APPENDIX 15.-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DR. BRIGHT AND COMMISSIONER HOWE RELATING TO PARTICIPATION BY DR. BRIGHT IN CONSIDERATON OF SHAWANO, WIS., GRANT PROPOSAL JUNE 12, 1967. To: Mr. Harold Howe II, Commissioner of Education. Because of the major involvement of Westinghouse in this proposal, I have tried to avoid any part in its review (until about 2 weeks ago I had not even read the proposal). As Nolan Estes and Sam Sava will attest, my only involvement to date was to assure Nolan, in response to his request, that BR would support part of the cost if the title IV branch thought it was an important proposal and if the research branch also considered it sound. This is similar to actions I have taken in response to several BESE requests for joint funding. Three things have recently occurred which make me want to change my stance: 1. As you know, I have been accused of acting in conflict of interest by making this commitment to Nolan. 2. I understand that four out of five of the outside reviews of the revised proposal are highly favorable. 3. I have read the proposal and consider it the most exciting and most comprehensive CAI proposal I have seen from anyone. I therefore request your permission to actively participate in the review of and any negotiations concerned with this proposal. As you know, upon coming to OE I resigned from Westinghouse and have no written or unwritten agreement to return. I have divested myself of my large block of Westinghouse stock and now own only 50 shares which I expect to give to the church or other charities over the next 2 to 3 years. Consequently, I do not feel that my active participation in relation to a Westinghouse proposal would constitute a conflict of interest. I believe that my participation would be of value to the Government because: 1. I am the most knowledgeable person in OE about CAI, and I feel I could strengthen certain aspects relative to a more precise statement of the work to be delivered. 2. I could effect closer coordination with related work now underway by BR. 3. I could probably negotiate a more favorable price. 4. I am greatly concerned that the project be organized so that its output has real national significance for improving the early education of a diversity of disadvantaged populations. The subcontract to Westinghouse is unique. It has three parts. 1. Curriculum development (grades K-4). 2. Equipment and equipment development. 3. Executive programing. Ordinarily in OE contracts or subcontracts to industry in CAI projects, the industry has been the computer manufacturer and has borne most of the equipment development and executive programing cost. However, Westinghouse is not a computer manufacturer but will buy the computer from some other supplier. Since anyone could subsequently independently buy a similar computer and use the executive programing without benefit to Westinghouse, Westinghouse logically argues that they should not be expected to contribute to its cost. This is not inconsistent with our policy of contracting with universities to program their purchased computers, and I believe makes sense. Westinghouse is on the other hand making a $300,000 contribution toward the development and delivery of some of the school aterface equipment, part of which they do manufacture. e to ta (226) Since other subcontracts with industry have been primarily for equipment and have not included either curriculum development or major executive programing, the industrial component of this project is larger than that of any other although the total cost is not larger than Stanford or Florida State projects. The major strengths of this proposal are: 1. The completeness of the curriculum concept including not only the computer program but a study of the totality of teacher roles and teacher training programs. 2. The projected economy of the equipment. 3. The imaginativeness and completeness of the executive programs proposed. 4. The extremely disadvantaged population. This last advantage is considered by some critics to be its major disadvantage in that they argue that the materials and techniques developed for this very small unique population of Menominees will not be generalizable to other disadvantaged populations. Personally I reject this argument as invalid; but Nolan and I are both interested in involving other populations in other localities if it is economically feasible to do so. I would like to request that you inform Nolan Estes, Joe Colmen, and Secretary Gardner of your decision regarding my active involvement. U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Louis Bright, Associate Commissioner, BR. JUNE 27, 1967. Lou By way of response to your memorandum of June 12, let me say that I think it quite appropriate for you to involve yourself professionally in judgments about the proposed research project. Obviously, any action of ours to make a final decision on this matter is fraught with certain public relations complexities. Consequently, I think it wise not to have the final signoff delegated to you, and for purposes of this particular project I would like to request that any delegations in existence be canceled and that the Commissioner give final approval. I will make the same arrangements with title III. If you agree with the above position, I see no reason at all that we should not use your active advice in reaching a final decision. In fact, I would value it. APPENDIX 16.-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN COMMISSIONER HOWE AND RAY PAGE, ILLINOIS SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, CONCERNING DUPLICATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS Hon. RAY PAGE, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, SEPTEMBER 25, 1967. DEAR SUPERINTENDENT PAGE: Enclosed is a copy of an article which appeared in the Chicago Tribune in late April of this year. The article was called to my attention by the House Government Operations Committee, which was interested in your statement that you knew of a junior college which had made a $60,000 profit by collecting from four Federal and State agencies for one program. Since the concern of the Government Operations Committee is efficiency and economy in the operations of the executive branch, the members were extremely concerned about the duplication of Federal expenditures described in your statement. I share this concern, as I have continuously worked for coordination of effort, both within the Office of Education and in its relationships with other agencies. Counsel for the committee requested that I investigate this situation, and that I provide for the record any information which you could provide. Enclosed is the relevant portion of the hearing transcript. I should appreciate, therefore, any information which you feel could be helpful, both to me and to the committee, concerning this or any other duplication of expenditure of which you are aware. DEAR COMMISSIONER HOWE: This will acknowledge your letter of September 25 concerning the overclaim by a school district against State and Federal funds. A junior college in Illinois, which I prefer at this time to have anonymous, was engaged in a program financed under the Manpower Development Training Act and received full cost for the program. The students in the program were also registered for college credit and claimed $11.74 per semester hour for the same program from State funds under the Illinois provision for State aid to junior colleges. In addition, this college was a participant in a program by the Office of Economic Opportunity and received administration cost from that Office. Due to the fact that these three programs are administered by different agencies, it was not until the auditors of the staff of the office of the superintendent of public instruction were reviewing the district's receipts and expenditures that this overclaim was discovered. We have proceeded to reduce current claims to recover the overclaim and have proportioned the overclaim to each division. If I may be of additional help on his matter, please feel free to contact me. RAY PAGE, Superintendent of Public Instruction. Sincerely yours, |