1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 18 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:
15
1
2
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
34
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
69removed the Army's recommendation, citing the
impact on intelligence activities. On March
29th, you voted to add the Presidio of
Monterey as a candidate for further
consideration. Commissioners have recommended
that the staff include the Presidio of
Monterey Amex in its study of the closure of
the Presidio of Monterey.
Chart 18-R and the
accompanying map, chart 18-L, permit us to
discuss the addition of the Presidio of
Monterey Annex as a candidate for further
consideration. Details associated with the
Army's recmendat i on are shown on this chart,
and the map shows the relative Location of the
Presidio of Monterey and Fort Huachuca.
The issue here is that the
Commission must clarify that its March 29th
motion and vote concerning the consideration
of the Presidio of Monterey for closure was
intended to include the Presidio of Monterey
Annex. Concerns raised by the community
around the Presidio of Monterey, interested
citizens, the commissioners, and staff include
the questionable ability to contract out the
Language training mission, whether it is Legal
to contract out the mission without first
completing a study in accordance with Office
of Management and Budget circular A-76 -- the
General Counsel is reviewing the applicability
of that circular -- the questionable ability
to replace the unique faculty that exists at
the Defense Language Institute, the impact on
intelligence activities, and the size of the
Presidio of Monterey Annex and the extremely
high base operating cost associated with it
providing base operation support to the
Presidio of Monterey.
Chart 19-R and the
accompanying map 19-L show the Presidio of
Monterey Annex in relation to the Presidio of
Monterey, the Naval Post Graduate School, and
Fort Ord. Even though the Presidio of
Monterey Amex is only 6 percent of the land
area that was Fort Ord, it contains some 40
percent of the buildings and 37 percent of the
square footage that was in Fort red'ss
contonement area.
In addition, almost 1,500
housing units would be retained for use by the
Presidio of Monterey, the Mavy, and the Coast
Guard. Chart 20-R shows the functions served
by the buildings retained at the Presidio of
Monterey Annex. Particularly striking is that
47 percent of the square footage is required
to support a 500-man campus to permit the
student load of the Defense Language Institute
to surge to 4,500 students.
The current toad is 2,900
students. The Army' s analys is assumed a
student load of almost 2,500 students. And
the capacity of the main campus of the Defense
Language Institute is almost 4,000.
The staff is prepared to
answer your questions prior to any motion.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: I was, as
you know, very aut involved in 1991, and that
Comniss ion -- it was a very torturous, very
difficult decision, but we voted to close 0r..At that particular period of time, we wanted
to Leave open that salL amount of Ord that
was minimally essential to support the Defense
Language Institute.
Whiat we thought would occur
was that there would be a small footprint left
of minima cost to support the Defense
Language Institute. In my mind, what occurred
here is that the Army Left a very large
footprint which, as you indicated, if not the
majority, a Large percentage of those
facilities which create massive overhead.
And I'm working my way through
this whole thing. What I would Like to do-is
to myself come forward with a motion that
clarifies that which we did with regard to the
Defense Language Institute. And so i'm going
to read a motion and ask for a second if
people think it has some merit. But the crux
of the problem is that, in order to, in my
mind, analyze correctly the merits of the
Defense Language Institute and to keep in
proportion the costs of the Defense Language
Institute, we have to review the correctness
of the decision with regard to keeping so much
of overhead at Ord.
And, therefore, my motion
allows us to look at this entire picture of
the Ord enclave, which supports the Presidio,
and therefore allows us to analyze the
Presidio utilizing real numbers and real
costs, and not inflated costs, because of an
imposed, and I would argue artificial,
overhead which was created by keeping so much
of Ord. My motion --
COMMISSIONER COX: I'm sorry,
Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask a question
and make sure I understand what you're doing.
In other words, to look at the
Defense Language Institute and its real costs,
as opposed to the costs that it is carrying,
if you want to put it that way, at the Annex,
the old Fort Ord, we would have to vote for
this motion; otherwise, we end up with the
Defense Language Institute with incredibly
high costs, which would appear on its face
that we should close, given those costs. This
gives us an opportunity, perhaps, to leave the
DLI open but reduce the cost significantly.
CHAIRMAN CouRrER: Yes. It
keeps our options open. It allows us to
analyze it, I think, correctly. And you're
absolutely correct. You would be a perfect
person to second this.
COMISSIONER COX: I would be
happy to second it.
CC I SSIONER BCAMAN: Mr.
Chairman, I agree with both of you, and I
further think that we ought to look and see if
there is any cost reductions associated with
the Naval Post Graduate School in concert with
the Presidio using a 'much smaller group of
facilities at former Fort Ord.
COMMISSIONER STUART: I would
certainly second that thought, too.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: Hr.
Chairman, if you make your motion, llt second
it, and I think we can vote rather quickly.
CHAIRMAN COURIER: I'm justW
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/m1/18/?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.