Re: BASE CLOSURE SETBACK

["Barry Steinberg" <kutak_r@ix.netcom.com>]

I cannot overstate the resentment which is felt over the
administration decision to privatize in place the workload at Kelly and
McClellan. This issue goes back to false testimony given by active duty
Air Force officers to the Base Closure Commission in order to save 5
Air Logistic Centers. The testimony, coupled with administrative record 
leading up to the
decision to keep all 5 open, was so offensive to the Commission that one
of the Commissioners actually dismantled the logic in a brilliant line
of questions to the AF brigadier who was sent to carry the water.
This all came about because the President's staff was intimidated by
the political implications of taking an unfavorable action in the two
affected states. 

When they lost the battle with the Commission, they
contrived the scenario, which the Chairman of the Commission helped, to
foster the ridiculous idea of privatization in place. That concept is
the dumbest way to save scarce defense dollars yet seen.
The General Accounting Office and
every other objective observer has demonstrated beyond question that
this is a waste of money, defeats the purpose of closures and actually
costs more in the long run than closure and consolidation. Industry is
less than enthusiastic at this course of action, but has to suck up to
the policy in order to curry favor for future contracts. The unions
know that this will not protect their jobs, the liability issues for
contamination have not been addressed, and the issues associated with
60/40 and core workload have been muddied by all of this.

No one who really cares about how best to spend scarce national
security dollars can look at this with anything but disgust.
The political motivation of privatization in place has cost this
administration more credibility than has been generally realized. If
there really is a need for more closures, there is no trust that
politics will not drive the outcome, and a Republican Congress is not
likely to give this Administration that kind of power.
If DoD really wants more closures, there are some steps to be taken:
1. Abandon privatization in place
2. Amend the process to get the politics out of the selection of bases
to be closed
3. Assure the funding and personnel resources for cleanup of bases closed
previously and provide assurance that the cleanup is consistent with
the local reuse plan.

Thanks for the update on the committee vote. There will be some delicate
maneuvering in the Senate by Senators Graham and Hutchison next week to
try to save the Kelly Privatization in Place action. It is not even 
well disguised
parochialism. If they are successful, there is no integrity left in the
process.

...

The resentment is twofold: other base closure communities have had to gut
out the rebuilding, economic development, environmental cleanup, lost
jobs and tax revenue, etc. with no specific Congressional or
Administration assistance beyond the Office of Economic Adjustment
process. Yet, when there is a
political agenda resulting from the Base Closure Committee exercising its
independent judgment to reject a dumb recommendation
to keep all 5 Air Logistics Centers,
the politicians with a vested interest (votes and jobs) jump in with both
feet. The second basis for resentment stems from the fact that the
failure to allocate the workload at Kelly and McClellan to other depots
NOT on the list for closure is making those other depots less efficient.
Their overhead costs are relatively constant and they operate below
capacity. If the workload from closing bases were distributed to those
that survive, the true economies of scale would be achieved. Instead, by
saving bases that should be closed under the guise of Privatization in
Place, DoD is actually preserving excess capacity which has been
identified for elimination, failing to save money by maintaining
unnecessary excess capacity and at the same time charging surcharges on
the industrial accounts of the other depots to cover the costs of running
KELLY and McClellan . There are reports from GAO that demonstrate the
waste associated with this course of action, but it is not politically
correct to acknowledge that Privatization in Place is wasteful.