1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 17 of 222
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
14
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
m 69How was that scored on military value?
MR. BROWN: The way the Army
did its military value assessments was to
first categorize installations within the 11
categories. Then, within each category, it
had five majors of merit that it utilized in
the military value assessment. There were
attributes that were assigned to each measure
of merit. Those attributes, for the aut
pert, have data associated with them and, for
the most pert, are objective data rather than
subjective data.
Those ruaters, then, are put
into a computer model called Decision Pad, and
you came out with a number. The Army used its
military value assessments only as an
indicator. That did not give the leadership a
reason to necessarily take action to any
installation, whether it be number 13 or
number 1.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: Because
then you look at it a little more carefully,
and you have a uniqueness on that base that
you cannot replicate at another one.
MR. BROWN: Particularly, and
Fort Lee is a bad example, but if you look at
Fort Rucker --
COMMISSIONER BYRON: But we're
talking about Fort Lee right now. Is there a
uniqueness at Fort Lee that cannot be
replicated?
MR. BROWN: Mo, there is not.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: Is there
something that Fort Lee -- a piece of
equipment, space, or an element that cannot be
duplicated at another base?
MR. BROWN: There is not.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Do you have
any other charts to go over with respect to
Lee?
MR. BROWN: I do not, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CWEJRTER: Do I hear a
motion on Fort Lee?
COMMISSIONER STUART: Well,
because of the argument that I just made, and
I think, because we are not sure of this data,
I'll move that we consider that for closure.
CHAIRMAN CQJRTER: Do I hear a
second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER B MAN:
Seconded.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: I hear a
second to the motion. Any discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COURTER: We'll
start, then, for a roll call vote, I'll start
from my right and call for Commissioner Peter
Bomamn to vote first, and then we'lL move on
dow: this way.
COMMIlSSIONlER BOWIANl: Aye.
COMI NlSSIlONER COX: Aye.
CONI[SSLONER MCPHERSON : Aye.
CHAIRMAN COJRTER: Aye.
GEM JOHNlSONi: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STUART: Aye.
CHAIRMqAN COJRTER: The motionis passed.
Let me just say two things.
First of all, it is regrettable that we, at
this particular time, don't have the accurate
data that we need in order to make the type of
objective analysis and informed decision that
we think is necessary.
Secondly, I want to make sure
that the co arities that are impacted around
Fort Lee have some sort of tolerance to that
which we did. But we are duty bord, in
essence, and there was a full vote of all the
commissioners, all affirmative, that we do it,
simply because we're under a time frme.-
whereby, if we do not place the facility for
review today, we'll have no opportunity to
compare it on :ts merits. So I want to make
sure that the headline writers get it the
right way, I suppose, as much as anything
else.
Finally, I want to say that we
discussed now two Army bases, and Fort
McClellan came up with regard to Leonard Wood,
and someone may say Fort McClellan is wrapped
in this particular issue, as well. I just
want to caution everybody and let them know
that that which we do on competing facilities
or potentially competing facilities in similar
categories doesn't necessarily mean,
therefore, we rave made up our minds on
McClellan. In fact, we have not. I'm
speaking as an individual commissioner. I
have not.
So what I really don't want is
the speculation, "Oh, you did not p.t Leonard
Wood on the review list, and therefore you're
going to go ahead and adopt the Army plan with
regard to McClellan." That's not necessarily
the case whatsoever. And so I might as well
say it now once rather than 15 times later
this afternoon.
Any other statements of
commissioners before we move on?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COJRTER: Let us
proceed.
MR. BROWN: Mark, chart 16-R
and the accompanying map 16-L.
These two charts show the
Army's five professional school installations.
Each of these installations houses a one-of-a-
kind activity. The relative military value
ranking of each installation is shown on 17-R.
The Army recommended that the Presidio of
Monterey and the Presidio of Monterey Amex be
closed and that the Defense Language Institute
be relocated to and the foreign language
training be contracted with the public
university at or near Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
The Army also stated that its
recommendation is contingent upon the
successful negotiation of a contract by
October of 1994. If agreement cannot be met
by that tine, 31. eoutd remain, or the Defense
Language Institute would remain at the
Presidio of Monterey, and the Army would
reevaluate options which might lead to another
proposal to the 1995 Comission.
The Secretary of Defense
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this document that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993, legal document, February 17, 2006; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc25520/m1/17/?q=food+rule+for+unt+students: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.