also be sent to the registrant at
this time.
"(d) Mailing of the SSS Form 155 (Selection for Alternate
Service; Rights and Obligations of Conscientious Objectors in the
Alternate Service Assignment Process) by the local board is the
effective beginning of processing for alternate service in lieu of
-165-
APPENDIX F
induction for the affected registrant. If within 270 days after
the registrant has exhausted his 60 day job search an alternate
service job has not been obtained and the registrant has not been
ordered to such job, he will be placed in a lower priority selection
group. Delays in processing due to litigation instituted by the
registrant, litigation pending against the registrant, or a post-
ponement of processing for alternate service granted the registrant
under section 1660.7 will not count toward the 270-day time period.
"1660.5 Eligible Employers of Registrants Performing
Alternate Service. -Employment which may be considered to be appro-
priate as alternate service in lieu of induction into the Armed
Forces by registrants who have been classified in Class 1-0 shall be
limited to the following:
(1) Employment by the United States Government, or by a
State, Territory, or possession of the United States or
by a political subdivision thereof, or by the District of
Columbia;
(2) Employment by a non-profit organization, association,
or corporation which is primarily engaged either in a
charitable activity conducted for the benefit of the general
public or in carrying out a program for the improvement of
the public health or welfare, including educational and
-166-
APPENDIX F
scientific activities in support thereof, when such
activity or program is not principally for the benefit
of the members of such organization, association, or
corporation, or for increasing the membership thereof; or
(3) Employment in an activity of an organization,
association, or corporation which is either charitable
in nature performed for the benefit of the general public
or is for the improvement of the public health or welfare,
including educational and scientific activities in support
thereof, and when such activity or program is not for
profit.
"1660.6 Eligible Jobs for Registrants Performing Alternate
Service.-Five elements will be considered as a basis for determining
whether a specific job is acceptable as alternate service for a
registrant classified in Class 1-0:
(1) National Health, Safety or Interest:
The job must fulfill specifications of the law and
regulations.
(2) Non-interference with the competitive labor market:
The registrant cannot be assigned to a job which is
applied for by other qualified people who are not
registrants in Class 1-0. This restriction does not
-167-
APPENDIX F
prohibit the approval of special programs such as
Peace Corps and VISTA for alternate service by
registrant in Class 1-0.
(3) Compensation: The compensation will provide a
standard of living to the registrant reasonably com-
parable to the standard of living the same man would
have enjoyed had he gone into the service.
(4) Skill and talent utilization: A registrant may
utilize his special skills.
(5) Job location: A registrant will work outside his
community of residence.
Criteria (3), (4), and (5) are waiverable by the state
director when such action is determined to be in the national interest
and would speed the placement of registrants in alternate service.
"1660.7 Assigning Alternate Service. - (a) Processing of
the registrant for assignment to alternate service will continue even
though he fails to return SSS Form 152 (Conscientious Objectors
Skills Questionnaire) within 15 days.
"(b) The registrant will submit SSS Form(s) 156 (Employer's
Statement of Availability of a Job as Alternate Service) to the
state director, who will determine whether the work is acceptable.
A letter from an employer may, at any time, substitute for such
-168-
APPENDIX F
SSS Form 156. When a job is approved, the state director will
direct the Executive Secretary or clerk, if so authorized, or a
local board member of a registrant's local board to issue a work
order, SSS Form 153 (Order to Report for Alternate Service). The
state director will issue a domestic travel request and provide
meals and accommodations for a registrant, upon his request, who
has been ordered to alternate service, as would be done for a reg-
istrant ordered for induction. Any time the state director dis-
approves a job proposed on SSS Form 156 (Employer's Statement of
Availability of a Job as Alternate Service) submitted by the regis-
trant, he will inform the registrant of his decision within 10 days
after the state director receives such form.
"(c) At any time following 60 days after a registrant's
SSS Form 155 (Selection for Alternate Service; Rights and Obligations
of Conscientious Objectors in the Alternate Service Assignment
Process) has been mailed, if the registrant has submitted no SSS
Form 156 (Employer's Statement of Availability of a Job as Alternate
Service) or if the submitted jobs have been disapproved, the state
director may direct the Executive Secretary or clerk, if so authorized,
or a local board member of a registrant's local board to order him
to a job which the state director selects as the registrant's
alternate service.
-169-
APPENDIX F
"(d) A registrant classified in Class 1-0 may take a
job anticipating that it might later be approved as alternate
service. If such a job is approved, the registrant will be credited
with having performed acceptable service, when in fact he has per-
formed such service, from the date he started the job, or the date
he was classified in Class 1-0, whichever is later. No more than
twenty-four months of service will be required. Time spent looking
for an initial job is not creditable toward the twenty-four months
of service.
"(e) A registrant who prior to the lapse of the sixty-day
period established in paragraph (c), finds a job (jobs), but whose
job(s) is (are) not approved by his state director, may request that
the state director's decision(s) be reviewed by the Director prior
to his being mailed an SSS Form 153 (Order to Report for Alternate
Service). The registrant's case will be considered by the Director
on only one occasion prior to his initial assignment to alternate
service. However, he may request a review of as many as three such
adverse decisions on jobs in this one review. The Director will
either approve a job proposed by the registrant or, if the 60 days
have elapsed, authorize a mandatory work order. Decisions by the
Director will be carried out by the appropriate state director and
local boards and their employees.
-170-
APPENDIX F
"(f) Any reason for granting a postponement for an
induction order is sufficient for granting the postponement of
processing for alternate service in lieu of induction.
"1660.8 Performance of Alternate Service.-Any registrant
who knowingly fails or neglects to obey an order from his local
board to perform alternate service contributing to the maintenance
of the national health, safety, or interest in lieu of induction or
who constructively fails or neglects to obey such order by his
failure to comply with reasonable requirements of an employer shall
be deemed to have knowingly failed or neglected to perform a duty
required of him under the Military Selective Service Act. The reg-
istrant shall have failed to meet the standards or failed to perform
satisfactorily if he did not meet the standards of performance
demanded by the employer of his other employees in similar jobs.
"1660.9 Administration of Alternate Service. (a) Whenever
a registrant is refused employment by an employer who had previously
agreed to hire him, whenever the registrant refuses employment,
whenever a registrant's employment is terminated, or whenever he
leaves his job, the state director administering the registrant's
case will consider the circumstances surrounding the refusal,
termination, or departure to determine whether the registrant had
failed to perform his job or to conduct himself satisfactorily.
-171-
APPENDIX F
"(b) Whenever the state director has reason to believe
that a registrant refused or constructively refused employment, or
was relieved for cause or left his job unjustifiably he will conduct
an investigation which will include the following steps; obtain a
statement from the former employer describing the circumstances;
send such statement to the registrant; obtain a statement from the
registrant in his defense, if he wishes to make one; and compile any
other evidence he feels is relevant. He will then determine whether
the termination was for cause or whether the departure was unjusti-
fiable. If he determines that the registrant's departure was without
justification he will report the registrant for prosecution.
"(c) If the state director finds no failure of the reg-
istrant to perform satisfactorily he will order the registrant to
another job as quickly as possible. If the registrant complies with
the order to report to the new job, the intervening time between
jobs will not constitute a break in the required period of alternate
service.
"(d) The state director may reassign and reorder a
working registrant at any time that he determines the original job
ceases to be acceptable as alternate service as defined in section
1660.6. Such determination shall be reviewed by the Director upon
the request of the registrant. The Director will either authorize
the registrant to remain on his job or validate the reassignment.
-172-
APPENDIX F
"1660.10 Release from Alternate Service.-The state
director of the state in which a registrant is working or the
Director, when the registrant is not under the supervision of a
state director, may release a registrant prior to his completion
of twenty-four months of service upon a determination of a hardship,
medical, or other bona fide basis for such early release. If the
registrant is working outside the state in which he is registered,
the decision should be made in consultation with the state director
of the state in which the registrant is registered. When such a
release takes place prior to completion of six months of alternate
service, the state director of the state in which the registrant
is registered may direct a reopening of the registrant's clas-
sification by the local board.
"1660.11 Completion of Alternate Service. (a) After a
registrant has completed his alternate service obligation, the
state director will return (through another state director if
necessary) the registrant's selective service file to the appro-
priate local board.
"(b) When the local board receives the registrant's
selective service file, it shall inform the registrant that he
has satisfactorily completed his alternate service. He shall be
classified in Class 4-W.
-173-
APPENDIX F
"1660.12 Information Concerning Alternate Service. -
A registrant who is outside the area of his local board may seek
information relative to any aspect of processing for alternate
service from the local board or state director of his new place
of residence. The assisting state director or local board will
not assume the responsibility of the state director or local board
of jurisdiction."
Curtis W. Tarr
Director
December 6, 1971
-174-
APPENDIX G
Statement presented to the California Assembly Efficiency and Cost Committee
Honorable Michael Cullen, Chairman
4 April 1972
At the request of the Department of Conservation, I would like to comment
on the Ecology program as it has aided the University of California's White
Mountain Research Station. At the outset, I wish to make clear that these re-
marks are based on my personal evaluation and do not constitute in any way an
official position held by the University of California.
The White Mountain Research Station consists of four laboratories located
at various altitudes up to 14, 246 feet on the White Mountain Range which forms
the eastern wall of the Owens Valley. The Station provides these facilities
for use by scientific investigators interested in the unique environmental
conditions of this high altitude region.
Since the beginning of the program at the Inyo Ecology Center last summer,
we have availed ourselves of the services of the corpsmen in a number of our
projects. I would like to describe these briefly and offer my opinion of the
work performed.
At the Owens Valley Laboratory near Bishop, we have set aside more than
500 acres of desert land for the purpose of establishing a study area of the
native plants and animals. The corpsmen are providing the necessary manpower
to install the fencing required to protect the area. In recent weeks, the
corps helped protect this area in yet another way. Several range fires near the
Laboratory have threatened this site. The corps has reacted quickly and effi-
ciently each time to prevent destruction of the area. This aspect of their
program is very important to the entire Inyo-Mono area.
Work crews have been used at the higher elevations for the purpose of
maintaining the laboratory sites in conditions consistent with the environ-
mental protection of the area. They have assisted in painting, area clean-up
projects, and in the development of a water storage system at the Barcroft
Laboratory (12, feet elevation).
In one unique case, the educational background of one corpsman in the
field of biology provided an opportunity to utilize his talents as an assistant
in my own resident research program. In addition to the obvious benefits to
my program, this young man gains much from the experience by broadening his
own interests.
It is my observation that, in all the projects mentioned, the performance
of the men has been outstanding and the quality of the work has been of the
highest standard. I will not hesitate to use their services whenever the need
arises.
The overall success of the Ecology Program, as I view it, is the combined
result of the diligent efforts of the men who make up the corps in Inyo County,
and the capable leadership provided by Mr. John Clark and his staff at the Center.
-175-
APPENDIX G
Statement to Committee
-2-
4 April 1972
Undoubtedly, it will be difficult at this point to judge the effectiveness of
the program in every detail. However, we can acknowledge the broad range of
services provided by the program and recognize their value to the people of
the State of California. It is my sincere hope that the Ecology Program will
continue to receive the official and public support it has enjoyed during its
first year of operation.
Respectfully submitted by:
Duane Blume
F. Duane Blume, Ph.D.
Assistant Director
White Mountain Research Station
Bishop, California
-176-
APPENDIX H
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, California 94111
April 5, 1972
TIMEST SYSTEM
COMPERATIVE
Mr. Mike Cullin, Chairman
Committee on Efficiency & Cost Control
NATIONAL
UAS
FORESTRY
California State Assembly
FORESTRY
Room 440B State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Cullin:
As you requested at the termination of the hearing of the California
Ecology Corps yesterday, I am pleased to submit these comments for
the United States Forest Service concerning the continuation of the
Ecology Corps. The Corps provides a substantial and effective addition
to the State's wildland fire fighting force. Adequately financed,
it can continue to be an effective force in protection and development
of resources within the National Forests in California as well as
on lands where the primary responsibility for protection lies with
the State.
The U.S. Forest Service protects and manages some 20 million acres of
publicly owned lands which contribute a large share of the useable
natural resources including wood, water, forage, wildlife as well as
recreation, scenic and aesthetic attractions which make California's
desirable environment.
As Director Stearns indicated yesterday, the California Ecology Corps
in the current fiscal year has undertaken work on the Stanislaus, the
Eldorado and the Inyo National Forests in addition to providing a trained
source of hand crews for forest fire suppression. Additional work is
expected in those situations where labor provided by the Ecology Corps
can effectively supplement the work forces employed by the U.S. Forest
Service directly or through other forms of contracting. We have found
the work of the Corps to be of desirable quality and quantity.
I heartily endorse the testimony your committee heard yesterday support-
ing the continuation and extension of the Corps. We in the Forest
Service look on it as a highly valuable addition to the total fire
protection resource in the State. This resource appears even more critical
in the light of the extended drought through much of California during
the current winter.
Division of Information & Education
-177-
6200-11 (1/69)
APPENDIX I
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
Three Rivers, California 13271
L7019
March 31, 1972
Memorandum
To:
Chief Park Ranger
From:
Fire Control Officer
Subject: California Ecology Corps, Ash Mountain
The Ecology Corps crew based in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks have been involved in the following activities since their
arrival in November, 1971.
Ecological Restoration:
They have been involved in rehabilitating areas burned by the
Shepherd Peak and Buena Vista Fires of 1971 and the Cherry Flat
Fire of 1968. This work has included erosion control, fuel
hazard reduction, and naturalization of old fire lines.
Hazard Tree Removal
Ninety-seven man days were spent in removal of hazardous trees
at Lodgepole and Clough Cave.
Information Desk
One man has been on duty Monday through Friday on the
information desk in the Chief Ranger's Office.
Other Duties
The Interpretive Division has been using one man part time
to work in their darkroom developing and enlarging photographs.
They have also been involved in fire tool repair, hose testing,
wood cutting, boundary survey and snow survey work.
The availability of this crew for fire and search and rescue
operations is an invaluable asset to these Parks. Two corpsmen
will attend the Search and Rescue Training in Cedar Grove during
April.
-178-
APPENDIX I
All except two Corpsmen have had actual fire experience, and all
of them have had fire training. They are experienced in working
as a large organized crew or in smaller groups on Class A fires.
For any emergency requiring sizable manpower, they are extremely
valuable because of the size of the crew, their excellent physical
condition, their knowledge of the area, and their ability to work
as a disciplined crew.
Most of the above-mentioned work could not have been accomplished
without the use of the Ecology Corps due to shortages of funds
and manpower. The relatively low labor costs of the Corpsmen
have allowed us to accomplish approximately twice the work we would
have had if we had hired IGS-3 fire control aids for these
projects. It should be noted that costs for the Ecology Corps will
go up approximately 50 percent July 1, 1972.
Through March 31, 1972, we have utilized 787 man-days at a total
cost of $8459.21.
John P. Bowdler
-179-
APPENDIX J
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
ALIFORND
DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS
DIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
1416 Ninth Street
May 9, 1972
Honorable Mike Cullen, Chairman
Assembly Committee on Efficiency
and Cost Control
California Legislature
Room 440B, State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Assemblyman Cullen:
This is in response to a request of May 8 by your staff member, Dean
Cromwell, concerning the proposed July 1 increase of Ecology Corpsmen
salaries from $40 to $100 per month. The total additional cost to
implement this increase based on the four existing Ecology Centers
will be $245,000. To offset this additional cost, the department
is increasing the reimbursement rate for Ecology Corps projects from
$8.50 per man day to $12.50 per man day effective July 1. This
rate increase will result in additional reimbursements of $198,000.
All State and Federal agencies concerned have been notified of the
increase.
Sincerely,
James just G. Stearns, Director
cc: Verne Orr
N. B. Livermore, Jr.
-181-
CONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN
STATEMENTS, LETTERS, ETC., SUBMITTED
-182-
COMMITTEE ON EFFICIENCY AND COST CONTROL
Room 440-B, State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
April 6, 1972
Mr. Joe Griggs, Administrator
California Ecology Corps
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1550
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Griggs:
I would appreciate it if you could supply a written response
to the following questions by Friday, April 14:
1. Please explain the difference between ecology work
and conservation work as referred to on Page 4 of Director
Stearns' prepared statement;
2. Please provide the details of the "comprehensive
health benefit program" to be implemented August 1, 1972;
3. Please itemize the personal care items referred to
on Page 8 of Director Stearns' prepared statement;
4. With regard to the grievance procedure, please itemize
by name, date, complaint, and disposition those grievances which
have reached you for decision;
5. Please provide names of those corpsmen and their
employers referred to on Page 8 of Director Stearns' prepared
statement;
6. Please provide names, salaries, and benefits received,
and work performed by corpsmen assigned in Sacramento since
the inception of the program;
7. Please indicate the qualifications of volunteers as
stated on Page 7 of Director Stearns' prepared statement;
8. Please explain why the Department now will charge
$12.50 per man day in support of $100/month wages and did
not charge this rate at the beginning of the program;
9. Are meetings of corpsmen permitted during work time;
10. Please explain how contracts are negotiated;
11. Please list the man-hours spent firefighting by the
conservation camps during the last three years and by men from
the Ecology Corps since its inception; and
-183-
Mr. Joe Griggs
-2-
April 6, 1972
12. Since the Humboldt Ecology Center is being permitted
to expend 66¢ per man per meal and your budget limitation is
's 53.6¢ per man per meal, how is the difference recaptured for
budgetary purposes?
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Yours very truly,
Bot Wilson
BOB WILSON
Committee Member
BW:ts
-184-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS
DIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1416 Ninth Street
April 18, 1972
Honorable Bob Wilson
The State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 440-B
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Assemblyman Wilson:
I appreciate your interest in the California Ecology Corps. This
letter is in response to the questions you posed to Joe E. Griggs,
Ecology Corps Administrator, on April 6, 1972.
Item #1:
The type of ecological work performed by corpsmen include,
by the nature of the work, conserving and protecting the
State's natural resources. There is very little difference
in ecology work as performed by the Ecology Corps and certain
conservation work performed by state, federal and local
public agencies.
Item #2:
The insurance policy that will be available for corpsmen
on August 1, 1972 is a basic health plan that will also
provide a life insurance benefit. We are working out the
details of coverage. This policy will be paid entirely
by the State and will cover all corpsmen.
Item #3:
Personal care items include razors, razor blades, shaving
cream, toothpaste, toothbrushes, hair tonic, shoe polish,
shaving kits, combs, etc.
Item #4:
The following is a list of grievances received in this
office from corpsmen and their disposition:
On December 12, 1971, grievance was received from D. R.
Lantz, corpsman at Calaveras Ecology Center, requesting a
raise in pay, health insurance other than workmen's
compensation, and relaxing our regulations concerning
long hair. This Department has worked very diligently
to increase pay and will, in fact, raise the wages from
$40 to $100 per month plus room, board and clothing,
effective July 1, 1972. All emergency overtime work
(except search and rescue) has been paid at the rate of
$2.80 per hour since February 1, 1972.
-185-
CONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN
Assemblyman Bob Wilson
-2-
April 18, 1972
As to the question of long hair, we are continuing to follow
the safety rules of the California Division of Forestry for
firemen which requires no hair will be allowed to extend
beyond the top of the shirt collar and no beards are allowed.
There is a limitation on the size and shape of mustaches.
On December 27, 1971, we received a petition from virtually
all corpsmen requesting a raise in pay. This has been
answered above.
On December 12, 1971, we received a petition from the corpsmen
at Ash Mountain Spike Camp of the Calaveras Ecology Center
requesting that Friday, December 24, 1971, be declared a
holiday for corpsmen. This had been taken care of previously
by administrative action and that day was declared an informal
time-off for all State employees and Ecology Corpsmen. This
was a matter of the corpsmen initiating a petition based on
an unfounded rumor that they would have to work on Friday,
December 24.
We have received letters from corpsmen stating that they are
not doing ecology work. We think they are and have tried to
explain to all corpsmen the nature of the work in such a way
that will allow them to make a connection between the work
that they are doing and the ecological and environmental
importance of that work.
Almost all grievances at the Centers are based on corpsmen
rumor and misunderstanding and are handled to the satisfac-
tion of everyone concerned at the Centers by the Center
Director and his staff.
Item #5:
Melvin D. Brim
Department of Parks and Recreation
Samuel Magill
Department of Human Resources Development
Bernard Marquez
United States Forest Service
John Yeakel
Department of Fish and Game
Many other corpsmen have transferred to other alternative
service work from the Ecology Corps. Selective Service
maintains these records; we do not. However, we have never
refused to approve a transfer to other alternate service
work when recommended by Selective Service.
Item #6:
Samuel Magill -- $50 per month plus $5 per day expenses,
7 days per week. Work schedule -- 40 hours per week. Duties
included assignment as assistant to the Departmental Employ-
ment Opportunities Officer. Magill also served as a Career
Opportunities tutor for career opportunities development
employees.
-186-
Assemblyman Bob Wilson
-3-
April 18, 1972
Tim White -- $40 per month plus $5 per day expenses, 7 days
per week. Work assignment -- 40 hours per week. Assignment
as assistant to the Departmental Public Information Officer
preparing information, material and news releases relating
to the Corps.
Item #7: Qualifications for non-conscientious objector corpsmen are
as follows: at least 18 years old - not over 31 - in good
physical condition - willing to work long and irregular hours
and be on duty 24 hours per day, 5 days per week during the
declared fire season - not on probation or parole.
Item #8: At the beginning of the program, the $8.50 per day was based
on the difference between our cost to operate the Centers
paying $40 per month, and the amount of money already budgeted
for the Centers. Our decision to raise the base pay and the
per day charge for reimbursable work is based on our ability
to secure contracts from other agencies. This ability was
largely unknown until the Corps became operational and the
supporting agencies had time to plan projects and budget
for supporting funds.
Item #9: Yes.
Item #10: Contracts are negotiated between the Ecology Corps Adminis-
trator, the California Division of Forestry District Deputy
State Forester, and the contracting agency involved. Only
those projects that are geographically located in areas that
can be economically serviced are considered. Also, we do not
contract to do work that is not of an environmental nature.
Item #11: Total man hours spent firefighting by conservation camp
personnel during 1969-70-71 were 1,679,656 hours. Since the
beginning of the Ecology Corps July 1, 1971, corpsmen spent
a total of 8,040 hours fighting fires.
Item #12: Differences between actual meal costs and budget costs are
made up by adjusting other budget operating items. Please
keep in mind that most budget operating items are estimated
and that internal adjustments are common practice.
Ecology Center meal costs were especially difficult to
estimate the first year because of the corpsman option of
taking meals on days off and unknown vacancy rate.
If you need any further information concerning the California Ecology
Corps do not hesitate to let me know.
Original Stened by
for
James G. Stearns, Director
CC: Members, Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control
Mr. John Billett
-187-
COMMITTEE STAFF
MEMBERS
JOHN W. BILLETT
MIKE CULLEN. CHAIRMAN
Assembly Committee
SENIOR CONSULTANT
LONG BEACH
JAN SHARPLESS
ERNEST MOBLEY, VICE CHAIRMAN
ASSOCIATE CONBULTANT
BANGER
on
JUDY CHAIX
RESEARCH ASSISTANT
KENNETH CORY
WESTMINSIER
Efficiency and Cost Control
DEAN CROMWELL
LEGISLATIVE INTERN
RAYMOND T. SEELEY
MARGARET CUMMINGS
BLYTHE
COMMITTEE SECRETARY
VINCENT THOMAS
TERRY STATHOS
SAN PEDRO
BOB WILSON
SAN DIEGO
California Legislature
STAFF SECRETARY
TELEPHONE:
916-445-1958
MIKE CULLEN
CHAIRMAN
April 19, 1972
Mr. James G. Stearns, Director
Department of Conservation
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Stearns:
Pertaining to the committee's investigation of the operation of
the Ecology Corps, would you please provide a written response to
the following questions by Tuesday, April 25, 1972:
1.
What are the work projects currently engaged in by each of
the conservation camps? Please include a short description
of the nature of each project. Also, please list the con-
tracting agency and reimbursements for each project by the
agencies to the Department of Conservation.
2.
What were the work projects for each of the four conserva-
tion camps, which are now ecology centers, for three years
prior to their conversion? Please include a short descrip-
tion of the nature of the work. Also, please list the con-
tracting agency and reimbursements for each project by the
agencies to the Department of Conservation.
3.
How was the figure of $8.50 per man day established as the
fee to charge to contracting agencies for services of the
corpsmen?
4.
Has the Department of Conservation ever attempted to pay the
corpsmen at a level commensurate with the federal minimum
wage? If so, please explain such attempts in detail.
5.
Please explain the procedure by which corpsmen obtain a
transfer from one ecology center to another. Does the
Department keep records of such requests?
-188-
ROOM 440B
STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
Mr. James G. Stearns
-2-
April 19, 1972
6.
Do you keep any record of volunteers who resign from the
Ecology Corps? If so, please provide a list of such corps-
men for each camp since the beginning of the corps indicat-
ing length of service.
7.
Do you keep any record of conscientious objectors who resign
from the Ecology Corps? If so, please provide a list of
such corpsmen for each camp since the beginning of the corps
indicating length of service.
8.
What is the Department's policy with respect to releasing
conscientious objectors who request release?
Mibe
MIKE CULLEN
Chairman
MC:JB:ts
-189-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
ALIFORM
DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS
DIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1416 Ninth Street
April 26, 1972
Honorable Mike Cullen, Chairman
Assembly Committee on Efficiency
and Cost Control
California Legislature
Room 440B, State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Assemblyman Cullen:
This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1972, concerning
the California Ecology Corps and the Conservation Camp Program.
Replies to the eight questions included in your letter are
attached.
Sincerely,
the
James G. Stearns, Director
JGS:mnr
CC: Members of the Committee
-190-
CONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN
RESPONSES TO THE EIGHT QUESTIONS OF APRIL 19, 1972
1. WHAT ARE THE WORK PROJECTS CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN BY EACH OF THE
CONSERVATION CAMPS? PLEASE INCLUDE A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE
NATURE OF EACH PROJECT. ALSO, PLEASE LIST THE CONTRACTING AGENCY
AND REIMBURSEMENTS FOR EACH PROJECT BY THE AGENCIES TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.
The attached Conservation Camp Annual Report provides a good overview of
the Conservation Camp Program.
The following is a listing of conservation camps that are doing reimbursable
projects in the 1971-72 fiscal year including a description of the work and
the dollar value of each job by contracting agency.
1. Alder Conservation Camp
(a) Stream clearance - removing log jams and other debris to allow passage
of fish to and from spawning grounds - $2,600 - Department of Fish and
Game.
2. Black Mountain Conservation Camp
(a) Stream clearance - same work as 1(a) - $7,000 - Department of Fish
and Game.
3. Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camp
(a) Sign construction - manufacturing signs of a permanent nature for
the guidance of the public - $800 - Department of Fish and Game.
4. Eel River Conservation Camp
(a) Stream clearance - same work as (a) - $5,000 - Department of Fish
and Game.
5. Antelope Conservation Camp
(a) General enhancement of big game and upland game habitat maintenance
and improvement by collection of seeds of plants used for replanting
ranges, thinning of brush fields to improve habitat of border species,
installing gallenaceous guzzlers to provide water in dry areas where
food and cover exist, building of camping facilities for the public -
$5,400 - Department of Fish and Game.
(b) Construction of three pavilions (kiosks) for the use of the public
near lakes - $6,000 - Department of Water Resources.
-191-
6. Intermountain Conservation Camp
(a) Maintenance of facilities such as fish ladders, fish counting stations,
fish screens and fish hatcheries. Enhancement of big game and upland
game habitat by collection of seeds of plants used in improving game
ranges, thinning of brush fields to improve habitat of border species
such as quail and deer - $5,700 - Department of Fish and Game.
7. Deadwood Conservation Camp
Facility maintenance similar to 6(a) - $1,500 - Department of Fish and Game.
8. Magalia Conservation Camp
(a) Building and maintenance of a fish diverter and maintenance of
facilities at Gray Lodge Wildlife Refuge - $2,100 - Department of
Fish and Game.
(b) Removal of debris from Oroville Lake to reduce boating hazards -
$7,000 - Department of Water Resources.
9. Baseline Conservation Camp
(a) Removal of snow from roofs of state-owned buildings at Dorrington -
$1,000 - Division of Highways.
10. Pilot Rock Conservation Camp
(a) Clean up hazard to the public the removal of old buildings, move
trees and grass in a recreation area, maintain sites of various rain
gauge stations - $4,700 - Department of Water Resources.
2. WHAT WERE THE WORK PROJECTS FOR EACH OF THE FOUR CONSERVATION CAMPS, WHICH
ARE NOW ECOLOGY CENTERS, FOR THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THEIR CONVERSION? PLEASE
INCLUDE A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE WORK. ALSO, PLEASE LIST
THE CONTRACTING AGENCY AND REIMBURSEMENTS FOR EACH PROJECT BY THE AGENCIES
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION.
The following is a listing of the work projects for each of the four conservation
camps which are now ecology centers, for three years prior to their conversion.
These figures are approximate because of lack of records. The contracting agency
and approximate dollar figure for reimbursements and a short description of the
work is given.
1. High Rock Conservation Camp (Humboldt Ecology Center)
(a) 1970
(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $10,000 worth
of campground improvement, cleanup, trail building and general
maintenance work.
-192-
(b) 1969
(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $14,000 worth
of the same type of work as 1(a) (1) above.
(2) Department of Water Resources - Approximately $1,500 for flood
control work
(c) 1968
(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $6,000 worth of stream
clearance work consisting of removal of debris from streams to
enable fish life to move up and down the streams.
(2) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $18,000 worth
of the same type of work as 1(a) (1) above.
2. Plum Creek Conservation Camp (Tehama Ecology Center)
(a) 1970
(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $5,000 worth of work
on enhancement of habitat for upland game.
(2) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $1,500 worth
of work consisting of maintenance of recreational areas.
(b) 1969
(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $4,000 worth of work
of the same nature as 2(a)(1).
(c) 1968
(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $3,000 worth of work
of the same nature as 2(a)(1).
3. Inyo-Mono Conservation Camp (Inyo Ecology Center)
(a) 1970
(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $10,800 worth of fish
and wildlife habitat improvement.
(2) University of California - Approximately $1,500 worth of
maintenance work at the White Mountain Research Center.
(b) 1969
(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $18,000 worth of
work similar to 3(a) (1).
(2) University of California - Approximately $700 worth of work
similar to 3(a) (2).
-193-
(c) 1968
(1) Department of Fish and Game - Approximately $24,000 worth of
work similar to 3(a)(1).
(2) University of California - Approximately $1,100 worth of work
similar to (a) (2).
4. Vallecito Conservation Center (Calaveras Ecology Center)
(a) 1970
(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $6,000 worth
of work similar to (a) (1).
(b) 1969
(1) Department of Parks and Recreation : - Approximately $12,000 worth
of work similar to (a) (1).
(2) Department of Water Resources - Approximately $1,500 worth of flood
control work.
(c) 1968
(1) Department of Parks and Recreation - Approximately $7,500 worth of
work similar to 1(a)(1).
3. HOW WAS THE FIGURE OF $8.50 PER MAN DAY ESTABLISHED AS THE FEE TO CHARGE TO
CONTRACTING AGENCIES FOR SERVICES OF THE CORPSMEN?
This question was answered in response to Question 8 of Assemblyman Wilson's
letter of April 6, 1972, to Joe Griggs, in a letter dated April 18, 1972, and
signed by A. Alan Hill for James G. Stearns.
"At the beginning of the program, the $8.50 per day was based on difference
between our cost to operate the Centers paying $40 per month, and the amount
of money already budgeted for the Centers. Our decision to raise the base
pay and the per day charge for reimbursable work is based on our ability to
secure contracts from other agencies. This ability was largely unknown
until the Corps became operational and the supporting agencies had time to
plan projects and budget for supporting funds."
4. HAS THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION EVER ATTEMPTED TO PAY THE CORPSMEN AT A
LEVEL COMMENSURATE WITH THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE? IF SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN
SUCH ATTEMPTS IN DETAIL.
Yes, the Department of Conservation actively attempted to place the Ecology
Corps under the Federal Emergency Employment Act of 1971 at the minimum wage.
On September 3, 1971, the Department formally applied through HRD to the Federal
Department of Labor for grant funds to employ corpsmen at $1.60 per hour. This
-194-
request was denied by the Department of Labor on October 28, 1971, because
the centers were not located within one hour's commuting distance of the
participants' residences.
5. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH CORPSMEN OBTAIN A TRANSFER FROM
ONE ECOLOGY CENTER TO ANOTHER. DOES THE DEPARTMENT KEEP RECORDS OF
SUCH REQUESTS?
Corpsmen obtain transfers by notifying their Center Director that they
wish to transfer to another Center, giving the reasons for the request.
If the corpsman's work and conduct have been satisfactory, the Center
Director notifies the Director of the Center the corpsman wishes to trans-
fer to. If there is a vacancy, the Corps Administrator is notified and
the transfer is accomplished.
6. DO YOU KEEP ANY RECORD OF VOLUNTEERS WHO RESIGN FROM THE ECOLOGY CORPS?
IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF SUCH CORPSMEN FOR EACH CAMP SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF THE CORPS INDICATING LENGTH OF SERVICE.
Number of volunteers resigned from California Ecology Corps since inception:
Center
Corpsmen
Hired
Resigned
Calaveras Ecology Center
None
Inyo Ecology Center
J. Barnett
3/3/72
3/20/72
J. A. Bond
1/1/72
1/31/72
R. A. Reese
2/25/72
3/21/72
Tehama Ecology Center
M. Catalano
1/24/72
3/14/72
J. S. Howie
12/20/71
3/7/72
D. May
2/7/72
2/18/72
G. F. Nemeth
3/1/72
3/30/72
C. Querfurth
1/19/72
3/3/72
M. L. Thomason
1/28/72
2/29/72
R. P. Yowell
3/9/72
4/12/72
Humboldt Ecology Center
E. C. Barnes
2/29/72
3/8/72
G. A. Bennett
2/24/72
3/10/72
M. D. Brim
1/6/72
3/3/72
R. D. Buffham
3/17/72
3/21/72
C. L. Chamberlin
1/31/72
2/8/72
M. A. Coffey
2/3/72
3/1/72
R. M. Corey
2/7/72
3/27/72
C. W. Crowder
3/21/72
3/29/72
S. Darling
1/25/72
2/29/72
W.K.Grimm
1/31/72
3/20/72
J. L. Honegger
2/29/72
3/13/72
R. Johnson
1/9/72
2/9/72
-195-
Number of volunteers resigned from California Ecology Corps since inception
(continued):
Center
Corpsmen
Hired
Resigned
Humboldt Ecology Center
D. L. Jones
3/21/72
4/3/72
(continued)
M. K. Jones
2/3/72
2/15/72
C. L. Lonewolf
3/7/72
4/6/72
R. G. Madonia
1/27/72
2/14/72
J. A. McCrea
4/3/72
4/7/72
T. O'Neill
1/9/72
2/9/72
J. Reeves
1/19/72
2/22/72
P. I. Sax
1/24/72
3/17/72
G. Sherman
1/19/72
1/31/72
B. Van Tassel
1/24/72
3/21/72
G. Wagner
1/24/72
2/8/72
R. N. Williams
12/13/71
3/13/72
7. DO YOU KEEP ANY RECORD OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS WHO RESIGN FROM THE
ECOLOGY CORPS? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF SUCH CORPSMEN FOR EACH
CAMP SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CORPS INDICATING LENGTH OF SERVICE.
The following conscientious objectors have left the California Ecology Corps
because of resignation, transfers to other alternate service work, or be-
cause they have completed their alternate service obligations. (A breakdown
as to the specific reason for each separation is not kept.)
Number of conscientious objectors resigned from California Ecology Corps
since its inception on July 1, 1971:
Center
Corpsmen
Hired
Resigned
Calaveras Ecology Center
B. N. McKarley
7/8/71
2/23/72
S. H. Morrell
1/24/72
3/31/72
R. Pierce
7/8/71
8/6/71
V. J. Strawmier
7/1/71
2/14/72
Inyo Ecology Center
D. Anka
11/31/71
2/15/72
J. C. Dore
2/24/72
4/11/72
T. M. Green
7/1/71
4/4/72
A. R. Hiibel
12/13/71
3/31/72
L. W. Klepper
7/22/71
2/15/72
M. R. Kuhns
1/31/72
2/18/72
G. K. Lambert
9/16/71
2/15/72
J. C. Mottl
7/1/71
3/22/72
J. K. O'Brien
12/4/71
2/15/72
D. M. Pepple
12/6/71
2/15/72
J. W. Rafferty
2/28/72
3/29/72
R. V. White
7/1/71
3/16/72
Tehama Ecology Center
E. R. Clark
9/9/71
9/20/71
J. C. Coronado
7/1/71
3/12/72
M. C. Flynn
7/2/71
4/5/72
-196-
Number of conscientious objectors resigned from California Ecology Corps
since its inception on July 1, 1971 (continued):
Center
Corpsmen
Hired
Resigned
Tehama Ecology Center
J. W. Honeycutt
11/29/71
3/20/72
(continued)
S.H. Jones
7/2/71
2/14/72
W. R. Lacey
3/30/72
3/31/72
G. W. McCall
7/12/71
1/19/72
L. McKinney
11/2/71
2/28/71
W. R. Nordby
7/22/71
2/23/72
B. L. Pethoud
7/1/71
2/14/72
B. G. Ramentas
7/15/71
3/10/72
K. L. Schultz
7/1/71
3/16/72
T.N. Tracy
7/1/71
2/14/72
J. J. Yeakel
11/29/71
3/14/72
Humboldt Ecology Center
D. L. Archibald
7/29/71
10/12/71
R. N. Bayless
7/1/71
9/30/71
D. T. Botner
2/8/72
2/16/72
R. T. Corrigan
7/15/71
9/22/71
B. Dahlquist
11/9/71
3/2/72
F. G. Deneau
2/9/72
3/3/72
R. L. Etienne
7/1/71
9/30/71
R. E. Frizzell
7/1/71
3/31/72
W. J. Glotzl
7/1/71
12/28/71
J. P. Juckema
3/1/72
3/2/72
A. T. Kendrick
7/1/71
10/11/71
S. D. Lynch
7/1/71
8/16/71
R. A. Lyon
7/6/71
10/18/71
S. P. Magill
8/2/71
3/10/72
J. B. Marquez
7/1/71
2/29/72
B. C. Meinholz
7/1/71
12/21/71
P. R. Nicolosi
7/1/71
3/31/72
C. M. Parker
7/15/71
10/14/71
J. W. Perry
8/17/71
2/7/72
J. Rice
7/13/71
11/29/71
B. A. Stone
9/1/71
2/12/72
J. M. Witkowski
7/8/71
10/25/71
8. WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY WITH RESPECT TO RELEASING CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTORS WHO REQUEST RELEASE?
The Department does not release conscientious objectors. That is a function
of Selective Service.
-197-
MEMBERS
COMMITTEE STATE
JOHN W. BILLETT
MIFT Current
Assembly Committee
SENIOR CONSULTANT
LENO in
JAN SHARPLESS
TRNFET MOREY, Vide CHARMAN
ASSOCIAT CONSULTIN
SANGER
1111
Juny CHAIX
Cory
RESEARCH ABSISTAN
WESHING this
Efficiency and Cost Control
DEAN CROMWELL
LEGISLATIVE INTERN
RAYMOND T. SEELEY
MARGARET CUMMINGS
BLYTHE
COMMITTEE SECRETT*
VIRGENT THOMAS
TERRY STATHOS
SAN
non WILSON
SAN Disco
California Tegislature
STATE SECURITARY
THEREHONE
916-445-1956
MIKE CULLEN
CHAIRMAN
April 20, 1972
Mr. James G. Stearns, Director
Department of Conservation
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Stearns:
After reviewing your April 18th letter to Assemblyman Wilson, I
have the following questions relating to the answers you provided:
1.
Please explain the "little difference" that exists
between Ecology Corps projects and "certain conservation
work";
2.
What are the "certain conservation works performed by state,
federal and local agencies";
3.
What is the status of the insurance plan and with whom are
discussions about it being held;
4.
Please supply copies of all grievances you have received;
5.
Please elaborate on the statement, "Almost all grievances
at the Centers are based on corpsmen rumor and misunder-
standing";
6.
Please explain why meetings of corpsmen are permitted
during work time;
7.
Beginning July 1, 1971, how much time has been expended
each month at each Center for such meetings;
8.
Please describe the criteria you use in determining "those
projects that are geographically located in areas that can
be economically serviced";
-198-
FOOM
STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENIO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. James G. Stearns
-2-
April 20, 1972
9.
Please describe the criteria you use to determine a contract
is "not of an environmental nature";
10.
Beginning with July 1, 1969, and for each month thereafter,
itemize, by conservation camp, the manhours expended fire-
fighting;
11.
Beginning with July 1, 1971, itemize, by ecology center, the
manhours expended each month for firefighting; and
12.
Please itemize for each month, since July 1, 1971, the average
cost per man per meal at each ecology center.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I would appreciate
receiving your response by Friday, April 28th.
Cordially
Mibe
MIKE CULLEN
Chairman
MC:JB:ts
-199-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS
DIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1416 Ninth Street
May 1, 1972
Honorable Mike Cullen, Chairman
Assembly Committee on Efficiency
and Cost Control
California Legislature
Room 440B, State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Assemblyman Cullen:
This letter responds to yours of April 20, 1972, in which you present twelve
additional questions concerning the operation of the California Ecology
Corps and the Conservation Camp Programs administered by this department.
1. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE "LITTLE DIFFERENCE" THAT EXISTS BETWEEN ECOLOGY CORPS
PROJECTS AND "CERTAIN CONSERVATION WORK:"
It would be appropriate here to simply refer back to the statement I made to
your Committee on April 4. I used Ecology and "conservation-related work
projects" as basically synonymous terms.
2. WHAT ARE THE "CERTAIN CONSERVATION WORKS PERFORMED BY STATE, FEDERAL AND
LOCAL AGENCIES"?
I included a complete list of ecology corps projects in my written testimony
before your committee on April 4, 1972.
3. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE INSURANCE PLAN, AND WITH WHOM ARE DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT IT BEING HELD?
Details of the health benefit package are being finalized by the Department.
The Department is working with the Department of General Services.
4. PLEASE SUPPLY COPIES OF ALL GRIEVANCES YOU HAVE RECEIVED:
Copies of the grievances are attached.
5. PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE STATEMENT, "ALMOST ALL GRIEVANCES AT THE CENTERS
ARE BASED ON CORPSMEN RUMOR AND MISUNDERSTANDING:"
An example of a grievance based on rumor and misunderstanding is cited in my
April 18, 1972, letter to Assemblyman Wilson. (See Item 4, Paragraph 4; copy
attached.)
-200-
CONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN
Honorable Mike Cullen
-2-
May 1, 1972
6. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY MEETINGS OF CORPSMEN ARE PERMITTED DURING WORK TIME:
It is accepted practice in business and government for meetings relating to
orientation, information and instruction of employees during normal work
hours and accordingly such sessions are periodically scheduled. Corpsmen
and their Division of Forestry supervisors attend.
7. BEGINNING JULY 1, 1971, HOW MUCH TIME HAS BEEN EXPENDED EACH MONTH AT
EACH CENTER FOR SUCH MEETINGS?
Generally, about six hours each month, since July 1, 1971, have been
devoted to the meetings described in Item No. 6, above.
8. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE CRITERIA YOU USE IN DETERMINING "THOSE PROJECTS
THAT ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED IN AREAS THAT CAN BE ECONOMICALLY SERVICED:"
Generally, it is felt that projects which are within one hour's travel
time from the Center can be economically serviced from the Center.
9. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE CRITERIA YOU USE TO DETERMINE A CONTRACT IS "NOT
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NATURE:'
Projects not of an environmental nature would, for example, involve
maintenance of facilities or general office work.
Attachments to this letter respond to Questions 10, 11, and 12.
Sincerely yours
James G. Stearns, Director
JGS:mnr :
Attachments
cc: Members, Assembly Committee
on Efficiency and Cost Control
-201-
Copies of grievances provided by the De-
partment of Conservation may be examined
in the committee office.
-202-
Department of Conservation
Division of Forestry
Conservation Camp Fire Suppression Man-hours calendar years 1969, 1970,
1971
NAME OF CAMP
1969
1970
1971
Alder
11,768
14,312
2,432
Black Mountain
11,896
19,280
12,784
Chamberlain Creek
19,216
23,616
13,688
Eel River
19,392
23,816
9,504
High Rock
16,040
17,232
2,696
Konocti
16,088
24,976
15,088
Parlin Fork
15,632
16,496
11,728
Antelope
15,712
10,832
5,488
Crystal Creek
8,552
21,264
13,424
Deadwood
6,816
6,184
3,560
Intermountain
5,872
9,992
1,960
Iron Mine
12,472
26,160
13,952
Magalia
10,736
23,896
8,056
Plum Creek
11,288
13,464
264
Baseline
24,032
31,240
18,720
Growlersburg
14,376
22,112
17,496
Miramonte
29,184
40,336
14,968
Mountain Home
27,944
38,792
15,696
Vallecito
20,848
27,296
3,288
Cuesta
15,760
20,024
1,256
Slack Canyon
17,704
23,688
19,048
Inyo-Mono
20,112
33,592
1,792
Oak Glen
16,440
33,240
11,072
La Cima
11,368
26,128
6,200
Morena
11,616
33,864
8,960
Pilot Rock
15,832
38,424
10,512
Prado
15,344
27,472
9,920
Puerta La Cruz
14,584
23,760
5,936
Rainbow
17,192
29,760
8,608
Washington Ridge
15,200
29,160
13,416
Mt. Bullion
25,152
40,032
11,808
Pine Grove
12,080
37,480
22,720
Ben Lomond
12,888
20,992
12,608
522,136
828,912
336,648
Ecology Center Fire Suppression Man-hours for 1971 (6 months) and 1972
to date.
1971
Humboldt Ecology Center
2,696
Tehama Ecology Center
264
Inyo Ecology Center
1,792
Calaveras Ecology Center
3,288
-203-
8,040
California Ecology Corps
Average cost per man per meal by month.
HUMBOLDT
TEHAMA
CALAVERAS
INYO
JULY, 1971
$ .604
$ .630
$ .571
$
AUGUST
.462
.636
.531
SEPTEMBER
.595
.930
.484
* .56
OCTOBER
.625
.634
.422
.587
NOVEMBER
.610
.695
.479
.58
DECEMBER
.594
.628
.493
.57
JANUARY, 1972
.595
.705
.496
.55
FEBRUARY
.610
.617
.506
.56
MARCH
.571
.600
.517
.513
*
This figure is for the period August 16, 1971 to October 1, 1971.
-204-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS
DIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION
California Ecology Corps
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1416 Ninth Street
Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning the California Ecology Corps.
The California Ecology Corps was created by executive order of Governor Reagan on April 27, 1971. The Corps
became operational on July 1, 1971 with the opening of three ecology Centers in Humboldt, Tehama and Calaveras
Counties. The fourth center was opened on August 16, 1971 in Inyo County. The primary purpose of this program
is to develop organized, well-trained wildland firefighters for use by the Division of Forestry throughout the state.
As you perhaps know, the Corps program initially was limited to young men who have been classified as
conscientious objectors by the Selective Service System. It might be well at this point to clarify the term
"conscientious objector". The conscientious objectors involved in the Corps program are those young men who are
registered under the Selective Service Act who have been classified as conscientious objectors (I-O) by their local
draft boards. The Corps program is not intended as a means of becoming exempt from military duty - it is merely
one alternative civilian work a person holding the conscientious objector classification can perform. He must do this
for two years, just as a person actually serving in the military.
We are happy to report, however, that California Ecology Corps membership has very recently been expanded to
include all young men who want to volunteer for this state's unique environmental protection program. We will also
continue to utilize C.O. participants. Volunteers, like their C.O. counterparts. will receive room, board and work
clothing at no cost, and are paid $40 a month for working eight hours per day, five days per week until 7/1/72; on
July 1, 1972 corpsmen will receive a minimum of $100 per month. They are required to remain at the center
during the five-day work week during the declared fire season, which normally runs from June 1 to October 15.
During their two days off they are free to come and go as they choose. During the non-fire season period, October
15 to June 1 usually, they perform a regular 40-hour work week with nights and weekends free. Corpsmen also
receive ten days vacation each year, plus all State holidays (about 13). If corpsmen are required to work on fires or
other emergency work beyond the eight-hour work day, they are paid $2.80 per hour overtime.
The physical plants of the ecology centers are very modern. There is barracks accommodations for corpsmen and no
family members are allowed at the center, except for visiting purposes. The Corps is operated by the California
Division of Forestry. The corpsmen do a variety of work. first priority being wildland firefighting and general
conservation work. They also work on recreation projects in state and national parks, and in the desert area. Timber
stand improvement and fire defense improvement work are also assigned to the Corps. In addition, we have a search
and rescue team in training at present at our Calaveras Center.
The procedure to be followed in joining the Corps if you have your I-0 classification from your local draft board
is to contact your draft board and inform them of your desire to serve with the California Ecology Corps. If they
are not aware of the program, they can contact Major William D. McCann, Chief, Conscientious Objector Division,
U.S. Selective Service System, 801 "I" Street, Sacramento, California 95814 for details. All hiring arrangements
will be made through that office.
If you are not a conscientious objector. and still wish to volunteer for the Corps program, please fill out the
enclosed application and return it to the Ecology Corps address listed at the bottom of the form. We will then
notify you by mail when the interview date is set in your area. The requirements for non-C.O. volunteers are as
follows: You must be from 18 to 31 years of age, in good physical condition, and must agree to serve with the
Corps for a minimum of six months, due to the training effort necessary for new corpsmen.
Thank you again for your interest in the California Ecology Corps. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Joe Joe Sincerely, E. Griggs, No Administrator Triggs
California Ecology Corps
Enclosure
-205-
CONSERVATION IS WISE USE-KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN
State of California
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
Memorandum
To
:
Ecology Center Directors
Date :
January 10, 1972
Subject:
California Ecology Corps
Corpsmen Salary
From : Department of Conservation - - California Ecology Corps
Attached for your information and for the information of your staff and corpsmen,
is a letter from Director Stearns approving a pay raise for corpsmen.
It should be understood by everyone that on State fires only, the $2.80 per hour
is for overtime worked only. The $2.80 per hour for fires and other emergencies
that are the responsibility of another agency, will be for all work, not just
overtime. These rates may change before July 1, 1972. If they do, you will
receive an insert for the Fire Control Handbook stating the new hourly rate.
Also, it should be understood by everyone that on other than State fires, when
corpsmen are receiving the $2.80 per hour emergency rate, they will not receive
the $.60 per hour base rate. In other words, when corpsmen are dispatched to a
United States Forest Service fire, floods, or other emergencies that are the
responsibility of another agency, they will receive the skilled firefighter rate,
but they will not receive the base rate of $.60 per hour.
On fires that are the responsibility of the Division of Forestry, the $2.80 per
hour will be paid for overtime only and corpsmen will continue to receive the
$.60 per hour for their regular 8 hours of work.
Also, beginning July 1, 1972, corpsmen will receive pay for only those hours
worked. It will be necessary for each Center to keep records of the number of
hours not worked by corpsmen for each day, to be submitted at the end of the
month for payroll purposes.
The only emergency work or overtime that corpsmen will be engaged in that they
will not be paid for is search and rescue operations. This will have to be
handled by compensatory time off, except on very special occasions.
If you have any questions concerning the pay policy, please advise.
Joe Griggp
Joe E. Griggs, Administrator
California Ecology Corps
mn
cc: All Districts
-206-
MIKE WITTEL*
CCCO western region
Regional Secretary
DAVE McFADDEN
Field Secretary
an agency for military and draft counseling
ROBERT S. RIVKIN
Staff Attorney
140 leavenworth street
suite 201
WILLIAM H. LYNCH
san francisco ca 94102
(415) 441-3700
Staff Attorney
28 March 1972
Assemblyman Mike Cullen
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblyman Cullen:
I recently read that your Committee on Efficiency and Cost Control
will be conducting hearings on the California Ecology Corps beginning
April 4.
CCC0-Western Region has been working closely with conscientious
objectors in the Ecology Corps since its inception. We were largely
responsible for the questions raised at the Senate Finance Committee
hearings on March 15. Our testimony and that of Corpsmen Nathanial
Stone are enclosed.
We feel that any hearings held should have the views of corpsmen
represented, and we strongly urge you to ask that as many corpsmen
as wish to be allowed to come to the hearings to present testimony.
We would also be glad to share our views with you and your committee.
Please let us know the time and location of the hearings.
Sincerely,
Kare Madden Dave McFadden
encl.
-207-
National Office: 2016 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19403
(215) 568-7971
Midwest Committee for Draft Counseling: 711 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, III. 60605
(312) 427-3350
Southern Region: 734 Monroe Drive N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 874 0288
STATEMENT BY DAVE MCFADDEN, FIELD SECRETARY,
WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
TO DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SUBCOMMITTEE,
CALIFORNIA SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 15, 1972
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
As Field Secretary of the Western Regional Office of the Central Committee for
Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) in San Francisco, I work daily with counselors,
attorneys, and young men on various aspects of the draft law and regulations.
CCCO, an Agency for Military and Draft Counseling, was founded in 1948. Its
Western Regional Office in San Francisco was established in 1966.
Since the inception of the California Ecology Corps in April, 1971, and
the opening of its first center on July 1, I have been in close touch with
conscientious objectors interested in the Corps, Corpsmen themselves, Ecology
Corps and Conservation Department officials, and other interested persons. I
have visited all four centers of the CEC, and have talked at length with Corpsmen
and state foresters. Based upon both our experience with conscientious objectors
over the last 25 years, and our recent experience with the California Ecology
Corps, we would like to make a few observations concerning the operations of
the Corps and the attitude of Corpsmen toward it. Although the Corps is now open
to all male volunteers between the ages of 18 and 31, it was begun with
conscientious objectors only, and it is this group of Corpsmen which I know best.
The overwhelming majority of Corpsmen with whom I have come in contact think
the California Ecology Corps is a great idea - and one that they hope will work.
But they are bitterly disappointed that the reality has not lived up to the
promise. The criticisms they make -- and which I will attempt to detail in this
testimony -- are not made because they hope the Ecology Corps will fail. Rather,
they hope that such criticism will help make it an ECOLOGY Corps. The process
of disillusionment pays a price. Since the Corps began, it has lost 61 CO volunteers
-208-
Dave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972
2
out of a total work force of 130. What is wrong?
1) THE CALIFORNIA ECOLOGY CORPS HAS NOT LIVED UP TO ITS PROMISE TO BE A FORCE
TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT.
The purpose of the California Ecology Corps, as outlined in Governor
Reagan's Executive Order of April 27, 1971, was three fold: 1) to aid in the
maintenance of the natural ecology and preservation of the beauty and natural
resources of the state; 2) to assist in conservation and emergency projects for
protection of natural resources; and 3) to assist in fire prevention and fire
protection. To this date, the Corps has performed admirably in fulfilling
purpose 3) and to some extent purpose 2). But there is little that can be
shown to indicate that the California Ecology Corps is doing work to maintain
and preserve the ecology and natural environment of the state of California.
The Corps can be most simply described as a renamed California Conservation
Corps. The men in the Corps have done what honor inmates in the Conservation
Camps always did: fight forest firest, clear brush, work on reforestation,
fire prevention, and maintenance and construction of campsites. Since work is
accepted on a contract basis with state and federal agencies, the criteria seem
to be what work needs to be done and what money there is to do it -- rather than
making decisions about projects according to ecology standards. There are even
some blatant examples of distinctly non-ecological projects performed by
Ecology Corpsmen; such as the Pacific Lumber Company logging road improvement
carried out at the Calaveras Center, the splitting of downed Redwoods and the
clearing away of park equipment to allow the construction of a section of highway
through the Redwoods at the Humboldt Center, the construction of rock and wire
dams at the Inyo Center to improve fishing, and the improvement of deer feeding
areas to improve hunting at the Tehama Center. Corpsmen at the different centers
have requested on many different occasions permission to engage in ecological
-209-
Dave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972
3
work but have always been turned down. It is time that it is recognized
that this program is not an ecology corps. Rather, as Director of the Corps
Joe Griggs has said, "the primary purpose of this program is to develop
organized, well-trained wildland firefighters to use by the Division of
Forestry throughout the State."
2) AS EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ECOLOGY CORPSMEN RECEIVE NEITHER
COMMENSURATE WAGES NOR BENEFITS FOR THE WORK THEY DO.
Though employed by the State of California, Ecology Corpsmen are not
registered on the civil service rolls -- their salary of $40 per month plus
room and board is considered compensation. Thus benefits accorded to most
state employees to do not have to be paid. Ecology Corpsmen are not eligible
for Medi-Cal, nor for health or life insurance or retirement benefits accorded
other employees of the State of California. Their only benefit is Workman's
Compensation, as required by law. Two Ecology Corpsmen have died while employed
by the Corps, and no compensation has been paid to their families. There are
no benefits for Corpsmen with dependents -- nor are there facilities provided.
Such Corpsmen are also not eligible for welfare, because they work 40 hours
per week. During the fire season Corpsmen are required to remain in camp
within hearing distance of the fire whistle 24 hours per day five days per week.
Foresters in ssimilar situations receive "premium pay" for such alert duty.
Corpsmen receive only overtime pay ($2.80 per hour if over eight hours) for
time actually spent on the fire. And if they are called out but not used, even
if bussed 2 hours to a fire site, they receive no compensation. The $40 per
month presently paid to Corpsmen includes no provision for "severance pay" when
they leave the Corps and have to find other jobs.
False hopes regarding higher wages have continually been raised. An
attempt was made to get money from the federal Emergency Employment Act to
raise wages to the $1.60 per hour federal minimum, but this did not occur. The
-210-
Dave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972
4
persistent rumor that wages would be raised to 60, per hour (or $100 month
minimum) has constantly cropped up -- and is finally supposed to be implemented
July 1. Overtime fire pay, raised from 30¢ to $2.80 per hour February 1, in
many cases has not yet been paid.
It would not seem to be too much to ask that Ecology Corpsmen, performing
work in lieu of military service, should receive pay which would provide a
"standard of living reasonably comparable to that of a man in the armed forces"
(Selective Service Regulation 1660.6), Base pay for a private, E-1 in the Army
is now $288 per month plus room, board, and numerous benefits.
3) PRESENT REGULATIONS AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN MANY CASES ARE AN UNWARRANTED
AND UNNECESSARY RESTRICTION OF PERSONAL FREEDOMS.
Ecology Corpsmen are told they must abide by all regulations of the
California Division of Forestry, even though they are not considered employees
of the State for wage and benefit purposes. California Division of Forestry
employees in charge of the centers can determine if corpsmen are performing
"according to Ecology Corps standards." If the standards are not met by the
individual corpsman or his conduct is in violation of Corps rules and regulations,
he may be dismissed from the Corps. Periodic inspections of living quarters and
food facilities are made to insure compliance. "Ecology Corps standards" include
no drugs or alcoholic beverages on the premises; no women allowed in the barracks,
or in the camp after 10 p.m. or after dark in one center; hair length must be
above the collar with short sideburns, trimmed mustaches, and no beards. While
some of these regulations may be reasonable, they have been abused and the
discretionary power vested in the CDF officials has been an infringement of the
rights of Corpsmen on numerous occasions. The rationale for hair length, for
example, has always been safety. But corpsmen are not allowed to let it grow
even during the winter months when there are no fires to fight. One corpsman
at the Calaveras Center was fired when his wife moved to Angeles Camp to be
-211-
Dave McFadden on Califernia Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972
5
able to spend more time with him.
There have recently been two Corpsmen papers, to aid in communication
among the centers and to encourage thought among the Corpsmen -- The Humboldt
Hash of the Humboldt Center, and Angels C.O. Ment of the Calaveras Center. Angels
C.O. Ment was discontinued by the Corpsmen because they "did not feel it
represented how they felt." Each issue was censored by the center director
before publication. The Humboldt Hash was published independently of the
Humboldt Center. But staff members of the Hash have been threatened with
"separation" from the center for publishing editorials and articles which were
critical of the administration and operation of the Ecology Corps. Although
these threats have been countermanded from higher up, the implication remains.
Meals are budgeted at a cost of $.536 per man per meal -- and no allowance
is made for higher prices at different centers. Each center seems to be run
differently in terms of food. Some centers go over their budgeted amount, and
have plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables for the vegetarian corpsmen, and
other centers have little fresh produce, and allow fresh milk only at breakfast.
Starch is a major component of the diet at all centers.
Each present center formerly housed 80 inmates - in barracks situations,
with little room or privacy and little storage space for personal belongings.
The same situation exists today for the Corpsmen. There are too many men and not
enough room.
4) CORPSMEN ARE ALLOWED LITTLE CHANCE TO DISCUSS THEIR GRIEVANCES, OR TO CONTROL
DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS IN THE ECOLOGY CORPS CENTERS.
At the beginning of the Corps, the administration promised that there
would be meetings at each center to discuss operational rules, projects,
recreational needs, food and other common concerns. The impression was that the
Corpsmen would have some say over their own living situations. Common meetings
among corpsmen of the various centers and department of Conservation and Forestry
-212-
Dave McFadden on California Ecology Corps, March 15, 1972
6
officials were also promised. Individual center meetings have in fact been
infrequent, and have never been more than gripe sessions: Corpsmen do not have
any say over the day-to-day operations, but rather follow orders of the foremen.
A Corps-wide meeting of representatives from each camp has never been held,
although it has been promised for 7 months. There is no grievance procedure
that is established or uniform, and certain petitións have never been afforded
the courtesy of a reply. For example, December 27 petitions from each Ecology
Center, with over 100 signatures of Corpsmen, asking Director Stearns to
raise wages have never been answered. The scheduled corpsmen meeting has been
specifically set to exclude the following topics of discussion: hair regulations,
clothing regulations, barracks regulations, work hours, choice of work, food.
If any corpsman raised one of these issues, the meeting would be over.
IN SUMMARY:
The California Ecology Corps is seen by most Corpsmen as an exciting
possibility, but at the moment only that. In order for it to live up to
its promise, a few basic changes need to be made: 1) Either ecological and
environmental projects should be instituted, or the name Ecology Corps should
be dropped and Conservation or Forestry Corps substituted; 2) Corpsmen deserve
to be treated as other employees of the State of California, with corresponding
fair wages and benefits; 3) Regulations and working conditions need to be
changed to recognize that corpsmen are not prisoners, but free men doing a job;
4) Corpsmen should be furnished a grievance procedure, and a chance to meet
with each other and forestry officials to discuss common concerns.
If these changes are made, we are confident that the Corps can yet be a
force for the protection of the environment of the State of California.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave McFadden
CCCO-Western Region
140 Leavenworth Street
-213-
San Francisco, CA 94102