ML19248C552

Transcript of 790625 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc to Discuss Personnel Matter.Pp 1-40

ML19248C552
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/25/1979
From:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907030309
Download: ML19248C552 (41)

Text

?

s w n," fl

T/ C.

_ D.P.

{

g liu df a NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTER

(

Place -

Washington, D.

C.

Date.

Monday, 25 June 1979 Pages 1-40 1

280 177 1.i.

(202)347-3700 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.

OfficialReponers 444 North Ccpitel Street 7 90'7 03 0 b0 '

Washinoton, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY PT97

r 1

CRS617 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Monday, 25 June 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W.,

/ashington, D.

C.

The meeting was open to public attendance and cbservation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inac6uracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational

c. urc. o s e s.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed n

with the Commission in any proceec..ing as t, e resu., t or or accressec to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

280 178

l 2

i CRS617 l;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN l

3 i

l 4j PUBLIC MEETING 5,

DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTER i

i 6 I 71 Room 1110 1717 H Street, N.

W.

8 Washington, D.

C.

9, Monday, 25 June 19 79 i

10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.

i i

11 l BEFO RE :

l 12 DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairman l

13 i VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner

{

14,

RICHARD T.

KENNEDY, ComInis sione r i

15 !

PETER A.

BRADFORD, Commissioner I

16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 17 ALSO PRESENT:

I l

18 Messrs. Bickwit, Schwartz, Collins, Gossick, and Ryan.

19 l 20 21 22 i 23 24 l Ace h,ral Reporters, Inc.

q 25 LOpU l/,

i i

,, CR, 5,617 3

WHITLOCK:

jwb 41 ll

_P _R O_ C _E _E _D _I N _G _S 2'

(9:45 a.m.)

3l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

On a personnel matter, we have I

i i

4I with us Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Collins who have asked to talk i

l I

i 5

to the Commission about a decision which we made sometime l

i i

6; ago with regard to grades, coming out of the Commission's 1

7' review of the super grade audit.

I 8

I think the best approach is to let you go ahead l

9 and frame the proposition as you would like to cut it to us.

i l

10 :

MR. SCHWARTZ:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

l 11 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Before you begin as i

12 '

petitioners, have you taken counsel?

And if so, is your i

i 13 j counsel present?

i l

14 !

MR. SCHWARTZ:

We have not taken counsel, sir.

i 15,

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

Thank you.

16 l MR. SCHWARTZ:

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, i

I i

17 we thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet with you 4

18 today about a petition to the Commission for reconsideration 19 i and redress, which we filed with you on June 1,

1979, I

20 i concerning the clas-fication of the positions we currently 4

21 l occupy.

22 In our view, the Commission has acted in an 23 arbitrary and capricious manner because, on February 7th i

i 24 !

of this year, the Commission rejected the recommendations teFMeral R ecorters, lec. I, i

25 l andvalidlymadedgIarminationsontheseclassificationsby c

U 180 l

i il

1,2,jwb 4

l, 1

1 one, the Director of the Office of State Programs; two, the l

2l Director of the Personnel Office; three, the report of f

I l

3' damon and Associates of December 30th, 1977; four, the I

i 4

Director of the Office of Administration; and five, the 5l Executive Director for operations.

i t

i6j These recommendations and determinations which I

i I

7:

were, in our judgment, arbitrarily and capriciously set 8!

by the Commission on February 7th, 1979, all came to the 9,

same conclusion, that the positions of Ass'.stant Director I

l 1

10 l for Emergency Preparedness and Assistant Director for Program 11 l Development in the Office of State Programs should be 12 ',

GS-16s.

i 13 This attempt by the, Commission to upse'. this I

14 l string of recommendations and determinations is personally l

15 dam 3.ging to Mr. Collins and myself.

Because if these 16 positions are not graded at GS-16, it denies Mr. Collins and f

I l

17 myself the opportunity to consider joining the Senior j

18 Executive Service, which becomes effective on July 13th, i

19 ;

1979.

I t

20 As you know, substantial benefits ficw to the 21 individuals who become members of the SES upon its creation, 22 not only through bonuses and pay, but they are presumed 1

23 qualified for membership without further investigation or l

24 certification by the Office of Personnel Management.

l AaJeeral Reporters, lt c.

I 25 Ne believe the two positions should be GS-16, and 280 181

1-3 jwb 5

9 1,

we think there is ample justification for reaching such a i

I 1

2l conclusion.

But it is not our intention todcty to make such i

I i

3, an argument on the merits.

In our judgment, there is no i

l l

4; need to reach that question.

Our belief is that the cuestion l

S' has already been decided by the actions of Mr. Ryan, by the i,

6l Damon study, by the Of fice of Personnel, by the Director of j

7 Office of Administration, and the Director of operations.

8 In sett!_ng aside the collective judgment of these l

9 individuals and organizations, the Commission, we believe, i

I 10 l has acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion and has l

l 11 l denied us substantial rights to which we are entitled by I

i 12 !

virtue of the statutes under which the Commission operates.

t i

i t

13 And, more importantly, the rules under which the Commission i

14 currently functions.

15 In a nutshell, our argument is that the l

16,

Commission lacks authority to set aside the determinations i

17 on these grade classifications made by your Office of I

18 Personnel, your own Office of Administration, and your own 19 Executive Director for Operations.

i 1

i 20 l We have prepared a bcoklet for each of the i

21 ;

Commissioners which I would like to have distributed at this l

I 22 time.

l r

23 (Distributing documents to Commissioners.)

i 24 The Commission should have some background on j

Aa FMerpl R eoarters, inc..

I I

25 ;

this whole matrer.

I an going to try to lay it out for you 230

't82 l

1-4 jwh 6

I l

l i

i 1l in chronological order.

Referring back to the documents I

t 2

contained in thin booklet, I will be referring to the l

l i

3!

documents conta_ned in it as we present our evidence.

i 4

The question of whether these positions should 5,

be classified as GS-16 antedates the Damon study by about t

I I

6' three months.

It goes back at least as far as April 13th, i

I, t

7 1977.

At that time, Mr. Ryan, Director of the Office of j

t I

8!

State Programs, wrote a letter to Mr. Tim Dircks, who was I

9; at that time the Personnel Management Analyst for the Office I

10 ;

of State Programs.

l 11 i I would like at this time to ask Mr. Ryan to l

12 explain to the Commission that letter, and subsequent j

l 13 correspondence.

The letter is found in Tab A of the 14 booklets.

l 15 l MR. RYAN:

Mr. Chairman, when I came to the I

l 16 l Office of State Programs in 1976, Mr. Schwart and l

I 17 Mr. Collins had an " acting" before their names.

That I

18 l

" acting" was removed late in 1976, and partly ou my own I

19 l motion, and also partly in response to requests from 20 l Mr. Collins and Mr. Schwart2.

21 i I inquire into the question of the grade 22 classifica: ion for the slots which they occupy.

On April 23 13th, 1977, I wrote a letter to Mr. Tim Dircks, who was i

i 24 ;

the personnel fellow responsible for our office at that

\\ce Feceral Reporters, Inc.,

i 25 !

time.

And I said:

Durinc the cerformance evaluations t

ne -

l O

i

1-o 3wb 7

j l

i I

1 recently concluded, I mentioned to Lee Gossick that it was 2

my intention formally to urge Harold Collins and Sheldon l

l 3

Schwartz of this office to be promoted from GS-15 to GS-16.

l 1

i i

4l "Mr.

Gossick supports my intention, proviced the i

Sj r sitions justify a Grade 16 from the personnel viewpoint, 6l a.

provided the super grade slots are available.

7 "This Uden is a declaration on my part that these I

I a

gentlemen deserve promotion, and that as far as I am 9

concerned the offices which they occupy ought to be filled 10 ;

by Grade 16s.

I i

11 i "I wonder if you would advise me on what paperwork 1

1 12 might be involved.

We will assist you in any way, as you j

13 l make your examinations of the functions, the benchmarks, l

I et cetera.' As usual, Ms. Janinek will help you if I am not 14 15 available during the next few weeks."

l 16 On Augu'st 12th, 1977, I sent a note to Mr. Dircks 17 and said, "I am er. closing the updated descriptions for the I

i 18 two Assistant Directors for the Office of State Programs, j

l i

19,

Harold-E. Collins and Sheldon A.

Schwartz.

Would you have 20 i these reviewed and evaluated for appropriate cl,.ssification.

21 In my opinion, the responsibilities involved are such that j

22 both positions should properly be classified as GS-16 rather 23 than the current GS-15.

If Personnel's review bears this 24 cut. I would want it to be a matter of record so that both hes Federal Recorters, inc.

l 25 !

Mr. Collins and Mr. Schwartz would be considerec ror 80 184

.i I

1-6 jwb 3

i i

1:

promotion when supergrade slots tacome availr.ble."

l 1

I i

2; There is a note on the too of that cacer from i

i l

3 Ms, Janinex in our office:

" Returned by Tim Dircks to 1

i t

1 4

resubmit in supergrade format."

l 5,

On November 7th, 1977, I wrote a memorandum to i

l 6l Calvin Jones which said:

"As requested by Tim Dircks, the l

7!

personnel analyst for this office, I am enclosing position i

i 8

descriptions in the supergrade format for the Assistant l

9j Director of State Programs for Stare Program Development, I

l l

10 and the Assistant Director for Emergency Preparedness.

I i

I i

11 '

understand that these positions -- these two positions --

12 !

will be included in the supergrade audit of this office i

i 13 which will be conducted within the next few days."

14 We had a handwritten note back from Tim Dircks i

l 15 l to Marie Janinek dated 11/9/77, November 9, 1977:

" Marie, 16 thanks so much for your timely submittal of the supergrade l

i 17 position descriptions.

They look good and should be helpful i

18 to the auditors. "

l l

19 During the third week of November 1977, I spent i

e 20 time with Damon Associates as part of their review of our l

21 office.

I discussed for about two hours the -- with the 22 l Damon people, the position descriptions for Mr. Schwartz's

+

23 and Mr. Collins' slots.

i 24 Damon came back the following week and we l

sc.J e nni nepor m s.ine.

25 discussed it again for a short time.

280 185 i

i

9 1.7 jwb l

i i

l I

i i

1l MR. SCHWARTZ:

Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

Let me talk 2l a minute about the Damon study.

f I

3; Mr. Ryan said he spent, I guess, two hours with l

\\

4l Damon.

Mr. Collins and I also spent about two hours eacn i

l 5l with Damon's representatives during their first visit in l

6j November 1977.

7f On the second visit about two weeks later, we spent i

8l.

another hour each talking to Damon.

The Damon study was l

9; completed December 30th, 1977, and was transmitted to the i

I l

10 ;

Commission on January 16th, 1978.

i 11 You will find this letter and pertinent excerpts i

12 '

from the study at Tab A in your book.

Basically, the Damon

.I l

13 study found that the positions in question should be 14 classified as GS-16, af ter a rather extensive investigation.

15 I had hoped to have representatives from Damon i

16 '

Associates here today to qualify them as experts on i

17' personnel matters and to question them on how thev arrived I

18 at their judgment, but unfortunately they are not able to 19 be with us.

I i

20 On June 22nd, I sent Mr. Casine, a partner of 21 l Damon's, a telegram, a copy of which is found at Tab C, i

l 22 inviting him to join us.

He informed me that he was unable i

i i

23 !

to attend.

I have of course no subpoena power available to l

I 24 !

me at this time by which I ct21d compel his attendance, l

2*Feersi neoone,. inc.

25 l but I presume that the Commissicn, having hired Damon's, is l

280 186 l

'-8 3.ib 10 l

l I

l I'

i l

prepared to stipulate to its expertise in the area of j

I i

2!

personnel management.

j i

l 3

On February 14th, 1978, there was a Commission 4

action paper, 78-97, found at Tab D in your books, which S-requested Commission approval for a plan to implement the i

6l supergrade audit report from Damon's.

It discusses the need i

7l for additional supergrade positions, and recommends that 8!

NRC fill supergrade positions within the then-existing I

i i

9 Office of Management and Buf.get ceiling of 210.

l l

10 !

On page 4, I quote:

" Priorities affecting these I

promotions will be established by the EDO."

The positions l

II I

I 12 we are talking about here today are included in that paper 13 at page 3, "30 positions at GS-15 recommended for GS-16."

14 The paper also dealt with downgradings recomme-ed 15 by Damon's setting up positions evaluation review committee, 16 PERC, to hear complaints from individuals who were aggrieved l

17 l by the Damon's report, and ways to improve the supergrade i

i 18 evaluation system.

f I

19 i On May 4th, 1978, Mr. Donoghue wrote to Mr. Ryan.

I 20 !

The exchange of correspondence is found at Tab E.

21 f Mr. Donoghue told Mr. Ryan and other office directors that i

22 l the Office of Personnel concurred in the contractor's l

23 l recommendations to upgrade the two positions in question f

I i

24 '

but that, "relatively low priority should be assigned to ICf-Efdef 31 Reporters, Inc.

25 the reccmmended upgradings."

280 187 1

i

,1.9 jwb 11 l

I l

i Mr. Ryan wrote back to Mr. Donoghue on May 10th, l

i 2l "Thank you for your memo of May 4th, and for vour succort I

i i

3i of the contractor's recommendations that the Assistant i

l 4l Director for Emergency Preparedness, Mr. Collins, and I

Sj Assistant Director for State Program Development, Mr. Schwartz,;

i I

6!

deserves the classification of GS-16 rather utan GS-15."

i i

7i The memo goes on to state, "Relatively low priority should l

S i be assigned to the recommended upgradings.

l 9

Mr. Ryan went on to say, " Naturally, I do not l

support that recommendation.

I am, however, unable to offer f

10 i

II l the best possible arguments in support of this recommendation r

12 because I do not have access to the priority rankings assigned i

13 to other positions.

I unde rstand that those rankings 14 necessarily involve judgments on your part which are, and 15 l in my view ought to be, confidential in nature.

Since I i

16 cannot then compare the merits of these upgradings with j

i i

17 l upgradings elsewhere in the agency, I must simply assert that I

18 l the recommended upgradings for our office are important and l

l 19 are justifiable and ought to be assigned high priority."

20 At Tab F you will find Mr. Chilk's memo of June 21 5th, 1978, describing the Commission decision on SECY-78-97, 22 l which among other things, " deferred any personnel actions 23 recommended in the Damon's report pending appropriate staff 24 review."

a Fecere\\ nemnen, Inc.

25

-rp3The PERC was established on June 22nd, 1978.

All 9n-L:J l ')

I i

l

1-10 jwb 12

]

I l

I of :ne memos we know about concerning it are found at i

2j Tab G.

3' On July 20th, 1978, we wrote to Mr. Minogue as i

i 4

the Chairman or PERC about the supergrade audit.

We said, i

f 5;

"You.. memo explaining the purpose of the Position Evaluation 6'

Review Committee, and inviting notices of intent to appeal, i

7l is most welcome.

While we are not contesting the basic I

8; findings of the Damon Study and the organization and personnel 9'

concurrence, we are concerned about the low priority l

10,

recommended for the position upgradings.

It seems a little Il bit out of balance to recommend immediate upgradings of i

12 empty bullets and hold off on those positions currently I

13 !

held.

The corrol2 ary then would be that the Assistant i

l I

l 14 Directors for Emergency Preparedness and Program Development i

i 15 would be GS-16s if we were not in these positions, which we l

e-1 16 !

are and, parenthetically, kind of like a Catch-22.

I b-2 17 ;

"We therefore request, if it is the appropriate l

I 18 l function of your Committee, that the Committee recommend i

19 1 that high priority be assigned to our upgradings."

20 '

This letter was never acknowledged or answered 21 by Mr. Minogue.

Our Freedom of Information Act request of I

22 June 4th, 1979, however, gave us access for the first time i

23 to a document dated September lith, 1978, which does touch i

24 l upon our letter.

l qg L/

Ace Federsi Reporters, Inc.

V 25 f Mr. Minogue wrote to Mr. Gossick as follows:

I l

l

13

,1-ll,jwb i

l 1

1l "Several other notices or intent to appeal were I

received where the acceals would have been based on questions 2,

i

(

l l

i involving organizational alignment, position management or j

3 i

t t

4!

timing of upgrades.

These appeals were determined to be i

outside the scope of the Committee's review.

A list of 5

positions involved in such appeals is found in Attachment 3, i

6 i

i 7l along with the grounds for the appeal."

l Mr. Collins' and my concerns were included in 8l 9l that category.

l I

f l

10 j On September 22nd, 1978, Mr. Gossick sent forward l

11 a Commission Action Paper, SECY 7 3-9 7 (A), whict is round at l

12 Tab H in your books.

This paper contains a curious anomaly.

13 The paper formally requests Commission approval on the 1

classification of " contested supergrade positions."

It l

ja l

13 '

recommends the 23 positions currently at Grade 15 be Grade 16.

l 16 :l I say it contains a curious anomaly because the I

l 17i two positions at issue here today were not contested.

In I

I 18 fact, we very much approved of the DAMANS recommenda tion, and i

19 the recommendation by Mr. Gossick contained in this paper, l

20 !

and the prior paper.

}

l The paper also deals with the requirement

or I

i 22 additional supergrade positions, and I quote, "It has now t

23 !

been determined and presumably by the Personnel Of fice and I

I 24 !

Mr. Gossick that 23L sucergrade positions are required to ace scrai neoen.n, inc. !

25 !

meet the Agency's current and foreseeable supergrade and 1

,&B0 190 i

I l

14 1-12 jwb I

l t

1 SES needs.

This would require an increase of 28 in the 2

Agency's ceiling from OM3."

f I

I 3l Mr. Gossick's recommendation is, "The Commission j

I i

4 approved all proposed promotions resulting rrom the 5

supergrade study which are possible within the supergrade l

ol ceiling."

l 7'

On September 22nd, 1978, I had a conversation with 8!

Mr. Gossick about this same subject.

I had just returned 9

f rom an NRC Management Training Seminar at Harper's Ferry, 10 j West Virginia, where the establishment of the SES was l

Il jl discussed.

12 ;

I learned at that time that the Service would be l

I3 put in place on January 1, 1979.

My discussion with 14 Mr. Gossick concerned the disposition of the supergrade 15 audit, and the determination by DAMANS and Mr. Gossick that I

16 my position be upgraded to GS-16.

Mr. Gossick replied that he supported the j

17 j i

18 upgradings in the Commission Action Paper, and the only issue l

l 19 was whether or not there were enough supergrade slots allocated i

20 ;

to NRC by OMB.

I 21 Mr. Gossick, is that essentially the sum and l

22 substance of our conversation?

23 MR. GOSSICE:

That's right.

I l

MR. SCEWARTZ:

Thank you.

l 24 l kes Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 On November 30th, 1978, Mr. Donoghue asked 80 19l l

.1.13.jwb 15 i

1 1'l Mr. Ryan and other of fice directors for estimates of 2

supergrade needs for the next 2-1/2 years.

Mr. Ryan replied, l

i 3-on December 8th, as follows:

l l

I 4l "At present, our projected needs will be three t

5!

additional supergrades.

As you know, Mr. Kerr and I are the 6j only people in the offica presently in supergrada categories.

7 The DAMANS Study recommended supergrade status for 8i Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Collins.

I had previously recommended i

l 9,

the promotion of both of these gentlemen, and naturally I l

l I

i 10 i support the DAMANS Study recommendations.

Those recommenda-l i

11 l tions presumably will be acted upon sometime before t

October 1981, and we will need two supci, de slots to 12 l 13 accommodate them."

l 14 Mr. Ryan continued, "It is important, in my view, l

l 15 '

that each of these individuals become eligible for membership l'

16 L1 the new Senior Executive Service.

They are the kind of 17, individuals who would serve with distinction in that i

18 Service.

Each is a highly competent executive, seasoned by 19 !

many years of experience and of responsible service to our f

20 !

country.

Their presence in the SES would be a great credit 21I to our agency."

I t

I l

22 I These documents are found at Tab I in your books.

l 23 j On March 26th, 1979, Mr. Collins and I received i

24 identical letters from Mr. Gossick, dated March 23rd, which I

sce F,eerai semmrs. ire.

25 said, "The Commission has now completed its ew t

,1-14 jwb 16 l

i t

i i

li recommendations from DAMANS and Associates, the Division l

i i

I 2l of Organization and Personnel, the Position Evaluation and I

3:

Review Committce (established especially to hear appeals in l

l l

4i contested cases), and the Executive Director for Operations.

l 5I "It has been determined that your present 6'

position is properly evaluated at its current grade level.

7; Your patience and cooperation through this lengthy process l

8l has been appreciated."

i 9

This letter is found at Tab J.

Dl This "decisit, of the C 'mmission" was of course Il completely unexpected.

Throughout this entire transaction l

12 !

at each stage, at each revi ew, the various actors had i

i 13 supported Mr. Ryan's original contention back in April 1977 I4 that the positions which we occupied should be graded at the l

l

\\

l i

15 '

level of GS-16.

i 16 The " Commission decision" was a clear repudiation l

l l

17 !

of those 4udgments and those determinations.

We had been i

I 18 led to believe that the only problem was the availability i

19 l or supergrace positf.ons which were or cot d be authorized l

20 !

by OM3 or OPM.

i i

21 l We immediately tried to sort out those numbers 22 '

and to determine on what basis the Commission reached its I

i 23 !

" decision."

i i

i 24 l We had a conversation with Mr. Donoghue on Aa-Feerai m ecem,rs. tnc.

i 25 l March 27th.

We found out that the Office of Personnel 280 193 i

1-15 jwb 17 4

I I

1 Management had allocated to the Agency 251 positions, i

l 2

supergrade positions.

Mr. Donoghue did not believe that i

1 3l the Commission was aware of this allocation at the time it i

I 4

had passed on this matter on February 7th.

5!

Mr. Donoghue was not aware of how the Commission i

l 61 had reached its decision, what criteria it had used, or 4

7l' whether a formal meeting had been held.

8 Mr. Donoghue told us that the " Commission decision" l

9 was transmitted ts Mr. Gossick by memo sometime in February.

i f

10 He suggested we talk to Mr. Dorie, the Chairman 's assistant.

t i

11 l I would like to ask Mr. Bird a question.

i Mr. Bird, can you tell us how many unassigned supergrade slots l 12 l l

I 13 !

are available right now, by virtue of the OPM allocation?

j-

+

i 14 MR. BIRD:

At this time, there are 10 allocated i

15 i SES positions.

l t

16 MR. SCHWARTZ:

Thank you.

l 17 On the same day, I spoke to Mr. Dorie and asked l

18 for the " Chairman Hendrie-Gossick memo," and any records i

19 concerning Commission meetings or records o# criteria l

i l

l 20 i employed by the Commission.

i i

i 21 !

Mr. Dorie was not sure whether the Commission nad 1

l 22 '

had a meeting, but promised to get back with me with any 23 information he could unearth.

i 24 On April 6, we received the February 13th memo l

A&FMeral R eporms,1 c.,

25 l from Chairman Hendrie to Mr. Go s s ick.

j

{g i f und at l 1

1-16.jwb 18 i i f l' Tab K. It consists principally of lists, but does nut show l l \\ 2i how the decisions -- " decisions" -- were made. We made an I i l 3' informal written request on May 4th to Chairman Hendrie ror I \\ 4l any or all records relating to the " Commission decisions." i t S. It is found at Tab L in your book. I i 6 As a result of this request, we were furnished I i 7 edited copies of the transcripts of the Commission meeting I 8' of February 7th concerning the discussion of our two 9 positions. They are also found at Tab L. 10 ! Mr. Chilk's ment transmitting the transcriptions l 11 i on May 24th is also found at Tab L. It stateo, and I quote: l 12 "It is my understanding that no documentation exists regarding i i i 13 the decision criteria used by the Commission." 14 Naturally, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 15 Commission, we are upset by this communication. We began at j t 16 once to inquire into the propriety of the " Commission i 17 decision." And we examined the rules and regulations under l 18 l which the Commission operates to determine whether that l l t i 19 ' "cecision" was lawful. I i 20 ' The lawyers have a phrase, Mr. Chairman, " ultra i 21 vires." Black's Law Dictionary defines it as follows: I i 22 "The modern technical designation, in the law of i 23 corporations, of acts beyond the scope of the powers of a I i 24 l corporation, as defined by its charter or act of incorpora-Aa-Feersi a. corms. ine. j i 25 ; tion. The term has a broad application and includes not l 280 195 l

.1-17 jwb 19 I t' l 1; only acts prohibited by the charter, but acts which are in i 2' excess of powers cranted and not crohibiteu [It is] l 3li generally applied either when a corporation has no power what-l 4 ever to do an act, or when the corporation has the power but 1 5l exercises it irregularly. [An] act is ' ultra vires' when i !6' [a] corporation is without authority to perform it under any I i 7) circumstances or for any purpos e. This definition is found a at Tab M, with appropriate citations. 9l Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines l l i i 10 l " ultra vires" as "beyond the scope or in excess of legal i i i 11 l power or authority." i l 12 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in t i 13 l rejecting the determinations ar.d reecamendations of the j i 14 ' Director of the office of State Programs, the office of 15 Personnel, the Director of the of:1ce or Administration, and I i 16 l the Executive Director for operations, it is our contention 17: that the Commission has acted ultra vires. That is, beyond l 18 its powers. 19 ! In short, the Commission had no authority under i I i 20 1 its statutes or its rules to do what it attempted to do. i 21 l Let me try and explain why. i, 22 ! When the NRC was created on January 1st, 1975, i 23 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission adopted the Atc.nic Energy 24 ; Commissicn Management Directive System, including a document aaJMerel Retorters, Inc. l i 25 known as "Part 4100," which deals with personnel action, 280 196 t I

1-18. jwb 20 1 i l 1-authorities and responsibilities. I direct your attention i 2l to NRC Announcement No. 4, January 20th, 1975, found at I l i 34 Tab N. On February lith, this was further clarified by 4 NRC Announcement No. 17, found at Tab O, which says that, 5 "The personnel management authorities and responsibilities i 6' assigned to the former AEC General Manager were now the 7; authorities and responsibilities of the NRC Executive l ai Director for Operations." l 9 The personnel management authorities and i l 10 responsibilities of the former Assistant General Manager of 11 AEC were assigned to the NRC Director of the Office of 12 Administration. And the personnel management authorities I 13 : and responsibilities of the AEC Director of the Division of i l l 14 Personnel were assigned to the NRC Director of the Division l l I 15 ; of Organization and Personnel. l I 16, These assignments of responsibility have never i 17 l been amended or superceded. Mr. Donoghue, is that correct? i l 18 ' MR. DONOGHUE: Yes, that's correct. I 19 j MR. SCHWARTZ: The former AEC Manual, Chapter 4100,' !i a 20 ! includes Appendix 41.30, and is currently operative, and has i 21 l never been superceded. Is that also correct? l l 22 l MR. DONOGHUE: Yes. I l 23 l MR. SCHWARTZ: Section 41.30 is contained in your 24 book at Tab P. Under this section, the final arbiter of t#ree,si n wom,s. ine. 25 l personnel actions, including job classifications, is the AEC 280 197 n d l i' i

,1-19 jwb 21 I l l 1l General Manager. Mr. Gossick has succeeded to these 3 2! responsibilities by virrue of Announcement No. 17 of February e-2 3 lith, 1975. l l i I t b-3 4 There fo re, Mr. Gossick is the final arbiter of 1 I I 5 personnel actions under the rules currently in force in this l 1 I i 6 agency. No role of any sort is described under these 7; regulations for the Commission as a Commission, as "the i l i 8: Commission." I 9{ Mr. Gossick has made a decision. He has told the i 10 l Commission that these positions shall be graded at the level l 4 i II of GS-16. In doing so, he has accepted the recommendations 1 I 12 '! of Mr. Ryan, Mr. Bird's predecessor, Mr. Jones, and i i 13 l Mr. Donoghue. 14 l We put it to you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 1 i' 15 the Commission, that the Commission under its own rules has f 16 l no authority or right to reject this decision. To do so l i i i 17 l would be a violation of its own rules that would cause i 18 Mr. Collins and myself irreparable injury. I9 The attempt of the Commission to set aside these 20, determinations was an ultra vires act. 2I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If we accept the point, t 22 l we would siuply drop all the Commission actions and leave i 22 l EDO's actions in effect; not just as to you? i 2# MR. SCHWARTZ: Could I get to that later, sir? f Ace Eederal Reoortert, Inc. 25 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. 280 198 i i

3-20 jwb 22 l i i 1' MR. ICHWART": Furthe:, it seems to us that since l l 2 there is no role for the Commission itself in determining i I personnel position classifications, or in overruling the a determinations of those charged with this responsibility under I $1 NRC cersonnel regulations, there should -- there never should I I I 6' have been Action Papers submitted to the Commission implying l i 7: that the Commission had a role in these matters. At best, l l s' only Information Papers informing the Commission -- i i 9l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could I interrupt you, l t 10 i there? I 11 ' MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir. i 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How, then, does one explain i l i i 13 that the very person your thesis alleges has been vested i 14 with all responsibility apparently believed that the i l 15 Commission retained some, since he is the one who sent the j 3 16 paper forward? 17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Could we hold that until I get l 18 finished with this? l l 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Certainly. l 20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Perhaps it is a question that l i 21 ' someone else would like to address, because I had no part in j 22 l putting that paper together. l 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Certainly. l I 24 l MR. SCHWARTZ: At best, only information papers Om4MerW Reooners,1.4. l 25 ' in:orming the Commission or the personnel classification l i i 200 1?? i I

3-21 jwb 23 e I l l l i I actions should have been sent to you. The Commission could 1 2 very well affirm personnel actions taken by Mr. Gossick, cut 3 the Commission lacks any authority to overrule such i i i 4l determinations under its own rules. I 5; The idea of a collegial body such as the 1 6 Commission voting on individual personnel position classifi-l I t 7! ca: ions as determined by those charged with this responsi-l t 8, bility uncer its rules is in our view absurd on its face. i i Undoubtedly it was for this reason that the AEC 9 l vested this responsibility in the former AEC General l 10 \\ I 11 '; Manager, not in the AEC Commissioners. This authority is 12 ; now Mr. Gossick's authority in the NRC. i I3 Our Freedom of Information requested dated June l *' 4, 1979 -- and this is round at Tab Q -- nas procuced no l 1 15 l document which in any way alters our view. Presumably, if l 16 l such a document were in existence, it would have been I 17 l produced pursuant to our request. 18 ! Further, even if the Commission had a role to i l i i l9 play in the matters we have been discussing, the transcrict l 1 20 of the Commission's deliberations on all cosition classifica-t 21 tions is, in our view, superficial and cursory. 22 On June 1, 1979, Mr. Collins and I filed a i 23 !, cetition for reconsideration and redress with the Commission. 24 This is found at Tab R. .ce Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 1 COMMISSI@gR Gzky' SKY: Could I ask a question l {- s] ^ .t 4 c. 1

3,22.jwb 24 l I i I here? If in fact the Commission has no authority here, why s 2i aren't you filing -- raising the entire matter with l i } 3 Nr. Gossick? There seems to be an inconsistency here. i 4l MR. SCHWARTZ: Can I take that question after we 5 go through this, sir? There is only a short amount of time, 6 and I want to make sure I get through the statement, first. 7; This is found at Tab R. The petition reads as l 3' follows, starting at paragraph 18, "Your petitioners at I l 9' this time do not wish to go to the trouble and expense of i l 10 l litigation. Before seeking a remedy of the courts, your l 11 l petitioners believe that the Commission should have the j l I i 12 opportunity to correct its mistake. 13 l "Ycur petitioners have no desire to embarrass the i 14 f Commission, nor do your petitioners wish to be forced into a i 15 ! position of deposing the individual Commissioners and staff i l 16 l members under oath to probe their motives, rationale, or 17 f decision making for prejudicial misconduct. I I 18 l "Your petitioners do not intend at this time to l l i 17 bring this matter before the Office of Personnel Management. .l 20 l On the contrary, your petitioners believe that this matter 21 can and should be disposed of by the Commission, and that I 22 l this mistake can best be rectified in-house. l i i 23 l "In order to preserve their rights," the petition 24 l continues, "your petitioners are making a formal request ice Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 under the Freedom o# Information Act l 2 8 0 A_ J iess to material

1. or c

1 l i

3-23 iwb 25 l \\l! previously requested but not yet supplied." l 2! COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Can you tell me to what that i i l 1 3 specifically referred? t 4l MR. SCHWARTZ: Sir? I i i S' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: To what did that refer? I i 6l MR. SCHWARTC: The petition? l 7l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, no, the formal request i 8j for access to material previously requested but not yet j i 9; supplied. l 1 10 i 4R. SCHWARTZ: In the May 4th memo, sir, to' I i 11 i Mr. Hendrie, we asked for all records, transcripts, tapes, j l 12, and anything having to do with the decision by the Commission. 13 l After reviewing the tapes and transcripts that i 14 we received, it seemed obvious to us there were other i 15 j documents that we had not received. And at that time, we i i 16 l decided to put in a Freedom of Information Act request. i l 17 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Did you compile a list of l l l 18 those other documentso l l 19 l SUl. COLLINS: We couldn't do it because we didn't 20 know what they were. 21, MR. SCHWARTZ: le didn't know what those other I l 22. documents were. I i 23 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I see. Thank you. i' i 24 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: You knew enough to know cesecerai Reoorte,s. ne. 25 that there were documents you hadn't received, so you must i i l l 280 202 i

3-24 jwb 26 i i 1l have described them. You did in fact describe rhem. Are you l 2l referring to a list of Commissioner Ahearne's and i 3; Commissioner Zennedy's? 4! MR. SCHWA RTZ : That's correct. i t i I 5 "In order to preserve their rights, your i I I 6l petitioners are making a formal request under the Freedom of i i 7l Information Act for access to material previously requested l I 8i but not yet supplied. I i l 9l "Now, therefore, your petitioners respectfully i 10 ' petition the Commission to: (1) overturn and reverse i 11, forthwith the decision of February 7th, 1979, which we I 12 ; believe arbitrarily and capriciously denied your petitioners i 13 ; the position classification to which they are entitled -- 14 that is, GS-16 -- and which decision has had the e ffect of i denying your petitioners the opportunity to consider l 15 I 16 m_mbership in the Senior Executive Service; i 17 f (2) Alternatively grant your petitioners the l 18 l opportunity to be heard to present evidence on their behalf"- i i 19 ! and I thank the Commission for this meeting. i 20 "(3) Your petitioners pray for speedy disposition i 21l of this matter. That is, the decision on this petition, by t f 1 22 i June 30, 1979. Time is of the essence, since decisions i l 23 i concerning entry into the Senior Executive Service must be i 24 l made within the week of July 13th, 1979, the day on which sce Federst Reporters, Inc. l 25 l the Service comes into formal existence /i'8 U c 0 3 o i c i I i

3-25 jwb 27 t i l Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, we ll l 2i are now renewing our petition to -- quote -- "We are now l 1 l 3i renewing our petition by bringing this matter to your i l i 4-attention. We have no intention of impeaching any other I I 5l action the Commission may have taken on February 6th or 7th i l 6; regarding personnel upgradings or downgradings. l i 7: Of course the Commission may, c: its own motion, I i l i 8l want to inquire into that 'tter based on the evidence we l l 9, have presented here today, but basically our purpose is to l i 10 ' seek redress on what we regard as a wrongful act by the i 11 i Commission on the positions which we now occupy. i I 12 i We therefore ask you again today to set aside l 13 l your " decision" of February 7th as they apply to the i I 14 cositions we now occucy in a t1=ely fashion. We know from l l 15 Mr. Bird's statement that the Commission has the supergrade 16 l slots available. We are calling upon you now forthwith to i i 17 l correct your mistakes and allow Mr. Gossick's determination i i la to stand. l I l 19 { We ask you co instruct him forthwith to assign i 20 supergrade slots to the positions we now occupy. 21 Thank you for your time and attention. I i 22 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. We have several pending i I 23 l questions. Let me ask the Commissioners to remember the i' 24 j queries they had, and let me start with Peter. I think sc.Jeeiro aeponen, ine. l i 25 ! yours was the earliest. 280 204

3-26 jwb 23 l I l' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You touched on it. 2l MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir. I i I 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: My question was: If we l l 4' accepted your logic, it did seem as though the effect of I I S' whatever action we took would have to -- would be to leave l i 4 i 6' i the EDO decisions in effect agencywide, and not just as with I i y' l your two positions. i 8' MR. SCHWARTZ: We are suggesting, based on what we i I t presented, that you might want to lock into that. Our main l I l 10 purpose here is only our two positions. l i 11 ! l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Len, would you care to comment i 12 j on the decision that the Commission is -- l l 13 l MR. BICKWIT: I wouldn't care to comment on the I i 14 rule, because I haven't read the rule. Would you read it -- IS ' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I was intrigued to note i 16 i i some language which says, " February lith Announcement No. 17, I 17 ' I This memorandum interprats how the delegation of personnel I i action authority and assignments of responsibility as stated 19 ! l i in Part 41 are to be implemented thrcughout the Commission." 20 So when you do look at it -- which I request you 21 ' do -- would you interpret that specific language, as well? 22 ll COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: We have had EDO or ELD l examine that? 24 ! l MR. GOSSICK: We have not discussed this. We ac.see,si a mne,s, inc. 25 haven't been approached by Mr. Schwarts prior to this 280 203 i t

3-27 jwb 29 I 1: meeting. It is a new argument, as far as I am concerned. 2' I hadn't really questioned the authority of the Commission 3 to review such actions. I a, I certainly agree that it should be examined from f 5! a legal standpoint, and the validity of the argument be 6; assessed. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The question I asked, it 7j i 8; seems to me that your argument has two asp::ts: One, the 9' argument that the Commission acted improperly -- that is, I l l 10 ; ultra vires? 11 l MR. SCHWARTZ: That is correct. 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: On the other hand, I think I i 13 it was indicated that, aside from that, were it to be l 14 determined that it did act within its powers, it did so i i 15 l capriciously. l 16 ! MR. SCHWARTZ: That is exactly our point. l t 17 ; COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is a different point. I i 18 l MR. SCHWARTZ: That's correct, sir. 19 MR. COLLINS: That's correct. 1 20, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Thank you. i 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If not capriciously, at least i 22 i failed to understand all of the aspects of the jobs which l 23! you hold, and the arguments which you have presented to i l 24 support supergrade level titles #or these positions. ceJederal Aeporters, Inc. i I 25 I would point out to you that I doubt that the 280 206 i

3-28 jwb 30 1 i l i 1 1] totality of Commissioner consideration and the recommendations I! 2l of the DAMANS report, and various start documents, foroarding i 3l and reviewing these determinacions, is review or a collegial i l i 4; media. That is, Commissioners, to greater or lesser degrees, i 1 5 studied the audit reports and the recommendations of the 6 Executive Director as to the DAMANS study results, forned t 7 various opinions as to the evaluation of various positions. i 8' When we meet collegially after sometime on the matter, then 9' the thrashing out of where the Commission collegially stands i 1 + 10 f on each of those matters doesn't by any manner or means l 11 i necessarily exercise all of the arguments and considerations i 12 which individual Commissioners have put into the matter in 13 i forming their own views. l i i l 14 l As is not infrequently the case with a long list i 15 i of individual positions which Commissioners wanted to go over 16 l one by one rather than deal with'en bloc, we moved through t 17 l this list simply seeing where the majority of votes lay. i i { 18 l As I say, but that does not imply, as I say, that i i 19, the merits of the arguments as lat i out in the DAMANS report i 20 : in subsequent documents by the staff were not considered i e-3 21 by Commissioners. b-4 22 ' It seems to me the proposition that the hecd or l i 23 l heads -- " head" speaking collegially, or " heads" as to i 24 l individual Commissioners -- have no power or influence with Ace-Federat Reporters, Inc. 25 regard to the grades of senior officers of thc agencies, that j 280 207 2:" I

4-29 jwb 31 i I i 1 is likely to be 7 difficult one to sustain. I would not have 2 I i excected Comraissioners generally to have come -- to have held ( 3-that view. My perception is, most of the Commissioners, all i i 4 of the Commissioners read the language in the statutes which 5i i establishes -- which say things like the personnel actions i 6! of the agency, that the power to make those flcws from the I 7! collegial action of the body to be a pretty correct I l 8' establishment of authority. i 9 I I However, it seems to me it is also possible that j l 10 there is a body of regulation adopted by the Commission which 11 ' fails perhaps to deal explicitly with Commission actions, or l I I 12 i even in ract erects a structure which you believe you find i 13 ' i there, which would say that the Commission has violated its I i 14 I i own rules. l 15 l But I think whether we would agree with you on i i 1 16 l the legal proposition or not depends upon some study and 17' advice by the General Counsel. I think the question or i whether that argument stands or falls can be set apart from i 19 ' I whether the Commission decision in any case was a wise and 20 ; correct one, all things taken into account, or whether it 21 ' l f ailed to consider some of the things that you preser.t here and that you believe make a perfectly valid case for the 1 231 l upgrading which was recommended by Mr. Ryan and so on. 24 ! 7 I MR. SCHWARTZ: May I say something? G b (-). 2<08 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 ' i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Of course. n-. nnn i

4-30 jwb 32 l' i I MR. SCHWARTZ: You indicated that perhaps there i gi i were other documents and other views orecared by each of the i i individual Commissioners? ~ i i CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, that is not quite what I l l \\ 5 I said. What I pointed out to you was that a few lines of l 6' discussion in a collegial meeting, which lead to a division 7l of the Commission and a finding where the majority vote lies 3 on one or the positions, does not represent the totality of i i i 9 the study which indivicual Commissioners have given to that 10 i matter, is what I have said. 11 ' I Now I don ' t know what other Commissioners ' i 12 practice is, but I must say I find for myself that it is i ,3, impossible for me to prepare documents when I study a paper, l l I# this 'sind of Action Paper, or anyone of the others that i i ] *c I compose the daily 12 inches through which I work, so that in lj 16 l-i fact in my files there is no private, to-himself, memorandum 17 of Joe Hendrie's that says, "well, I studied the DAMAMS audit 18 on the Collins and Schwartz, and I think that this argument 19 is good, and this argument is bad, and I come out as follows," 20 i I just don't have anything like that.- i 21 The lists which are referred to in the transcripts 22 i are -- were the 97 (A) paper, as I recall them -- at least that, i i e 23 ' is the list I was working from. And in fact, th; one which-- l 24 ' the marked up one which is attached to my February 13th A a r e e,ai a.co,te,s.ine.' 25 l memorandum to the Secretary is simply a straight-of: copy or l 280 209 l 1 i i

4-31 jwh 33 ] i 1l the one I worked down during the Commission meeting, in 2 saying "where does the vote lie on this one? on this one?" and i I 3 so on. 4, So you already have in that memorandum my mark. 5, i I think John had a list on which he made some notes, and I i i i 61 i assume that is forthcoming in response to the recuest, and l 7' others may have had -- i l 8' I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I can't recail, but did I l i 9 not write a short memorandum covering the entire list? I i 10 simply don't recall. ll i MR. SCHWARTZ: We have not received it, sir. l 12 1 i l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I thought you did, as a matter 13 of fact. 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If so, that must be what l l 15 1 is referred to here. l 16 ' 4 MR. SCHWARTZ: It was referred to in the i 171 l transcript. 18 ! l CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: I thought you went with the l 19 l l EDO recommendations? 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I can't recall. 21 4 a MR. COLLINS: We know from the transcript that 22 l the Chairman did have -- 23 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You haven't received -- j 4 24 MR. COLLINS: We didn't receive Mr. Kennedy's ice Feeersi Aeoomn, inc. 25 10'eeting,becauseyouaskedthe Hewasabsentfrom2'a i vote. m 210 i 4

4-32 jwb 34 i 1l other Commissioners whether or not you could count his vote, 2l even though he is not here, and they all say "yes." e 3, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I will look forward to the l I 4 reporter's version or those two conversations -- l l l' 5: (Laughter.) i i 1 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- carried on simultaneously, I 7; with some interest in how the reporter might manage to get l 8 them down. It seems to me that, because of the divergence I I 9 of views on individual cases, that the Commission had some l l 10 l difficulty in finally arriving at collegial decisions on the l l i, i 11 matter. l 4 I 12 And I can recall circulating and ta.lking to 13 1 Commissioners to see what the opportunity might be for i l I I 14 l action, at some length, as a matter of fact. i l l 15 l So I guess I would -- had in advance an idea I t 16 l where people 's views lay with regard to the positions, i 17 particularly the positions in the 97 (A) paper. 18 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Joe, you are still working i 19 ! on questions? I 20 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I sure am. i 21 Vic has one. I 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I have two questions. 21 First, as far as the flow of logic is concerned, 24 i could you go through again why, if we accept the logic that ACSJ9defel Reporters, Inc. 25 you raise, we should not therefore refer all of the decisions q11 ocq e I i I

4-3 3 jwb 35 I i1' back to the original EDO's decisions? 2! AR. SCHWARTZ: I did not mean L mply that you i i 3; should not do that. I think the implication in the evidence i i 4 I we presented is that you might want to look at that. YOu i 5 might want to make an investigation of whether you should i' 6 or you shouldn't. I l COMMISSICNER AHEARNE: I see. t j You were then raising that it appears to you that i i 9 on the legal grounds, the EDO is the final authority on l those issues? 11 I MR. SCHWARTZ: That's correct. 12 1 MR. COLLINS: That's correct. 13 I i l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And if the legal review l 14 l l i bears that out, then his decision would be final on all of 8 15 those, not just yours? I 16 MR. SCHWARTZ: That's correct, sir. i 17 ' I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The second question, I don't i 18 recall -- 19 : CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: must say, if that turns out 4 t i 20 to be the case, I will feel some considerable chagrin. The 21 ' matter, as I recall it, went on for some time, anc 22 : discussions around the floor and in meetings, and I would i have been passing grateful to have been relieved of the 24 l need to bring the Commission to a decision. sceseeerai Reoorters, ine. 25 ' MR. SCHWARTZ: May I just expand on my answer to l 280 212 4 r

4..34 jwb 36 i i t l' you? There may be one thing that may be dif ferent. And i 2 I that is, that Mr. Ryan initiated the event in asking that I 31 our positions be evaluated as it is in the manual chapter. l I don't have any knowledge about the other positions as to i 5l whether those positions were requested to be evaluated. So i i 6' I that could be a slightly different story. i i 7'i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I see. l 8' l The second question, I don't recall -- perhaps you 9, did -- but did either of you ask me for an explanation of 10 l my position? 11 l l MR. SCHWARTZ: No, si:. 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Perhaps I might then review ? 13 it for you, because it has -- it's obvious -- the list that l i 14 i i i was referred to is my list, that was -- we were working i 15 through. 16 And since you had pointed out in your petition 17 l some of your background, I thought it might be useful to 18 reiterate some of my background. 19 1 Before I came here, I spent two years as the 20 principal Deputy in the Office of Manpower in the Defense 21 ' Department. And one of the areas of responsibility was the 22 ! Civilian Manpower System for the Department of Defense, 23 i l which was fairly substantial. 24 i Ace.er.ia.mn.,,,ine.l I also spent about a year on a commission which 1 25 : l was called the Rockefeller Commission as the Department of l i 2023 l

37 .4,35,jwb 7 i i t l Defense's representative, and worked probably about six can-i 2< months of effort on that. l 3 The Rockefel_er Commission's recommendations have ended up in many ways becoming the SES system, in a lot of i 5' j the President's proposals for reform in the Civil Service t 6' System. 7;j So that in coming here, I did not come with an a 1 absence of fairly detailed background. I 9 i In addition, one or the studies that we did when i 1 10 I was there for me was the use of factor analysis in the I ability to use f actor analysis for position manpower classifi i 11 : 12 cation system. i 13 l (Commissioner Bradford returns to the room. ) i I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And DAMANS factor analysis 15 l I approach to grading positions. I l 16 After I came here, I spent the first few months l i 17 trying to understand the operations of the Commission and I 18 meeting with a number of people. l 19 ; I did spend sometime with Mr. Ryan, and I remember j 20 j with Mr. Collins. I don't recall Mr. Schwartz whether I I i 21 ' spent time with you. 22 I also went back over the thrust of why there was 23 a review going on. At least my interpretation, as I think is i 24 i sc.4edersi aeoonm. i.,c. ! clear in my memo that I wrote, was there was considerable 25 i l 280 214

4-36.jwb 38 I i t i 1 interest on some elements of the Congress in having a review \\ \\ I 2j done of the NRC in the number of supergrades we had in, e i 3l sort of my view, the hard look that at least I was familiar i l 4l with trying to be taken at the Defense Department. 5, As a resu.c of that, it appeared to me, after f I i I 6; having gone through the DAMANS review, that I ought to spend I I i 7 a little more time with the DAMANS people, and I spent many l 8t hours, just as you did, but in the other way. I was asking I I l 9: them -- I read their reports and then scent several hours 10 with them trying to understand as best I could both the l 11 approach they used, the rationale they used, and the l i 12 balancing across the NRC, the perspective they took. l l l 13 ! My net judgment af ter that kind or a review was } 14 that, for whatever reasons, the office of State Programs I i 15 l did not have the major responsibilities laid on it in the l I 15 ! Commission that some of the other offices did. And as a 1 i 17 1 result, that -- and again, I was not familiar with the i 18 .ckground of the AEC/NRC, but it did not seem to have the i 19 kind of thrust and high interest and high responsibility area i l 20 l that some of the other Commission offices did. I 1 l Now there is some irony to this, clearly, because 21 { 22 as a result of the recene accident at Harrisburg, obviously 23 all of that is going to change. The world will be substan-i i 24 l tially different. But that is separate from the question of smswere seconen, i c. ! 25 -what were the functions of the office. t I i l 280 215

.4-37.jwb 39 l i I! It was based upon that sort of balancing judgment i i that I made my recommendations. And I thought at least you 3, ought to have the opportunity to hear that. i i i l MR. SCHWARTZ: Commissioner Ahearne, I appreciate 5: i that. Thank you very much. 6 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter? l i 7 I COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: No. I l 8li CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Commissioners don't seem i i 9l to have anymore questions. 'I 10 l l I take it your argument is made here, as you wish 11 to make it. I think the Commission would like to have 12 counsel's views on the procedural question, and then we i l 13 will -- l 14 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I believe we cwe these two 15 ! gentlemen a response no later than the 30th, which was their 16 1 i request. j 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We ought to be able to do 18 ! better than the 30th, since it in only the 25th. 19 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We will see what we can do. 20 ; We have scme othe-opportunities during the week. We have 21 l a meeting scheduled for the 28th on personnel macters. Perhaps 2 d we can deal with it there. 1 23 < MR. SCHWARTZ: Mr. Chairman, if there is anytime 24 u 7.cer.i n.oom,. ine: l that you think you would like more information or any further 25 ! call. discussion with Mr. Collins and myself, gg,a,r grg i LOU _iU l I i

4-38 jwb., 40 l' CHAIR'!AN HENDRIE: Okay, we appreciate that very 2 much. 3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you very much. i .t l MR. COLLINS: Thank you, sir. l i 51 + (Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the Cormaission e.eeting i I 6 e-4 was adjourned.) l 7, i, 8: i 9, 10 i 11, 12 \\ 13 l l l I s t 14 1 i 15 i i 16 l i i 17; l 18 i 19 l 20 ; 21 ' 22 ' 23 I 24 i a e Feceral Reoorters, Inc. c 25 l 280 217 i, t}}