1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 72 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:
69
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
69what's the second number?
MS. S I SAK: The second rw.r
is the rnber of authorized bit lets in the
Reserve units that are attached to that
center. So in the case of Chicopee, which is
well overmanned, they have aLmost twice the
rater of Reservists driL t ing there as they
have Reserve unit billets.
CI lSS IONER MCPHERSON:
What's the situation at South Weymouth?
MS. SISAK: In terns of the --
CPMISS OILER MCPHERSON: In
terms of its ability to take these folks in.
MS. SISAK: In looking at the
situation up there, I believe they have the
classroom space. Again, most of these are
classroom activities to handle those
Reservists. They have enough messing and
berthing facilities for the people that would
have to stay overnight to handle it, again,
reducing the costs of putting them out on the
economy.
COMMISSIONER SG1MAN: I see
this as kind of the tip of the iceberg. I
support consolidation of, in this case, Navy
Reserve facilities, and I think we who went to
the Boston hearings listened to Admiral
Weschter say that he was not aware that there
was an overall consolidated, integrated Navy
Reserve strategic plan, at least not that he
knew of.
However, I don't think we are
about to solve that problem. At best, I would
recomend, if we address this at all, that we
perhaps address this as a symbol of a
purification, cleaning house, however you want
to describe it. But I think it's only part of
a grander plan, which 1 hope somebody is
addressing, but it's not clear that someone
is.
MS. SISAK: I tend to agree
with you, Commissioner omen. in my
conversations with Mew Orleans Commander Naval
Reserve Force persornnt, they have told me
that they are in the process outside of the
BRAC process of ridding the Reserve force of
older facilities and collocating those
Reservists with newer, larger Reserve centers
that are within a reasonable commuting
distance. And those are some of the actions
that aren't on the map up there.
As a matter of fact, late
yesterday afternoon, I received from the BSAT
a list of those types of consolidations that
Mew Orleans is conducting.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Do I hear a
motion with respect to these three facilities?
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: I
move that the Commission consider the Naval
Reserve Center Chicopee, MCRC Lawrence, and
the Naval Reserve Center Quincy as proposed
additions to the Secretary's list.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Do I hear a
second to the motion?
CCISSOER BQMA N: Second.
COMMI SSIONER MCPHERSON:
Secretary's list of installations recommendedl
for closure and reatligruent.CHAIRMAN COURTER: Do I hear W
second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER BCMAN: Yes,
sir. Second.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: There is a
second to the motion. Any discussion on the
motion?
(Mo response.)
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Sob Stuart.
COMMISS I ONER STUART: Aye.
CO MMI SS I OWNER BYRON: No.
GEM JOHNSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COX: Aye.
COMMII1ISSIONER BOWAM: Aye.
MS. CHESTON: The motion that
the Commission consider MRC/AFRC Chicopee,
NMCRC Lawrence, and NRC Quincy, Mass., as
proposed additions to the Secretary's list of
military installations recommeded for closure
or rest igrent, the vote is six in favor, one
against; the motion passes.
MR. YELL[M: I would like to
move on to technical centers, if you could put
up 48 and 49. And I've got Larry Jackson
back, to my left, who is the analyst for this
category.
The issue here is for
consideration to close NavaL Surface Weapons
Center Louisville and transfer the depot
workload. To hopefully not confuse too many
people, this is also Naval Ordinance Station
Louisville. So the name has just recently
been changed.
This is an issue that was
brought to our attention by the FMC Naval
Systems Division, and we are showing next to
them for comparison on this chart. FMC
operates a LOCO. They are the full service
R&D design production organization to do
primarily Naval gum. And Louisville is the
ph tic depot that does the depot level
maintenance for those systems.
MC also has a small depot
Level maintenance operation that they conduct
up in Minneapolis at their GOCO, and they have
approached us with the issue of the transfer
of a workload to support the full service
provider to the Navy. Their workload is
dramatically reduced, and they have presented
significant information that they have
significant excess capacity that is very able
to do the amount of depot level work that's
required.
In looking at the capacity
information that we currently have for
Louisville, the only information we have that
real ty has discussed thiJs yet is the JCS depot
console idation study, General U;ent's study,
which indicated that LouJiile was not an
excess capacity category, und that's,
balsically, due to the difference in how
capacity is calculated.
The JICS study looked at the
current alignment of workforce in the
organizations and, in fact, they typically
looked at the '87 workforce and Looked at how
that workforce compared to the maxias
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/m1/72/?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.