Page images
PDF
EPUB

I do not recall any specific discussion of the Special Counsel's proposed $60,000 salary. However, I was not shocked by that figure since it works out to approximately $30 per hour, a reasonable amount when compared with the attorney fees requested and allowed in substantial rail bankruptcy cases which come to us from time to time.

In coming to our decision of November 5, 1971, we considered the following:

Not to be taken lightly is the obtaining of competent special counsel. To obtain someone from outside the Commission with the stature needed will take a sizeable sum of money. It is doubtful that a lawyer successful in private practice could be convinced to work for the Commission full time, giving up all other clients. [Staff memorandum of September 21, 1971, to Division 2] I trust you will find this information helpful. Sincerely,

ROBERT C. GRESHAM,

Commissioner.

ܙܙ

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., April 18, 1973. Hon. John D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the House Select

Committee on Small Business, 2210 Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN. I testified briefly before your Subcommittee on Wednesday, April 4, and responsive to your question, as I understood it, as to whether I had voted on the Contractual Agreement between the Interstate Commerce Commission and former United States Senator Gordon Allott, I joined Commissioners Brown and MacFarland in saying “no.” It is my understanding that the Subcommittee desires clarification of that response.

My appointment to the Commission became effective on October 24, 1972. Very shortly thereafter, I was briefed thoroughly by Commissioner Brewer on the objectives sought by the Commission in Ex Parte No. 270. He informed me in detail of the efforts that had been made to retain Special Counsel of the highest possible calibre. He advised me further that negotiations were being conducted at that time with then Congressman William Springer,

My next recollection is that Commissioner Brewer advised myself and the other Members informally that negotiations with Mr. Springer had been terminated. I believe this happened in late December. Subsequently, in early January, I was informed by Commissioner Brewer that it was his intention to approach former Senator Allott, I recall that I responded with enthusiasm to the possibility of retaining Senator Allott as Special Counsel. On this point, my testimony would parallel that of Chairman Stafford. Having worked in the Senate in a senior staff capacity for many years, I came to know Senator Allott personally and to develop the highest possible regard for his integrity and professional competence. I consider, therefore, that I not only acquiesced in the retention of Senator Allott, but applauded the choice. As negotiations progressed, Commissioner Brewer was meticulous in keeping other Members informed and, in the course of events, I clearly understood that the total amount of the Contract was for $650,000.00, with compensation for Special Counsel not to exceed $60,000.00 per annum.

Subsequently, on February 26th, I received a memorandum from Commissioner Brewer, advising that a Letter Contract with Senator Allott had been signed and that, on a no-objection basis, an Order would be entered, naming Senator Allott as Special Counsel and making him a party to the proceeding. Copies of these documents were attached to the memorandum. I indicated my agreement by raising no objection.

In my judgment, the practice of assigning a single Commissioner administrative responsibility for a major investigation authorized by the Commission is in the best interest of orderly and efficient procedure. I can well appreciate the special demands on a Commissioner's time and energies, having been assigned such responsibility in connection with Ex Parte 293, The Northeastern Railroad Investigation, and I would comment that Commissioner Brewer has discharged this obligation both diligently and competently.

I appreciate having this opportunity to expand on my testimony before your Subcommittee. Sincerely yours,

CHESTER M. Wiggin, Jr.,

Commissioner.

95-151-73416

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., April 18, 1973. Hon. John D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the House Select

Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter concerns a matter developed at the hearings on April 4, 1973, before your Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the House Select Committee on Small Business. At that time, a question was raised as to whether the members of the Commission were kept informed of the negotiations leading up to the employment of Special Counsel and the contract executed with former Senator Gordon L. Allott.

I am writing to you today in order that the record developed before your Subcommittee may clearly reflect that since my original interim appointment, I have been apprised of both past and present developments in this matter. These developments include the assignment of administrative responsibility for Ex Parte No. 270 and related cases to Vice Chairman Brewer, a funding outline indicating that the total amount of the contract was $650,000, the solicitation of suggestions from each Commissioner of qualified candidates for the position of Special Counsel, consideration of a number of candidates, including Judge Henry M. Friendly, a number of retired Federal judges, and former Commission General Counsel Robert Ginnane, and discussions with former Senator Allott which concluded with an order naming him Special Counsel and designating him a party to this proceeding.

Vice Chairman Brewer distributed a copy of this order to each Commissioner before it was entered. If I had any objection to this order at that time, you may be assured that I would not have hesitated to voice such objection. I approved the order then and I ratify it now. Finally, I wish to state unequivocally at this time that I fully sypport Vice Chairman Brewer's handling of his considerable responsibilities for this complex proceeding.

If you have any futher questions, I stand ready to assist your Subcommittee in its review of this matter. Sin rely yours,

ALFRED T. MACFARLAND,

Commissioner.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., April 19, 1973. Hon. John D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the House Select

Committee on Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DINGELL: At the hearings before your Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies, the question was raised concerning whether the members of the Commission were kept fully informed concerning matters involved in Ex Parte No. 270, and the related proceedings. I wish to state that I was fully apprised concerning virtually every aspect of these investigations, including our search for a Special Counsel.

I was informed that Chairman Stafford had assigned these proceedings to Vice Chairman Brewer for administrative handling. Matters of this importance are most always assigned to one Commissioner so that maximum progress is insured and the other members of the Commission can be kept informed of all developments.

Vice Chairman Brewer gave me and the other members of the Commission an opportunity to submit names to be considered for Special Counsel. I was aware that several individuals and retired Federal judges, including Judge Henry Friendly, former Senator Frank Lausche, former ICĆ General Counsel Robert Ginnane and former Congressman William Springer, were under consideration but had either declined the offer or were eliminated from consideration for other reasons.

We were also informed of the discussions with former Senator Allott which resulted with his being named Special Counsel. My office records indicate that Vice Chairman Brewer notified the Commission of the tentative selection of Senator Allott on February 26, 1973. Each Commissioner was given the oppor

tunity to raise any objection to the appointment. I was absent from my office because of illness on February 26 and 27, but I can state that I would have raised no objection to the selection. I will be happy to answer any other questions you may have on this matter. Sincerely yours,

VIRGINIA MAE BROWN, Commissioner.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., April 23, 1973. Hon. John D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies, Select Committee on

Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN DINGELL. This is in response to your request made at recent hearings before your Subcommittee for information as to whether each member of the Commission was kept advised of negotiations and developments respecting the retention of former Senator Gordon Allott as Special Counsel in connection with the Commission's freight rate investigation proceeding in Ex Parte No. 270.

As is so often done in cases of this magnitude and importance, this proceeding was assigned to an individual Commissioner for administrative handling. In this instance the assignment was given by Chairman Stafford to Vice Chairman Brewer. We were advised of this action by a memorandum from Chairman Stafford.

From the outset of his assignment, Vice Chairman Brewer was deeply concerned, over finding an able individual to fill the position of Special Counsel. He did, in fact, discuss with me personally on a number of occasions the kind of man we should try to find for the job. He was constantly on the alert for names of potential candidates. As his search progressed, he advised the Commission members in conferences and otherwise that he had discussed the matter with our former General Counsel, Robert Ginnane, that the rumored possible retirement of Judge Henry Friendly was being checked out, and of discussions with former Congressman William Springer and with former Senator Allott.

Judge Friendly would have, in my opinion, been an excellent choice, but as I recall, his retirement was not sufficiently imminent to meet our needs even if he were interested. I do not know whether any personal contact had been made with former Senator Frank Lausche, whose name had been mentioned and informally discussed as a possibility. To the best of my recollection, there was some question as to whether he would have been interested. With his knowledge of transportation, I am convinced that he, too, would have done a fine job. Also, had former General Counsel Ginnane been available, he would have received my enthusiastic and wholehearted endorsement. Probably no other member of the Commission was more interested than I in the possibility of former Congressman Springer filling the position. Since we are both originally from Illinois, I am more than just a little familiar with his career and his service on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House. I do not believe that we could have done better had he been sufficiently interested. Our only concern here was that of time it took a long time for him to decline.

With respect to Senator Allott, I had, as I have indicated, been informed that contacts had been made with him, and recall that Vice Chairman Brewer repeatedly advised us that discussions were continuing. I was aware of the amount of compensation involved, but felt that since we had to go outside of the Commission, the amount was not excessive. By memorandum dated February 26, 1973, Vice Chairman Brewer advised the Commission of Senator Allott's willingness to accept the position, and in the same memorandum indicated that in the absence of objection, Senator Allott would be designated as Special Counsel.

From my own standpoint, I had little interest in the political affiliation of any of the candidates. I do not even know Judge Friendly's politics. My primary interest and concern were the capabilities of the individual selected in view of the magnitude of the task and responsibilities to be assumed. I satisfied myself as to Senator Allott's background, and from my observations in personal appearances before him at hearings before the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which he was a member, I have every reason to believe that he will perform the duties of Special Counsel in a dedicated and superior manner. Sincerely,

DALE W. HARDIN,

Commissioner.

APRIL 27, 1973. Hon. John D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies, House of Representa

tives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN DINGELL: During the course of hearings before the Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies on April 4, 1973, a question was raised as to whether members of the Commission were fully appraised of the negotiations to secure public counsel to assist in the handling of Ex Parte No. 270, and the arrangements arrived at with former Senator Allott.

We have been periodically briefed concerning Ex Parte No. 270, and the various aspects of the case are familiar to me commencing with the assignment of the case to Vice Chairman Brewer for administrative handling. Shortly after that assignment members of the Commission, including myself, were asked to suggest qualified candidates for the position of Special Counsel. A number of possible candidates were suggested by or made known to menubers of the Commission including, among others, Judge Henry Friendly, Senator Lausche, former General Counsel Robert Ginnane, former Congressman William Springer and retired Federal judges. These individuals were all given careful consideration but were either unable to accept the offer or did not meet the requirements of the contract.

Although this matter had been assigned to Commissioner Brewer for administrative handling he, it seemed to me, went into considerable detail from the very beginning to keep the Commission informed of his progress in the assignment. This included his, and the staff's several meetings with Senator Allott. In a Commission meeting on February 26, 1973, each Commissioner was afforded an opportunity to voice an objection to the tentative selection of Senator Allott. No objection was made. I felt then, and I feel now, that the selection of Senator Allott was a prudent move on the part of the Commission.

I will be happy to answer as best I can, any questions you may have on this matter. Sincerely,

WILLARD DEASON,

Commissioner.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., April 27, 1973. Hon. John D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies, House of Representa

tives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN DINGELL: In the course of hearings before your Subcommittee on the Activities of Regulatory Agencies, a question was raised as to whether members of the Commission were fully informed of the matters involved in Ex Parte No. 270, including negotiations concerning a special counsel. Vice Chairman Brewer was delegated the administrative handling of

this proceeding by Chairman Stafford. In the beginning of his assignment, Vice Chairman Brewer asked for the submission of names to be considered for special counsel, several individuals were suggested, and, as I am informed, several were approached but declined to be considered for the employment. Commissioner Brewer advised the members of the Commission, in various conferences, of his efforts in this direction.

We were informed of the discussions with former Senator Allott from time to time, of the progress of the discussions and the conditions of_his employment. I approved the selection of Senator Allott and of Commissioner Brewer's handling of his assignment in regard to Ex Parte No. 270. He had a most difficult assignment in regard to Ex Parte No. 270. He had a most difficult assignment and he handled it well. If you have any further questions I shall be glad to answer them. Sincerely yours,

KENNETH H. TUGGLE,

Commissioner.

APPENDIX D.-GORDON L. ALLOTT CONTRACT

GORDON L. ALLOTT,
Special Counsel to the Interstate Commerce Commission,

Washington, D.C., May 21, 1973.
Mrs. ELIZABETH K. DALGLEISH,
Chief, Operating Facilities Branch, Section of Administrative Services, Interstale

Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. DALGLEISH: In accordance with the letter from the Vice Chairman dated May 4, 1973, and in accordance with the Letter Contract of February 26, 1973, as extended, 'and in accordance with the proposed Contract, ICC 72–5, Í attach herewith an exhibit entitled “Gordon L. Allott, Special ÍCC Account, Quarterly Estimates”.

The first column relates to actual cash expenditures from the signing of the Letter Contract on February 26, 1973, to May 15, 1973, which is one-half of the first quarter's operation under the Letter Contract. The second column represents the estimated current quarter costs for the quarter ending June 30, 1973, and the third column represents estimated quarterly costs for the second quarter of operations—i.e., July 1 to October 1, 1973.

The first column figures are taken from our books, but because of the delays, the uncertainties in the finalization of the Contract, and the uncertainty of the exact times when our additional personnel will be brought on board, or what costs they will represent to us, both columns two and three are estimates only, but represent the most accurate estimates we can make upon the present information available.

I am uncertain as to the exact meaning of the language in the “Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data”, but I am interpreting it in line with the above statement and submit it herewith. Sincerely yours,

GORDON L. ALLOTT.

CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT COST OR PRICING DATA

This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, cost or pricing data submitted in writing, or specifically identified in writing as actual submission of the data is impractical, to the contracting officer or representative in support of the proposed ICC Contract 72–5, are accurate, complete and current as of May 15, 1973.

GORDON L. ALLOTT, Special Counsel to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Date of execution: May 21, 1973.

(239)

« PreviousContinue »