Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX 9.-FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION NOW ASSOCIATED WITH ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING OE GRANTS OR CONTRACTS

After the Subcommittee hearing, the Office of Education prepared from its personnel records a list of former employees in grade GS-13 or above who had left OE since April, 1965. This list was circulated among present officials of OE with a request that information concerning present employment of former employees and reports on any instances in which former employees had been personally involved in soliciting funds from OE be provided.

A copy of the memorandum accompanying the list follows:

[Memorandum from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Oct, 25, 1967]

To: See list below.

From: Albert L. Alford, Assistant Commissioner for Legislation.

Subject: Materials requested by the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations.

During hearings conducted by the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Relations, September 14 and 15, 1967, questions were asked concerning the activities of former employees of the Office of Education. Chairman Fountain asked the Commissioner to ". supply the Subcommittee with a list of former officers or employees of the Office of Education who, to your knowledge and that of your associates, have left the Office of Education since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to join profit-making or even nonprofit-making organizations other than educational institutions which have applied for or received funds under programs administered by your Office, or which are . . . believed to do a substantial amount of business under contracts or subcontracts which are paid for from such funds."

The Commissioner agreed that such an inquiry would be conducted.

Attached to this memorandum are copies of a list of former employees, in quantity, to be supplied to each branch under your jurisdiction. These employees were in grade GS-13 and above, and have left the Office of Education since April of 1965. The column "Reason Given" reflects the reasons, if any, listed by these employees on the Form 52.

I would appreciate it if this list could be circulated among your staff, for further information concerning the positions accepted by these former employees as they left the Office of Education. If the new employer is a contractor or subcontractor of programs financed with Office of Education funds, to the best of your staff's knowledge, that too should be indicated.

In addition, Counsel for the Subcommittee has requested reports on any instances in which former employees of the Office of Education have been personally involved in soliciting funds from the Office, either directly or by means of subcontracts to be financed from OE funds.

Since the Committee is very eager to have this information, I would appreciate having all responses reach this office by close of business Monday, October 30, 1967. If you or your staff have any further questions, please contact Mrs. Jean Frolicher, extension 25976.

Addressees: Mr. Bright, Mr. Estes, Mr. Froomkin, Mr. Gallagher, Miss Goff, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Flynt, Mr. Mood, Mr. Muirhead, Mr. Mylecraine, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sisco, Mr. Turman, and Mr. Venn.

Information supplied to the Subcommittee concerning present employment of former OE employees was incomplete and has not been checked for accuracy. However, it indicated that the following former employees apparently became associated with groups apparently organized for profit:

Name and new position:

Pagano, Jules O.: Vice President, Greenleigh Associates, Washington, D.C.
Suchman, Joseph Richard: Science Research Associates.

85-889-67-15

Gillis, James: Quality Educational Development, Washington, D.C.

Morrison, D. Grant: Associated Consultants in Education, Tallahassee, Florida.

Stout, Minard W.: Manager, Education Service, A. T. Kearney & Co., Washington, D.C.

Perkins, Joseph A.: Peat, Marwick, Livingston, & Company, Washington, D.C. Sendi, Joseph G.: COMRESS.

Scott, Walter J.: General Electric.

Gleason, Jacqueline: IBM.

Wadell, Jerry N.: Peat, Marwick, Livingston, & Company, Washington, D.C. Karsh, Norman: Lybrand, Ross Brothers, & Montgomery.

Cockrill, Robert: Lybrand, Ross Brothers, & Montgomery.

Keppel, Francis: General Learning Corporation, New York.
Loomis, Henry: St. Vincent Island Co., New York.

Naisbitt, John J.: Science Research Associates.

The Office of Education also supplied the following list of organizations receiving OE contracts during fiscal year 1967:

[blocks in formation]

OE advised the Subcommittee that it received no reports of instances of involvement of former OE employees in the personal solicitation of funds from the Office of Education.

APPENDIX 10.-CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE COME

TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION

The following statement concerning conflict of interest questions involving the Office of Education was submitted by that Office:

The Charles Smith and R. Louis Bright cases are the only two possible conflict of interest cases involving OE employees that have required action by the management of the Office. Both cases have been reported to the subcommittee.

One other case has just come to our attention. It involves an employee on leave without pay, who apparently is working on a project funded by the Office. We are taking steps to obtain full information on this case.

In addition, there are currently under review three cases involving persons who have left the Office to work for organizations receiving OE grants. As soon as all the facts are gathered on these cases, we will be pleased to present this information to the subcommittee.

The following additional details concerning the Smith situation were also provided:

CHARLES H. SMITH

Mr. Smith was given a career-conditional appointment in the Office of Education effective July 24, 1967, and at that time he was vice president and a member of the board of directors of the University Research Corp., a consulting firm. In addition he owned 150 shares of the corporation stock.

This condition was noted as a possible conflict of interest. Accordingly, Mr. Smith was officially notified of the actions he must take in order to resolve the conflict of interest question. He was told that if he could not, for personal reasons, take this action his appointment would be terminated October 22, 1967. Mr. Smith, on September 30, 1967, took the following steps:

1. Resigned as vice president of University Research Corp.;

2. Resigned as a member of the board of directors of University Research Corp.;

3. Returned his 150 shares of stock to the corporation legal counsel. These actions removed the possibility of conflict of interest in connection with Mr. Smith's employment in the Office of Education.

(215)

APPENDIX 11.-MARCH 19, 1967, LETTER FROM GARY ORFIELD TO

COMMISSIONER HOWE

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION FOR ADVANCED STUDY,

Hon. HAROLD HOWE II,

U.S. Commissioner of Education,

Washington, D.C., March 19, 1967.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HOWE: As Congress gives increasing responsibility for American Indian education to the Office of Education the performance of the Office must be carefully scrutinized by those concerned with Indian policy. I have recently been very disturbed to learn the details of a project involving Indian children now ready for final approval in the Office of Education.

I understand that the Office is preparing to commit almost $2.5 million to finance the first stage of a program involving Menominee Indian children in Wisconsin, using funds provided for research and experimentation under titles III and IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Before a final decision on this project is made, I believe that there are a number of questions which must be answered.

1. Why does the project proposal show neither knowledge of Indian educational problems or of consultation with the Menominee people?

2. Can an experimental program for an Indian tribe be effectively administered by a school board specifically designed to exclude Menominee representation because of its method of selection?

3. Is it reasonable to begin construction of a complicated computer system a year and a half before an unknown committee even begins to design the material the system will handle?

4. Will not the utility of the experiment be greatly diminished by the fact that the Menominee children are highly atypical, both of the total enrollment of Shawano District and of the national Indian population?

5. Why has this program been approved in spite of the adverse reactions of seven reviewers, including prominent educators and computer experts? 6. Is there not existing equipment (the IBM 15 CO) which could provide equal or superior technical facilities at a saving of millions of dollars?

7. Is there any relationship between the approval of this project and the fact that Associate Commissioner Bright was formerly an executive of the firm proposing the project? In the case of an obvious conflict of interest, would not the concerned official normally defer to expert critiques? My central concern is with the possible impact of this program on the Menominee people. The tribe faces bankruptcy and dissolution today as the result of a Federal law removing certain tax immunities. At this critical stage in the tribe's existence it seems crucial that new programs be sensitively designed to meet their needs through close consultation with the people to be served. The money involved in this research proposal is more than enough to make the tribe solvent and to provide important development of their resources and economy. It would be particularly tragic if Menominee children were used as a pretext to gain funds for the development of computer technology by researchers only marginally concerned with their educational needs.

I am certain that you share my concern, and that your staff will defer action on this proposal until these questions have been answered. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours truly,

GARY ORFIELD,
Research Fellow.

APPENDIX 12.-APRIL 18, 1967, LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS TO COMMISSIONER HOWE

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS,
Washington, D.C., April 18, 1967.

Hon. HAROLD HOWE II,
U.S. Commissioner of Education,

Office of Education,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR COMMISSIONER HOWE: We are very distressed to learn that your office may fund this project on the Menominee reservation without any previous consultation with the officials of the tribe. We are also shocked to learn that $2.5 million will be put into this project when there are already capable programs in existence that can do what this project purports to do.

For many years Indian people have been run over by a variety of "experts" who have a lot of book learning yet have no knowledge of people. It would seem to us that a minimum requirement would have been consultation with the people for whom the program is planned.

It would seem to us that your office should have reservation Indian people as your consultants. In that way your research projects might have some relevance to the problems of Indian people. Otherwise, and this is quite well known, projects that are generally funded by your office have been irrelevant, immaterial, and inaccurate to the point where Indian people do not have any further knowledge opened to them by the studies. Research may be a fine thing for ivory tower professors to be able to publish their esoteric ideas, however with a computer society now facing us it seems as though educational research would be aimed at problems most affecting Indians and the old patterns would be broken by your office.

We would be very happy to suggest a list of tribal chairmen as consultants for you so that future grants will bear some relation to reality. I am submitting such a list for your information.

We have not notified our Senators or Congressmen about this situation because of the fine cooperation we have received in the past from Mr. Colmen and Miss George. We are concerned about this project and hope that you can settle this problem within your organization by yourselves.

Sincerely yours,

VINE DELORIA, Jr.,

Executive Director.

(217)

« PreviousContinue »