Page images

(d) In the case of appointments under subsection 101 (a) hereof, exemption hereunder shall not extend to the receipt or payment of salary in connection with the appointee's Government service hereunder from any source other than the private employer of the appointee at the time of his appointment hereunder."

3. That part of section 301 of the said Executive Order No. 10182 which precedes paragraph (a) thereof is amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 301. Appointments under subsection 101 (a) of this order to positions other than advisory or consultative shall be supported by written certification by the head of the employing department or agency :"


Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall having visited Mr. Zurmuhlen, Commissioner of Public Works in New York City, on several occasions since April 1, 1954, for the purpose of securing additional engineering work from the city for Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. I have seen Commissioner Zurmuhlen on several occasions, but not for the purpose of securing business. It was for the had with New York City. purpose of discussing a very large contract that Strobel & Salzman

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall a memorandum dated June 15, 1954, which Mr. Schwarz sent to you?

Mr. STROBEL. No:I don't until I see it.
Mr. MALETZ. I believe you have it before you.
Mr. RoBB. We will get it. June 15.

Mr. MALETZ. May I read this memorandum ? Is this the memorandum from Mr. Schwarz to you?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct. Mr. MALETZ. Dated June 15, 1954: This is a reminder of the appointment which you have on Friday, 3 p. m., with Commissioner Zurmuhlen. If you are able to, let us know where and when Salzman should meet you, so you both may go down together.

Attached is a newspaper clipping showing a new criminal court building in Queens. It would be nice if we could get a job like this out of Zurmuhlen. I think he owes us some kind of a job on which we can at least break even financially.

I won't bother reading the rest of it, but does that refresh your recollection about the meeting with Mr. Zurmuhlen?

Mr. STROBEL. Well, everything that Mr. Schwarz is remarking there is true. It would be nice. But that doesn't mean that a discussion was had, and no discussion was had on that basis. As I said, we were in a rather sad controversy with the city on the big project that we were doing for them at that time.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, I take it, though, it is correct that you did have several discussions with Commissioner Zurmuhlen about the possibility of obtaining business?

Mr. STROBEL. Well, it is possible that it might have been mentioned, but I cannot recall, because we were interested in unwinding that very large contract. That was of the utmost importance. In fact, there is still an argument on it, say, a petition in from the firm to the city of New York about extra payment that has not as yet been settled. That has to be approved by the board of estimate.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence a memorandum from Schwarz, of Strobel & Salzman, to Mr. Strobel dated June 15, 1954.

The CHAIRMAN. Accepted.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1954. This is a reminder of the appointment which you have on Friday, 3 p. m., with Commissioner Zurmuhlen.

If you are able, let us know where and when Salzman should meet you so you both may go down together.

Attached is a newspaper clipping showing a new criminal court building in Queens. It would be nice if we could get a job like this out of Zurmuhlen. I think he owes us some kind of a job on which we can at least break even financially.

I had a telephone talk with Tizian regarding the possible Navy project and I explained the deal to Salzman, who can tell you about it when he sees you on Friday. Tizian told me Rusnic and Urbahn are also in the picture and that they have on their payroll White, who was formerly with McKenzie, Bogert, White (and he is supposed to be the contact man). Tizian believes his contact man, who is now one of the assistant directors, Atlantic Division, for the Navy, is stronger than White. Tizian is arranging for Salzu and me to meet this man for lunch some day next week.

Eric Thorm said a White Plains radio station had an announcement of your appointment on the air yesterday. There was nothing else in the papers today. Anna is going to Harvard for the balance of the week.

If you get a new hired hand at the farm be sure to put some limit on his meat consumption and also make some arrangement whereby he is not satisfactory within 2 weeks or 30 days he is to move off the premises without any trouble.

The weather has been warm but not too bad, and we have had the air conditioning working this afternoon.

Everyone seems to be busy and I think progress is being made to produce the work we now have in the office.


Mr. FINE. I just wanted to find out, Mr. Chairman, whether or not Commissioner Žurmuhlen is a professional engineer.

Mr. STROBEL. He is both a professional engineer and a registered architect.

Mr.FINE. And you have known him as such?

Mr. STROBEL. I have known him for years. I have known him since the New York World's Fair.

Mr. FINE. You have known him on a professional basis?
Mr. STROBEL. That is right; yes.

Mr. MALETz. Now, Mr. Strobel, on or about February 7, 1955, you were in Atlanta, Ga., on GSA business; were you not?

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, while in Atlanta, Ga., did you have discussions with the architectural engineering firm of Robert & Co. in the course of which you hired that company in behalf of Strobel & Salzman to draw alternate plans and specifications for a New York City incinerator plant?

Mr. STROBEL. What was the date you mentioned ?
Mr. MALETZ. February 7.
Mr. STROBEL. What year?
Mr. MALETZ. 1955.

Mr. STROBEL. No. The fact is this: That this incinerator project dates back a couple of years. I did see representatives of Robert & Co. at that time, but not in regard to hiring them for the incinerator job, because it was over the dam.

Mr. MALETZ. For what purpose did you see Robert & Co.?

Mr. STROBEL. For the purpose of discussing the outcome of the incinerator project.

Mr. MALETZ. Was Robert & Co. hired by Strobel & Salzman to draft all the plans and specifications?

[ocr errors]

Mr. STROBEL. No. Robert & Co. was originally engaged by Strobel & Salzman as subcontractors to draw the plans and specifications for a patented incinerator, for which they are licensees for the United States.

Mr. KEATING. May I just interrupt to ask a clarifying question? Strobel & Salzman would be called an architect-engineering firm?

Mr. STROBEL. No. We are consulting engineers. We are not architects.

Mr. KEATING. Consulting engineers. You are not architects ?
Mr. STROBEL. No, sir.

Mr. KEATING. And if the city wants to build some building, are they apt to come to you or a consulting engineering firm in the first instance, and then you sublet the actual drawing of the plans to some architectural firm! Is that the way it works?

Mr. STROBEL. No. That is a very special occasion. We have acted in quite a few instances as prime contractors. We have been approached by several, or we have had dealings or correspondence with several, cities or parties in regard to incinerators.

Mr. KEATING. I was trying to get away from incinerators, and I am speaking from a wealth of ignorance about this subject, but up where I come from we do not have so many people in on a deal. And what I am trying to get at is how it came about that in listing these clients here, there were a lot of architectural firms that were spoken of as clients of Strobel & Salzman.

Mr. STROBEL. I can explain that this way: That they are clients of the firm because we are doing business for them. As a rule, when we

. talk about relationships between architects and Strobel & Salzman, in most cases we let it be signified that Strobel & Salzman are subcontractors to the architects.

Mr. KEATING. I see.
Mr. STROBEL. In a very few cases, the situation is reversed.
Mr. KEATING. Sometimes it works the other way?

Mr. STROBEL. We do take prime contracts on structures and buildings that are primarily of an engineering nature, and there may be some architectural work on those. Then in that case, the architect becomes a subcontractor to us.

Mr. KEATING. Well, this Robert concern down in Atlanta are incinerator experts, would you say, or something like that?

Mr. STROBEL. They are in this respect: That they are interested in International Incinerator, Inc. That is the name for the company that holds the license for a special patented type of incinerator. It happens to be a Danish invention, and they hold that license for exploitation in this country, and Mr. Robert is interested in that.

Mr. KEATING. But normally this long list, or substantial list, of architects that are spoken of as clients of your firm would mean that they were architects who hired your firm to do something for them in connection with their plans for building?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.
Mr. KEATING. I see.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Strobel, a little bit later you will be questioned in detail about a contract that Strobel & Salzman had with the Corps of Engineers dated April 22, 1954. At this point I would like to ask you a few questions concerning another matter in connection with the Corps of Engineers involving Strobel & Salzman.

First, is it true that during 1955 you personally visited the Corps of Engineers offices on a number of occasions in order to obtain additional compensation for Strobel & Salzman under an old contract that Strobel & Salzman had with the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. STROBEL. It is correct that I personally visited them, not on a number of occasions. I do not remember how often—2 or 3 times.

Mr. MALETZ. And whom did you visit in the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. STROBEL. I visited the men that were responsible for handling with the firm, with Strobel & Salzman, a contract that it had for making plans and specifications for warehouses. The reason I took it upon myself to go over there at lunch hour, not on Government time, was the fact that the warehouse contract—there has been quite a series of them—this particular warehouse contract was finished in 1953, and there was only one other person in the office that was sufficiently familiar with the background and the details of that project that could have handled negotiations for extra pay for extra work performed.

We worked beyond the scope of the original contract. That person was not with Strobel & Salzman any more, but in Boston.

So I took it upon myself to go over and clarify that. I would like to say that the initial move for obtaining extras was done later in 1953. I don't remember whether it was August or September. But at that time, I gave a memorandum to this employee in the Corps of Engineers office showing the claims I intended to make. I gave it to him saying that I wanted him to look it over because I did not want to ask for any extras in any manner that could be embarrassing to these people that has been responsible for letting out this work.

So the firm was eventually, after long delay, informed that the item of extras would have to be settled before the end of fiscal

year 1955. That is why I went over there.

Mr. MALETZ. And—do you have something to add, Mr. Strobel ?
Mr. STROBEL. I beg your pardon?
Mr. MALETZ. Do you have something to add ?

Mr. STROBEL. That is why I took it upon myself, because this other person was in Boston.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, when did you make these visits to the Office of the Corps of Engiñeers! About what month?

? Mr. STROBEL. That could have been May of this year; it could have been April; it could have been June. I am not quite certain.

Mr. MALETZ. And were those visits for the purpose of expediting settlement of this claim that Strobel & Salzman had pending in the Corps of Engineers ?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct, to get to an understanding as to what

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall what people in the Corps of Engineers you visited!

Mr. STROBEL. Yes. I was discussing this subject matter with a Mr. Hench, who was the project engineer for this particular project.

Mr. MALETZ. Did you also call Mr. Hench and/or other people in the Corps of Engineers about getting this matter disposed of?

Mr. STROBEL. Well, there was his assistant, Mr. Ewer and then The contracts man by the name of Mr. Williams. He was in on it, too.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it or is it not correct that initially you filed a claim for approximately $16,000?

[ocr errors]

Mr. STROBEL. No, sir.
Mr. MALETZ. What was the amount of the claim?

Mr. STROBEL. On this warehouse extra, I believe the original claim was something like $7,500.

Mr. MALETZ. And how was the matter finally disposed of!
Mr. STROBEL. We settled for $3,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Were there any other claims besides the $7,000?
Mr. STROBEL. No, sir.

Mr. MalETz. Now, Mr. Strobel, in prosecuting this claim before the Corps of Engineers, you were acting in behalf of the firm of Strobel & Salzman; were you not?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, in personally prosecuting this claim in behalf of the partnership of Strobel & Salzman, did you consider that you might be in possible violation of the conflict of interest statutes, and specifically sections 281 and 283 of title 18!

Mr. STROBEL. No, I was not aware of that, because, as I have tried to explain, I have been down here with the specific understanding that I did not have to give up my interest in Strobel & Salzman.

Mr. MALETZ. But neither Mr. Mansure nor anybody else can grant you immunity, can he, from the conflict of interest statutes?

Mr. STROBEL. No, I am sure not. Mr. MALETZ. Now, is it not true that Mr. Elliott, General Counsel of GSA, and Mr. Moody, Assistant General Counsel, and counsel as well for the Public Buildings Service, had previously advised you not to have any contacts whatsoever with the Corps of Èngineers regarding contract matters pertaining to your firm?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't recall that.
Mr. MALETZ. You do not recall that advice, sir?
Mr. STROBEL. I do not recall that; no. I do not recall that.

Mr. MalETz. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Elliott and Mr. Moody concerning contract matters pertaining to your firm?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes; we did have a discussion shortly after I took office

Mr. MALETZ. We will get into that after a while.
Mr. STROBEL. I see.

Mr. MALETZ. But specifically, do you recall Mr. Moody and Mr. Elliott advising you to stay away from the Corps of Engineers in connection with contract matters pertaining to Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't seem to recall that.

Mr. MALETZ. You do not recall, sir. I might say that Mr. Moody will be a witness at a later point.

Now, before going to the Corps of Engineers concerning this claim, did you consult with Mr. Moody or Mr. Elliott?

Mr. STROBEL. No; I did not

Mr. MAŁETZ. And you did not inform them that you were person-ally prosecuting this claim?


Mr. MALETZ. Now, in view of these various activities which you have undertaken on behalf of Strobel & Salzman, do you feel that you have relinquished all participation in the management of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. STROBEL. I feel I have, because Mr. Salzman is in charge of the office of Strobel & Salzman. It is a proposition that requires full

« PreviousContinue »