Regional Offices and the Field Operations Division: Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H. Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-06-01.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

       r,_ .
   *           United   States   General   Accounting   Office
               History Program

June 1990
               Regional Offices and
               the Field Operations
               Interview With
               Francis X. Fee,
               Waker H. Henson, md
               Hyman L. Krieger
Published by the United States General Accounting Office,
Washington, D.C., 1990

ii                                                          GAO/OP-E-OH

               The History Program of the General Accounting Office (GAO) uses oral
               history interviews to supplement documentary and other original
               sources of information on GAO'S past. These interviews help provide
               additional facts and varying perspectives on important past events.
               Transcripts of the interviews, as well as the audiotapes and videotapes,
               become important historical documents themselves and are used in the
               preparation of written histories of GAO, in staff training, and for other

               Although the transcripts are edited versions of the original recording,
               we try to preserve the flavor of the spoken word. It should be under-
               stood that the transcripts reflect the recollections, impressions, and
               opinions of the persons being interviewed. Like all historical sources,
               they need to be analyzed in terms of their origins and corroborated by
               other sources of information. The transcripts in themselves should not
               necessarily be considered definitive in their treatment of the subjects

               GAO'S  field operations began through fieldwork of the Office of Investi-
               gations (1922-1956). During the New Deal period of the 1930s and dur-
               ing World War II, field operations expanded as GAO was called upon to
               audit New Deal agricultural programs and war contracts. In 1952,
               reflecting the growing importance of field audits, Comptroller General
               Lindsay C. Warren created the modern regional office system-origi-
               nally with offices in 23 cities, now 14. The Field Operations Division
               (FOD), established in 1956 at GAO'S Washington headquarters, lasted until
               1982, when regional managers began to report directly to the Comptrol-
               ler General.

               Francis X. Fee, Walter H. Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger all served as
               regional managers and as directors or deputies in FOD. Through this
               interview, conducted on December 14, 1989, we can trace many signifi-
               cant aspects of regional operations over a period of almost 30 years,
               beginning in the mid-1950s.

               Assistant Comptroller General
                 for Policy

               111                                                           GAO/OP-hi-OH
Biographical Information

r_-.-_ -__,-_-_ _ ..__-.-. ._
                                Mr. Francis X. Fee served on the staff of the U.S. General Accounting
                                Office (GAO) from 1963 to 1986. He served in the Civil and the Resources
                                and Economic Development Divisions in Washington, D.C., during the
                                first 9 years. In 1972, he was selected to participate in the Pr&ident’s
                                Executive Exchange Program, working a full year with the American
                                Telephone and Telegraph Company in New York City. Upon his return
                                to GAO, Mr. Fee was appointed Assistant Regional Manager of the Phila-
                                delphia Regional Office. He became the Regional Manager of the New
                                York Office in 1976 and returned to Washington, D.C., as Director of the
                                Field Operations Division (FOD) in 1979. Mr. Fee served as Assistant
                                Comptroller General for Operations from 1982 until 1986, when he left
                                GAO to become the Executive Director of a major national law firm.

Francis X. Fee

                                Mr. Walter H. Henson served on GAO'S staff from 1957 to 1985. Initially,
                                he joined the Seattle Regional Office and assumed increasing audit
                                responsibilities leading to his appointment in 1964 as Regional Manager
                                of the New Orleans Office. In 1970, Mr. Henson became Regional Man-
                                ager of the Norfolk Office. He assumed the role of Deputy Director, FOD,
                                in Washington, D.C., in 1976 and returned to Seattle in 1979, where he
                                served as Regional Manager until his retirement in 1985.

Walter H. Henson

                                Mr. Hyman L. Krieger joined GAO in 1946. Except for service when recal-
                                led to the Army from 1950 to 1954, he remained at GAO until his retire-
                                ment in 1980. His early assignments were in Washington, D.C., in the
                                Corporation Audits Division and the Division of Audits and on the
                                Office of Policy staff. In 1956, Mr. Krieger became the Regional Manager
                                of the Chicago office and, in 1959, he was appointed Regional Manager
                                in New York. He served as Director of GAO'S Northeast District in 1961
                                and returned to Washington, D.C., in 1962 to assume the role of Deputy
                                Director of FOD. Mr. Krieger then headed the Los Angeles Regional Office
                                from 1966 to 1971, when he took over the leadership of the Washington
                                Regional Office. From 1975 until his retirement, he was the Director of
                                the Federal Personnel and Compensation Division.
Hyman L. Krieger

                                iv                                                            GAO/OP-S-OH
                   Henry Eschwege retired in March 1986 after almost 30 years of service
Henry Eschwege     in GAO under three Comptrollers General. He held increasing responsibil-
                   ities in the former Civil Division and became the Director of GAO'S
                   Resources and Economic Development Division upon its creation in
                   1972. He remained the Director after the Division was renamed the
                   Community and Economic Development Division. In 1982, he was
                   appointed Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and Reporting.

                   Werner Grosshans is the Assistant Comptroller General for Policy. He
Werner Grosshans   began his diversified career as a government auditor in 1958 in the San
                   Francisco Regional Office and held positions of increased responsibility;
                   he was appointed Assistant Regional Manager in 1967. In July 1970, he
                   transferred to the U.S. Postal Service as Assistant Regional Chief
                   Inspector for Audits. In this position, he was responsible for the audits
                   in the 13 western states. In October 1972, he returned to GAO to the
                   Logistics and Communications Division. In 1980, he was appointed Dep-
                   uty Director of the Procurement, Logistics, and Readiness Division, and
                   in 1983, he was appointed Director of Planning in the newly created
                   National Security and International Affairs Division. In 1985, he became
                   Director of the Office of Program Planning, where he remained until
                   1986, when he assumed responsibility for GAO'S Office of Policy.

                   Roger R. Trask became Chief Historian of GAO in July 1987. After receiv-
Roger R. Trask     ing his Ph.D. in History from the Pennsylvania State University, he
                   taught between 1959 and 1980 at several colleges and universities,
                   including Macalester College and the University of South Florida; at
                   both of these institutions, he served as Chairman of the Department of
                   History. He is the author or editor of numerous books and articles,
                   mainly in the foreign policy and defense areas. He began his career in
                   the federal government as Chief Historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regula-
                   tory Commission (1977-1978). In September 1980, he became the Dep-
                   uty Historian in the Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
                   where he remained until his appointment in GAO.


Biographical                                                                                      iv
Interviewers                                                                                       V

Interview With                                                                                     1
Francis X. Fee, Walter   Introduction                                                              1
                         Biographical Information                                              2
H. Henson, and Hyman     Regional Structure Prior to 1956                                      6
L. Krieger,              The Role of the Regional Manager                                     12
December 14,1989         Changing Relationships Between Field and Washington                  18
                         Field Participation in Planning and Staffing Assignments             35
                         Developing the Human Resources                                       44
                         Role of FOD Headquarters                                             59
                         Impact of Congressional Criticisms                                   65
                         Reflections on GAO Career                                            70

Appendix                 Videotape Cross-reference                                                73



                                   Assistant Regional Manager
                         AT&T      American Telephone and Telegraph
                         CPA       certified public accountant
                         DOD       Department of Defense
                         EIC       evaluator-m-charge
                         FOD       Field Operations Division
                         FPCD      Federal Personnel and Compensation Division
                         GAO       General Accounting Office
                         GSA       General Services Administration
                         IBM       International Business Machines
                         NASA      National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         OMB       Office of Management and Budget

                         vi                                                         GAO/OP-l&OH

Ikervievv With Fran& X. Fee, Wtiter H.
Henson, zcndHymax~L. Krieger
December 14,1989
Mr. Eschwege   Good morning and welcome back to the General Accounting Office [GAO]
               on this Thursday, December 14, 1989. Frank Fee, we’re happy to see you
               come in from Philadelphia; Hy Krieger, nice to see you back in GAO; and
               Dick [Walter H.] Henson, thanks for coming all the way from Seattle to
               be with us today.

               I’d like to introduce the people who have joined me to discuss with you
               today the activities of the Field Operations Division [IWD] and the
               regional offices: Werner Grosshans, Assistant Comptroller General for
               Policy, and Dr. Roger Trask, who is the Chief Historian for the General
               Accounting Office.

               About one-third of GAO'S current staff resources are in its regional
               offices throughout the United States. They are an indispensable part of
               GAO'S lifeline and provide an important perspective-not     readily availa-
               ble, I might say, here in Washington, D.C.-as to how the government’s
               programs and activities are being carried out in the various sectors of
               our country. The regional staffs have also become a prime planning
               resource for identifying the vital issues to be addressed in GAO audits
               and reviews.

               Today, we want to focus on the responsibilities and the activities of
               these field resources and how they evolved from the 1940s to the 1980s.
               Our three interviewees have had leading roles in GAO regional offices
               and in the former Washington-based Field Operations Division. In total,
               these gentlemen, at one time or another, managed 9 of GAO'S regional
               offices, which today number 14 offices.

               So, before we get into the substance of our discussion today, I would like
               each one of you to give us a brief sketch of how you got to GAO, your
               educational background, and some of the major responsibilities that you
               had while you were in GAO. If you’d like, you might also discuss under
               what circumstances you left GAO.

               Page 1
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Fee        I joined the General Accounting Office on July 1,1963, after I graduated
               from Villanova University. I graduated with a bachelor of science degree
               in economics with a major in accounting. I joined GAO at that time and
               decided to come to Washington for two reasons. One, it sounded exciting
               and intere&ng when I was talking to the interviewer. He gave the
               impression that the job would be anything but routine. Second, the other
               interviewers that I had met with in public accounting firms tended to
               describe work of a very routine nature, involving at first audits of
               accounts receivable and then audits of accounts payable, and so forth.

               I was assigned to what was the Civil Accounting and Auditing Divi-
               sion-later known as the Civil Division-and worked at various audit
               sites over the next 8 or 9 years. I ended up at the Department of Trans-
               portation with responsibility for the Federal Highway Administration,
               the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Urban Mass Transit
               Administration. I also spent time at the National Science Foundation and
               the Department of the Interior.

               In 1972, I was granted a year’s leave of absence from GAO and partici-
               pated in the President’s Executive Exchange Program. The program
               took me to AT&T [American Telephone and Telegraph] in New York City
               for 1 year. I worked in AT&T'S corporate planning (long-range) section.

               On returning to Washington in 1973, I was asked by Stu [Stewart]
               McElyea [Deputy Director, FOD] to go to Philadelphia. I spent the next
               2-l/2 years or so as an Assistant Regional Manager in Philadelphia.

               In 1976, I returned to New York as the Manager of the New York Office.
               In 1979, I returned to Washington as Director of the Field Operations

               In 1982, [Comptroller General] Chuck [Charles A.] Bowsher reorganized
               his operation after he had been here about a year and created the posi-
               tion of Assistant Comptroller General for Operations. He abolished the
               old FOD and began to integrate GAO'S operations both in Washington and
               in the regions.

               Page 2
              Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
              Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
              December 14,1989

              I left GAO in 1986, not because of any dissatisfaction with the General
              Accounting Office but to take advantage of an outstanding opportunity
              as Executive Director of a major national law firm.

Mr. Krieger   My joining GAO was one of those odd situations that I think occur in
              many lifetimes. I came to Washington after being discharged from the
              Army in February 1946, intending to get my master’s degree in foreign
              affairs at Georgetown University. I couldn’t enter Georgetown Univer-
              sity until the fall and needed a job to tide me over until that time.

              I met an old friend who told me that GAO was hiring people with prior
              public accounting background. I had been in public accounting in 1941
              before entering the Army in 1942.

              I was interviewed by GAO at that time. I think I may have been about the
               20th or 25th employee in the Corporation Audits Division, which was
              just being organized. The key people there were from the public account-
              ing community, retired partners from CPA [certified public accountants]
              firms, and former public accounting personnel who had served in the

              I worked in the Corporation Audits Division until 1950 when I was
              recalled to active duty during the Korean War. The division was abol-
              ished-or, it could be said, absorbed the remaining GAO audit activi-
              ties-with   the creation [in 19521 of the Division of Audits headed by Ted
              Westfall and then by Bob Long.

              I returned to GAO in 1954 and worked in both the audit and policy areas.
              My major audit assignment was working with Phil Charam on the Gen-
              eral Services Administration audit.

              In the Office of Policy, I worked for Ellsworth Morse on early policy
              statements and the effort to systematize the job-planning processes as
              the integration of the expanding field staff had become a critical

              In 1956, I was asked to go to Chicago to manage the GAO Regional Office
              there. I managed the Chicago Office until 1959; then I moved to the New
              York Regional Office and remained there until the end of 1961. I was
              given an assignment by the Comptroller General, Joseph Campbell, to
              evaluate the feasibility and the utility of operating district offices and,
              for a period of about 4 months, I did this as District Manager with
              responsibility for overall management of the New York and Boston

              Page 3
               Interview With Prancis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               Regional Offices. The entity I headed up was known as the Northeast
               District and it was thought that the office could well be a prototype for
               application throughout FOD.

               I concluded that there was little merit in an operation of this sort-a
               career-limiting act on my part because it was Joe Campbell’s idea to cre-
               ate those offices. I recall briefing Mr. Campbell on the results of my
               study and his saying in effect: “Fine, you’re moving to Washington.” So,
               in effect, that caused my relocation to Washington as a Deputy to John
               Thornton [Director, FOD]. I worked with John from 1962 to 1966.

               I moved to Los Angeles in 1966 to manage the Los Angeles Regional
               Office. I returned to Washington in 1971 and managed the Washington
               Regional Office from 1971 to 1975.

Mr. Eschwege   That was newly created then?

Mr. Krieger    No. It was Joe Campbell’s idea to establish the Washington Regional
               Office. John Thornton and I were his agents in bringing it into existence
               as part of FOD. I was tasked with the initial development of a plan for
               the office and John and I negotiated with the divisions for staff to pro-
               vide the nucleus for the creation of the office. But, to go back in history,
               Don Scantlebury was the first Manager of the Washington Regional

               Then I was asked to come into headquarters to manage the Federal Per-
               sonnel and Compensation Division. I was with that organization until
               1981. I had intended to retire in 1980, but Elmer Staats suggested that I
               stay through the end of his term. Primarily, I thought it was time for
               somebody else to move in, there were many capable people, and there
               were other things I wanted to do at that time.

               As I said, my career with GAO was a very fortuitous development-the
               result of a casual meeting of an old friend. One sidelight is that I never
               pursued the master’s in foreign affairs, although I did pass the Foreign
               Service entrance exams. At the time that I had to make a decision about
               entering the Foreign Service, I was enjoying GAO so much that I just
               thought this was where I wanted to spend my career. I have never had
               any regrets. As a matter of fact, if you are recruiting for staff, I am
               available now.

               Page 4
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Eschwege   I think that’s a good synopsis. I just want to mention that you did go to
               City College in New York and got your Bachelor of Business Administra-
               tion there. You did attend George Washington University for a while,
               and you are a CPA in North Carolina and Illinois?

Mr. Krieger    Right.

Mr. Henson     Well, I don’t go back as far as Hy does, but I do go back further than

               I signed up in the regular Army after World War II, mainly to get over to
               Europe rather than the Pacific. I met my wife there. I got out in 1949
               and started studying at the University of Illinois. Like Hy, I had a brief
               break-15 months in Korea-and came back and finished my school
               work and got my degree in 1954.

               I interviewed with only public accounting firms because that’s where I
               wanted to be. The Chicago office of Price Waterhouse hired me, and then
               it transferred me to Seattle at my request because my wife’s only living
               relatives had immigrated to British Columbia. I spent the next 3 years or
               so with Price Waterhouse.

               I had never heard of the General Accounting Office, and then I got a
               card from one of my college professors-I think it was a Christmas
               card-with    a little note on it. Dr. Ed Breen had gone to work in GAO for
               Leo Herbert and suggested that I look into this. Ed and I had been pretty
               close. I was the President of Beta Alpha Psi in Illinois 1 year and Ed was
               the faculty advisor.

               So he suggested that I go down to talk to G. Ray Bandy [Regional Man-
               ager, Seattle]. I did and finally decided to sign up. The reason I did so
               was partly that Seattle’s Price Waterhouse office covered Alaska and
               some other territory and I thought that I would be involved in too much
               travel by staying with the firm. Little did I know what I was going to get
               into in GAO.

               But I’ll be honest with you, there was another reason why I joined the
               General Accounting Office; I think it was the primary reason. We were
               going at a pretty hard pace in Price Waterhouse. We put in the hours.
               We really worked at it. I felt-and I have to admit my experience with
               government was from the Army-that       if I were to go into a government
               organization and keep up the same pace that I was used to in Price
               Waterhouse, there wasn’t going to be any competition.

               Page 6
                     Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter R
                     Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                     December 14,1989

                     Well, I was pleasantly surprised. I ran into some real tough competitors
                     and some real good people-Bill Conrardy, Will Logan, Irwin D’Addario,
                     just to name a few. So that part of my reasoning turned out to be

                     I was appointed Regional Manager of the New Orleans Regional Office in
                     December 1964. In 1970,5-l/2 years later, I was appointed Regional
                     Manager of the Norfolk Regional Office. Would you believe that exactly
                     5-l/2 years later I came to Washington as Deputy Director, mD, under
                     Stu McElyea, who was then the Director, RID. And then, 3-l/2 years
                     later, I went out to Seattle to become the Regional Manager.

                     Why did I retire? I guess I was ready. There had been a lot of changes.
                     There was a new Comptroller General. KID was abolished and I viewed
                     that as the demise of the field; I didn’t like that too much. So I just
                     decided to retire, and I have to admit I’m not sorry I did.

Regional Structure
Prior to 1956
Mr. Grosshans        Thank you very much. I think we’re really fortunate this morning to
                     have people here with such a wide experience, both from a regional and
                     an FOD headquarters perspective. I guess we are covering a period of 40
                     years of GAO experience.

                     What I’d like to do is to cover those early periods. Hy, I think you’re
                     probably the primary focus on that. GAO changed very drastically after
                     the war. We went from close to 15,000 people down to about 4,500. We
                     also started to attract some different talent in the Corporations Audits
                     Division by hiring people like yourself and, as Dick mentioned, those
                     coming out of the accounting firms.

                     We changed the type of work that we were doing from the voucher
                     audits to the comprehensive audits that were introduced in 1949. Before
                     the reorganization in 1952, there was some semblance of a regional
                     structure. Do you recall any of that, Hy? What was out there before?

Mr. Krieger          The Comptroller General, Lindsay Warren, with the end of World War II,
                     recognized the need to realign the Office. Those were very traumatic
                     times as large numbers of devoted employees were affected by decisions

                     Page 6
                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1959

                made. I participated in a study of GAO looking to the future. The study
                was one that Ted Westfall had alluded to in one of your earlier history
                documents. There were very severe personnel dislocations as a conse-
                quence of the recommendations to move from a voucher audit to a com-
                prehensive audit on a governmentwide basis.

                GAO displayed unusual concern for the needs of its displaced people.
                Although many of the individuals would no longer contribute to the new
                work of GAO, they could be a vital resource for other agencies. GAO
                worked to facilitate the absorption of many of these individuals by
                other agencies.

                There was a field organization before 1952. Some graduates of that
                organization made notable contributions to the new GAO, including Char-
                lie Bailey, John Thornton, Charlie Moore, Kurt Krouse, Charlie Wells,
                Ray Bandy, and Dick Madison. They were absorbed early within FOD as
                it evolved and contributed to its management for many years after 1952.

                The early Field Operations Division I think was unusual-although   it
                might have been characteristic of many other organizations during that
                era. From 1952 to the mid-1970s the field staffs operated with a maxi-
                mum of freedom in a very positive sense of the term.

                In those days, it was rare to have visitors from Washington and even the
                telephone was not used to a great degree. You were pretty much on your
                own. I remember John Thornton taking me to Chicago, introducing me to
                the staff, and wishing me well. I don’t think I saw him again until the
                Regional Managers Conference that year. You were on your own. I
                would say that was not unusual for that period.

Mr. Grosshans   Now, the early field structure included zones and areas. You also men-
                tioned that the Office of Investigations had a separate structure. Did
                other structures exist? I think Sammy [A. T. Samuelson] in his early days
                had traveling teams.

Mr. Kkieger     Correct. Particularly in the Department of the Interior area. Samuelson
                had organized traveling teams that covered the West, basically working
                on reclamation and water and power projects. They were doing very
                important and productive work and expanding the awareness of the
                importance of the field work performed so that it met professional

                Page 7
                       Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                       Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                       December 14,1959

                       The work of that group and much of its staff was integrated into the
                       Field Operations Division and, in effect, was one of the initial areas of
                       concentration-particularly  in the western offices.

Mr. Grosshans          Initially, when GAO realigned in 1952, we created 23 offices. Maybe Dick
                       [Mr. Henson] can talk a little bit about that because, in your area out
                       there in the West, for example, Portland was one of those offices. There
                       were a lot of the other places that we subsequently decided to make
                       suboffices. We cut them back to the 15 and currently 14 regional offices.
                       Do you recall any of that?

Mr. Henson             Initially, I think we combined Portland and Seattle, Minneapolis/St. Paul
                       and Chicago, and others to get down to 19 for quite a long time before
                       we finally got down to 15. The New Orleans Office-which      I managed
                       commencing in 1965-was a natural to be closed. There was a good rea-
                       son to have the office at that particular time. We had an awful lot of
                       executive agency regional offices headquartered in New Orleans. The
                       Saturn Moon Project created an awful lot of NASA [National Aeronautics
                       and Space Administration] and contract work. But, in about 1969, it all
                       fell apart. President [Lyndon B.] Johnson, being from Texas, moved a lot
                       of agencies over to Houston and other Texas locations. The contract
                       work ran out, and all of a sudden there was little work in New Orleans.
                       At that particular point in time, John made a very wise move by placing
                       it under Dallas as a suboffice. That’s when I moved to Norfolk.

Comprehensive Audits
Mr. Grosshans          How about the type of work that we were doing? We have already
                       touched on post-World War II contract audit work and the corporations
                       audits. Comptroller General Warren came out in 1949 with a memoran-
                       dum saying that henceforth we were going to do comprehensive audits.
                       What did that really mean to us in those days? How long did it take to
                       fully implement that concept, if ever?

Mr. Henson             I’ll be quite candid. I never did read the Comprehensive Audit Manual,
                       although I had it.

Mr. Eschwege           It isn’t too late.

Mr. Henson             The few comprehensive audits that I was assigned to were gigantic man-
                       agement surveys designed to develop and understand everything the

                       Page 5

                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1959

                agency was doing; they were much too detailed and time consuming. My
                recollection is that very quickly we would find something that really
                needed our attention, and we’d forget the rest of it and begin to zero in
                on that operational aspect, whatever it might be. That’s the closest I can
                recall about doing any comprehensive auditing.

                I don’t want to knock it as a concept, but I would say that it was quite a
                bulky, costly affair to carry it out in practice.

Mr. Grosshans   Do you want to add anything to that, Hy?

Mr. Krieger     I’m certainly not an authority on it. The people who really conceived of
                it have long since departed from this earth. As I can recall, I was actu-
                ally involved-and Dick knows how to hurt someone-in developing
                certain elements of the Comprehensive Audit Manual and some of the
                doctrine that came from that source.

                The initial concept was that it would be an effort to acquire as good a
                knowledge of the primary programs of the organizations that we were
                looking at and, at the appropriate time, singling out those areas that, as
                Dick said, needed the greatest attention.

                Ellsworth Morse, Bob Rasor, and Fred Smith were really the primary
                architects and did much of the conceptual thinking about it. But their
                ideas were tested against some very practical individuals like Joseph
                Campbell, the Comptroller General, who certainly wanted results and
                findings and concentration on issues that warranted attention. Perhaps
                we didn’t do as good a job of communicating what our objectives were.

                Again, it had its origins in the work of the public accounting community,
                which creates what are called permanent files. These files are updated
                in connection with each audit and are carried forward and provide each
                successive generation of auditors a knowledge of the evolution of policy
                and principle and the application in that particular organization.

                I echo Henry’s comment. It still isn’t too late for Dick to read the Com-
                prehensive Audit Manual.

                Page 9
                           Interview With Fram5s X. Fee, Walter H.
                           Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                           December 14,1989

Auditing Finance Centers
and Payroll
Mr. Grosshans              There are a couple of fairly big chunks of work we haven’t touched on-
                           dealing with the finance centers, payroll audits, and investigations. We’ll
                           get into investigations a little later. But as to the other two, how did
                           they evolve and how did our audit approach change over time, particu-
                           larly the field’s involvement in them?

Mr. Krieger                Perhaps I can speak about that. GAO had groups working at the finance
                           centers going back to World War II, when the War Department, Navy,
                           etc., created their centers. These centers have been moved about the
                           country from time to time. For example, the Army center started in St.
                           Louis and now is in Indianapolis. Here again, the early days of GAO were
                           very exciting because GAO was going through a process of evaluating its
                           role. I was on the team that looked into the centers, their roles, and mis-
                           sions back in the 1949-1950 period.

                           We recognized that the services needed to do more of the voucher audit
                           work themselves. Unfortunately, they weren’t very hospitable to this
                           notion at first. They didn’t want to assume the audit responsibilities for
                           the disbursing officer and other accounts being sent to these centers.
                           The changes we advocated did not come to fruition until sometime
                           between 1961 and 1965.

                           Sometime during that period, Joe Campbell actually called while John
                           Thornton was visiting our field offices. He said: “Hy, it’s about time we
                           did something with the centers. Can you do it?” I said: “Yes.” I felt that
                           if he wanted us to do it we could do it.

                           We were involved in negotiations with the military departments that
                           ultimately resulted in the transfer of most GAO people located at the cen-
                           ters to the military departments. A cadre of people were retained by our
                           regional offices, which assumed the responsibility for the management
                           of GAO staff at the centers and for the revised audit approach.

                           It was a traumatic period, but I do take some comfort in the fact-and
                           you can check the archives on this-that     the Regional Managers were
                           successful in Cincinnati, Detroit, and Denver in seeing to it that most, if
                           not all, of the people who were associated with those activities were
                           absorbed by the military organizations for whom, I am confident, they
                           did a good job to the end of their federal careers.

                           Page 10
                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1959

Mr. Grosshans   I trust everybody was happy with that change?

Mr. Krieger     They weren’t particularly happy, and I know that both John Thornton
                and I were not necessarily looked upon with a great fondness because, in
                keeping with the mandate that we had gotten from Joe Campbell, we
                were vigorous in leaning on the Regional Managers to make the things

Mr. Grosshans   I understand there was one unhappy Defense Division Director, because
                overall responsibility for the people in the centers rested in that

Mr. Krieger     That’s another story. Yes, you’re quite right. Bill Newman, may he rest
                in peace, was one of the most creative and forceful individuals in GAO.
                About 30 seconds after Joe Campbell called me and asked whether FOD
                could do the job, Bill Newman called and very aggressively tried to per-
                suade me to not accept the assignment. I, in effect, said: “Gee, that
                would be a foolhardy thing to do if the Comptroller General wants us to
                do this.” Although I think eventually he did come around, he was very
                disappointed. It was part of his organization. These units at the centers
                were doing productive work, and they were contributing to the improve-
                ment of the Defense operations. It was difficult to give up these activi-
                ties, but it involved work that more appropriately should be done by the
                departments themselves.

Mr. Henson      As I recall, Stu McElyea was the Regional Manager at Dayton. When the
                work there was transferred, he was pulled out and I think he ended up
                in Denver.

Mr. Grosshans   Dick, you might want to talk a little bit about the payroll audits. I
                remember when I came to GAO shortly after you did, we still had quite a
                bit of that to do and that was not glamour work.

Mr. Henson      There was little that really came out of these payroll audits, but we did
                have staff who were very proficient in the payroll laws and regulations.
                My guess is that we continued to do the audits, at least for a while,
                because we had the people with that know-how. As we began to lose
                those people, we began to ask ourselves why we were spending so much
                money to do work that had little payoff. I do know that the staff that we
                were hiring at that time wanted nothing to do with it.

                Page 11
                   Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                   Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                   December 14,1959

                   I think a similar situation existed when we went out to the agencies to
                   audit and settle their accounts. I forget exactly when we reassessed how
                   to do that work. It was somewhere in the 1960s.

Mr. Krieger        Werner, could I comment on that? What we’ve really been talking about
                   is the continuing evolution of GAO. When you stop to think about it,
                   many disciplines and people from different sectors have made contribu-
                   tions. Both in headquarters and in the field organization managers
                   faced-and it is trite to say-a continuing challenge of trying to inte-
                   grate the efforts of so many diverse individuals.

                   For example, I can remember in both the Chicago and New York offices
                   having to deal and work with and make the best use of people who were
                   very loyal and had contributed over the years but who perhaps didn’t
                   have the skills that were relevant to the work we were now doing.

                   I can remember a Regional Managers meeting presided over by Joe
                   Campbell. Being a product of the old school, he saw his role as that of a
                   trustee, in effect, having a fiduciary responsibility for the use of human
                   resources in the most effective way possible. The Regional Managers
                   were complaining about their inability to do some of the work that was
                   being demanded of them because they felt they didn’t have the neces-
                   sary resources and talent that was required. They particularly focused
                   on the disciplines that they had inherited.

                   I can still remember Campbell, in a frosty and penetrating way, saying
                   he thought the test of a good worker was the ability to utilize less-than-
                   perfect tools in the accomplishment of his work. After that, this was a
                   dead issue-and I think properly so.

Mr. Grosshans      We’ll come back to that because part of that also gets into the Investiga-
                   tions demise and the absorption of the people.

The Role of the
Regional Manager
Dr. Trask          Henry mentioned in his introduction that you 3 gentlemen served in 9 of
                   the 14 regional offices. I think this provides a good basis for a question
                   about the role of the Regional Managers as the Comptroller General’s
                   representatives. I wonder what kind of comments you would have about

                   Page 12

              J&xx-view With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
              Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
              December 14,1959

              the personal relationships between the Regional Managers and the
              Comptroller General. And, following up on that, what were the relation-
              ships of the Regional Managers with the executive agencies, the Con-
              gress, the press, the public, etc.? If you could compare the Campbell,
              Staats, and Bowsher periods, it would be helpful.

Mr. Krieger   Campbell emphasized the role of the Regional Managers as his repre-
              sentatives in that area. It was at Campbell’s insistence that there was a
              two-tiered designation in the directories in the federal office buildings
              that we were located in. He emphasized that we needed to have the
              Comptroller General of the United States as a designation, as well as the
              U.S. General Accounting Office Regional Office. He continually empha-
              sized that the Regional Managers were his personal representatives at
              those locations, and he expected them to conduct themselves in an
              appropriate fashion.

              He did not encourage extensive social contacts with agencies or involve-
              ment in the professional organizations that existed in the areas, because
              of his concern that GAO maintain full independence and integrity of its

Dr. Trask     How did you, as Regional Managers, in general, react to that? Did this
              make your work easier or harder?

Mr. Krieger   It gave us the support that we needed in dealing with GAO'S headquar-
              ters elements because the Comptroller General was in Washington, and
              he was the embodiment of the Office there; whereas, I think there may
              have been some skepticism on the part of our headquarters folks as to
              our ability in the field to actually represent him in that context. I can
              remember an episode that demonstrates how Mr. Campbell saw the
              Regional Manager’s role. A distinguished industrialist, who was the head
              of one of the top four or five corporations, asked to meet with me. I was
              managing the New York Regional Office at the time. I knew he had been
              a neighbor or acquaintance of Joe Campbell’s during the period that he
              was Treasurer of Columbia University and active on the New York busi-
              ness scene.

              I mentioned to Campbell that Tom Watson of IBM wanted to meet with us
              and that we were involved in some fairly serious issues with IBM. IBM
              attorneys and auditors were vigorously presenting their views, and we
              took strong issue with them. I asked Campbell whether he desired to
              participate. There was a moment’s silence, and all he said was: “Who is

              Page 13

             Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
             Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
             December 14,1959

             my Regional Manager in New York ?” I got the message very loudly and

             His approach was that you were in the field and you were his represen-
             tative; you’d better do the best job you were capable of doing. He could
             be quite concerned if you didn’t live up to his expectations.

             Now, as to the other Comptrollers General-I can speak about Elmer
             Staats. Every Comptroller General makes a contribution in the develop-
             ment of an organization. In the unique history of GAO, it has always been
             fortunate in getting the kind of Comptroller General that was needed at
             that point in its development.

             Elmer sent us out with a clear mandate to develop our relationships
             with agencies and build stronger personal relationships. He felt that we
             should participate in the professional activities. He put greater emphasis
             on working cooperatively and constructively with them. I had no diffi-
             culty pursuing that course because it was needed at the time. The Office
             had already established its reputation for independence, objectivity,
             etc., and I think that it was time for us to build upon that base.

Mr. Henson   But, in the early years, in the 195Os, we didn’t intermingle or have deal-
             ings with the other agency heads to any extent at all. If I recall cor-
             rectly, in 1957 and 1958, we first began, as an Office-I think it came
             out of Washington, and certainly we responded in the field-to join the
             Federal Government Accountants Association. That’s my first recollec-
             tion of beginning to interact with people from other agencies. But even
             after that, we always had the problem that when we were dealing with
             an agency, the best thing that could happen from the agency’s perspec-
             tive was that we would go away and that we wouldn’t find anything to
             report on. I think that feeling pervaded our interactions. It really took
             years before we began to be able to interact with them on a professional

             I don’t believe that it was until Elmer Staats came aboard that suddenly
             the Office wanted us to join and belong to the federal executive associa-
             tions or boards in the smaller cities.

             At first, we weren’t members but we were allowed to attend meetings. It
             took some time. It was in the early 1970s before I was able to actually
             join the Federal Executive Association (FEA) as a member in Norfolk
             and to work my way up to being a Vice President. When the President-
             or maybe they called him Chairman-decided to retire, I was slated to

             Page 14
                       Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                       Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                       December 14,1989

                       become the President. All of a sudden, we had a board meeting; the
                       board didn’t think it could let this happen. Thus, I had to resign so that
                       another person could become the President. We have come a long, long
                       way since then.

Mr. Fee                If I could add, by the time I became a Regional Manager, I think the title
                       “Comptroller General’s Representative,” was useful to have. It enabled
                       us to participate in the types of activities that Dick and Hy are talking
                       about. But I don’t think that I ever really looked at it as an important
                       aspect of the role. I was really a senior representative of the General
                       Accounting Office. That carried with it enough weight to talk with state
                       and local auditors and, in my case in New York, with representatives of
                       the United Nations and of individual countries that were interested in
                       expanding the role of their governmental audit organizations. But I
                       really did so more as a senior General Accounting Office representative
                       than as a personal representative of the Comptroller General.

                       When I went to Philadelphia and then when I moved to New York, no
                       one ever really said: “Here’s this role and here is what I expect of you.”
                       I never personally spoke with Elmer Staats or Chuck Bowsher about
                       that particular role, and I don’t think that it was one that they spent a
                       lot of time talking about. I do think that Elmer looked to his Regional
                       Manager as the senior person from the General Accounting Office in that
                       geographic area and tried to afford that individual the status appropri-
                       ate to the position.

Comptrollers General
Interaction With the
Dr. Trask              What about personal contacts between Regional Managers and the
                       Comptroller General? Again, can you contrast the styles of the three
                       Comptrollers General?

Mr. Henson             In Joe Campbell’s day, when you came in as a Regional Manager visiting
                       the Washington Office, you called on the Comptroller General. Schedule
                       permitting-and   it almost always did-he would sit down and talk to

                       Mr. Campbell had a very, very detailed and acute knowledge of the field
                       people. As a matter of fact, I have heard it said that he kept some sort of

                       Page 15
              Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter R
              Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
              December 14,1989

              book. He knew our people as well as we did, and he would discuss them
              in detail-and we had better know our people. I only had one of those
              sessions. That was in 1965. He resigned later on that year.

              In the case of Elmer Staats, at least at the very minimum, we met with
              him every year-sometimes twice a year-at the Regional Managers

              Starting in 1968, Stu McElyea, an enterprising young man, introduced
              the notion that we ought to be bringing our wives to those conferences
              and kind of made it into the beginning of a social affair as well. I hosted
              the meeting in 1969 in New Orleans, where we put on a Mardi Gras Ball
              for them. In these ways, the wives, as well as the Regional Managers, got
              to know each other, which, from a field perspective, was a very good
              thing. We began to realize later on that there may have been either some
              jealousy or resentment by Washington top managers about the meetings.

Mr. Krieger   I was hoping that you wouldn’t bring this up. I’m kind of kidding now.
              He’s quite right. Campbell put tremendous emphasis on the individual.
              As I said, I served here at least 5 years as John Thornton’s Deputy. One
              of my obligations was to visit each office. We tried to get to every
              regional office twice a year, I believe, and to some of the small locations
              at least once a year. In the course of those visits, we did make detailed
              evaluations of all the people in a particular office. Somewhere in the
              archives, I’m sure there must be John’s and my trip reports, as well as
              others. In this era, I don’t think you would commit to writing the kind of
              evaluations that we made.

              Mr. Campbell would read the report; he’d call me or John to his office;
              and take from his bottom right-hand drawer an annotated, and-from
              his perspective-very    useful copy of our reports. He used them as raw
              material in GAO'S management development program. His emphasis was
              that an organization is a composite of its people. Any manager, includ-
              ing, I’m sure, Elmer Staats and Chuck Bowsher, believes that. But Camp-
              bell personally got involved in making these decisions. There were some
              fairly uncomfortable sessions with him because his questions were often
              penetrating. He saw to it that he met with each individual in their initial
              training period here in the Office. After he would meet with some indi-
              viduals, he would get back to us and to the Regional Managers and ask
              specific questions about the individuals-how     they were doing, and at
              times how they happened to be selected. He did not necessarily agree
              with the choices that were made.

              Page 16
                     Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                     Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                     December 14,1989

Mr. Henson           Hy brings something to memory. I hadn’t been in New Orleans more
                     than 2 or 3 weeks when Hy Krieger showed up. I had to remind him that
                     while I had been appointed in December, I didn’t get there until’ the end
                     of January. So Hy came to accept that I couldn’t possibly know the peo-
                     ple yet. Well, years later, when I was a Deputy Director, I went through
                     my file and it had a copy of Hy’s report.

                     Hy did say to Mr. Campbell that Henson is aboard and he’s got things
                     moving and under control, that he obviously has yet to get to know the
                     people, but he’s got a good start. Thanks, Hy.

Age as a Factor in
Mr. Grosshans        Let me just ask you a question at this point. What was our preoccupa-
                     tion with youth in those days? Every time you recommended somebody
                     for promotion, that was one of the factors that had to be considered.
                     Why was it so important? There was a lot of concern about making
                     somebody a GS-15 if that person was only in the early 30s. Why that

Mr. Krieger          I think that I can speak about it, and I think that you may have a misap-
                     prehension on that. You must remember that during that period, many
                     of the people came from the public accounting community. In that com-
                     munity, there has always been a strong commitment to mobility. It was
                     an era when the firms didn’t put a great deal of emphasis on retention.
                     The feeling was that GAO, to be a vigorous, dynamic organization, needed
                     to have a continued influx of people from the universities with a maxi-
                     mum of opportunity for upward mobility for the best people.

                     Over the years, GAO, as have other organizations, has learned that the
                     supply isn’t out there and you’ve got to provide opportunities for
                     growth for all of the people in the organization. I would say that the
                     concern at that time was to be sure that we didn’t clog the arteries of the

Mr. Fee              I have to go back to my Washington days to answer it because I wasn’t
                     in the region at that time. In addition to what Hy is saying, I think that
                     it was, in some way, a measure of the track that you were on. If you
                     were being promoted quickly, then people wanted to know how old you
                     were as some measure of how fast you were moving down that track.

                     Page 17
                        interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter R
                        Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                        December 14.1989

                        Some of the people on the staff began to expect that you’d make grade
                        14 in X number of years. If you recall, our recruiting brochures used to
                        have that little chart that was in there.

                        So I think that’s at least part of that factor. It may very well have been,
                        in those days, however unfortunate, that if you were beyond a certain
                        age, maybe a red flag went up and you wondered why you didn’t get

Mr. Grosshans           I was getting at the other point, quite frankly, where the feeling was
                        that unless you reached a certain age, you couldn’t be perceived as being
                        an Assistant Regional Manager; you didn’t as yet have the maturity.

Mr. Fee                 You ran into that both in Washington and in the regions. I know I ran
                        into it in Washington a couple of times. “How could you possibly do
                        that? You’re only X years old.”

Mr. Eschwege            On the other hand, I think, Frank Fee is the perfect example of a guy
                        who moved very rapidly at a young age. So we’ve had it both ways.

Mr. Henson              I simply wasn’t exposed to that. I have no recollection of that at all.

Mr. Eschwege            I think I know what Werner is talking about.

Mr. Fee                 I remember what it was, too. The information as to age was right on the
                        front page.

Relationships Between
Field and Washington
Mr. Grosshans           Let me just ask one more question on this topic while we’re talking
                        about the role of the Regional Managers. In getting ready for this ses-
                        sion, I talked to a few of the Regional Managers, and one of them made
                        an observation I’d just like to get your reaction to. He contrasted the
                        fully autonomous role in the early period with one today where field
                        and Washington are fully integrated. I’m just wondering whether you
                        would agree with that.

                        Page 18        ’
          Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
          Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
          December 14,1989

Mr. Fee   I joined the Field Operations Division at a time when things were chang-
          ing. In my talks with Regional Managers, we used to have endless dis-
          cussions about the erosion of the role of the Regional Managers, which
          meant an erosion of the autonomy and the ability to make unilateral
          decisions as it related to the job that was done, the people who were on
          it, or the length of time involved and sometimes even the addressee of
          the report. The Regional Managers began to see that erode-if that’s the
          right word-in the early 197Os, perhaps even before that. The phrase
          that was used at the time was the “supremacy of Washington.” People
          wanted to hold on to that autonomy because it gave them control over
          resources, the environment within which they worked, and the stature
          within the organization on a par with their Washington counterparts.

          As that began to erode, people worried that the power base was shifting
          to Washington. Pretty soon, they were saying that they weren’t needed
          out there in the region. They felt that their level of person was not
          needed out there. All that was needed was a caretaker to shift resources
          around periodically and take care of some training and some recruiting.
          These functions were perceived to be on a lower scale than the auton-
          omy of controlling assignments and determining which assignments and
          which type of reports were issued.

          That is how I look back on it, but I thought this even at the time I was
          going into the regions-I was coming out of a Washington base that was
          also changing. The Congress, itself, was changing. The requirements
          being placed on the people in Washington for developing assignments
          and writing reports and giving testimony were changing rapidly. Those
          folks were saying: “How can I do this ?” I’ll go back to a statement that I
          think I just heard one of you say: “How can I do this if I don’t have
          control or have anything to say over the size and the type of resources

          So, on the one side, you had a Washington staff that was changing rap-
          idly as the Congress changed. The staff had to have more resources and
          more accountability because they were being held accountable and
          wanted more accountability over those regional resources. At the same
          time, you had a regional environment that people had grown up in and
          developed and in which they had control in a very real sense. That was
          hard to change.

          I recall one case when I was in Washington in charge of a highway-
          related project and the Detroit Regional Office was doing the project.
          Charlie Moore was the Regional Manager. Charlie told me-1 don’t think

          Page 19
             Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
             Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
             December 14,1989

             that I’m speaking out of turn -that he didn’t like the idea of someone at
             a level other than his giving direction to his folks.

             In fact, on this one assignment, he told me that he didn’t want me calling
             the Audit Manager in the Detroit office and, if I had any questions for
             that Audit Manager, I could call him.

             Well, after calling Charlie every day for about 2 weeks, we decided that
             it was okay to go down and talk to the Audit Manager without going
             through him. The audit manager was Bill Krueger.

             At least as I looked at it, the change in Washington was not as well
             understood by the regions, and the changes affecting the regions really
             weren’t understood by Washington at all. They didn’t understand why
             these folks were worried about that erosion because they had no sense
             of what that environment was like.

Mr. Henson   F’rank is perfectly right, but at the same time, there was a high degree of
             independence and discretionary authority in the field and each of the
             regions managed differently and exercised that authority differently.
             There is no doubt that, in many instances, it was the Regional Manager
             who decided whether a job was going to be started.


Mr. Henson   We decided, for example, how many jobs in Vie Lowe’s area were to be
             started. But, at the same time and hand-in-glove with that-perhaps
             this was part of the evolution-all  of us had people that we began to
             assign to a particular Washington audit group and subject matter. In
             1965, I assigned a fellow named Mac Ladett, who worked with Fred
             Layton, who in turn was reporting to John Heller. Mac and his staff
             were quickly evolving into specialists in the agricultural area and
             worked very closely with the Washington staff.

             We jealously maintained control over our staffs, but at the same time,
             we were matching them up to accommodate the changing Office

Mr. Fee      Surprisingly, as the Regional Managers did that to respond to a changing
             relationship often between two people under the auspices of the
             Regional Manager, it became easier to erode away or change whatever
             was there before. I think that was the region’s way of trying to respond
             to what Washington was feeling at the time.

             Page 20
              Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
              Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
              December 14,1989

Mr. Krieger   You know, what Prank and Dick have really been talking about, I think,
              is the unique way to change and how it is introduced into an

Mr. Fee       I don’t think that in that particular case, change was managed. It was
              allowed to evolve. I think that had it been managed, a lot of the things
              that people were worried about would certainly have been mitigated a
              great deal.

Mr. Krieger   I was on the sidelines during the period that you’re talking about. I was
              Director of FFCD [Federal Personnel and Compensation Division] and was
              therefore sort of on the other side of the house. I sat in on what I
              thought were interminable meetings of the Division Directors. I guess,
              now that I think about it, that may have influenced my retirement.

Mi. Fee       I remember those meetings, unfortunately. But I do recall that when I
              was in New York as the Regional Manager, there was a strong desire on
              the regional staffs part to align themselves with issue areas. They saw
              that as the way the Office was going. They were trying to convince the
              Washington staff that they could do whatever was thrown at them and
              that they could do it quickly and well and with the right kind of people;
              this was the measure of success. That was a hard target to hit at times.

Mr. Krieger   In a way, weren’t you all trying to forge alliances with specific Washing-
              ton operating groups, hoping that those alliances would be the predomi-
              nant ones?

Mr. Fee       No doubt about it. By the mid-1970s I and most of the other Regional
              Managers were trying to forge those alliances so that you could get a
              leadership role in the regions. Again, that was a way of holding onto a
              bit of that seniority status at that level and yet, at the same time, give in
              and acknowledge the need for the Washington office to really have more
              control over the work.

Mr. Henson    I’d like to get into another facet of the discretionary authority or auton-
              omy of the Regional Manager because it manifested itself in many ways.

              On the one hand, this was a tribute to John Thornton and Hy Krieger
              who encouraged Regional Managers to try many different things very
              effectively. Bill Conrardy came up with the regional project manager
              concept, which Irwin D’Addario exported to Denver and later on to Dal-
              las. I remained a strong advocate of the audit manager concept, which I
              maintained in New Orleans and reinstated when I got to Norfolk. The

              Page 21
                      Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                      Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                      December 14,1989

                      audit manager concept, of course, ultimately led to the project manager
                      concept at the national level, as well as to the teams concept.

                      We had good, competent audit managers that really worked as such, but
                      we also had created some audit managers at the GS-14 level, who had
                      grown up, for example, as contract auditors; they were good contract
                      auditors. But as we eased out of the contract audit business, we had to
                      use these people. Unfortunately, we did try to use them as audit manag-
                      ers, and this is where we got into a lot of conflict.

Mr; Fee               A funny thing jumps into my mind as Dick mentions the term “audit
                      manager.” When I became the Director of the Field Operations Division
                      and we were into what, at that time, was a great deal of change and
                      endless meetings, one of the decisions we made was to do away with the
                      audit manager title in the regions. I was not held in very high esteem for
                      making that decision. In fact, in some regions, the grade 14s at the time
                      had two titles. They had little nameplates that enabled them to slide out
                      their names and titles. They would have “Audit Manager” underneath
                      their name until they found out I was coming to their region. Then
                      they’d substitute the title that was acceptable at the time. So it was not
                      a popular decision.

Mr. Henson            I was in Seattle at that time. Of course, I supported the system. We had
                      grade 14s like Randy Williamson-and       there were others in Seattle-
                      who would be good enough to be at this table today if they had
                      progressed. The idea of having Randy Williamson running just one job
                      galled me. It was a waste of talent. He could contribute so much more
                      than that. We found a way to expand such people’s contributions,
                      though, through involving them also in issue area management.

Mr. Fee               That’s the way it eventually evolved.

Lead Region Concept
Mr. Eschwege          You’ve talked a lot about autonomy. I don’t want to pursue that too
                      much further except to say that, in later years, some structures were
                      put in place. We already mentioned project management. The lead region
                      concept hasn’t been mentioned yet. While I think you alluded to it, you
                      haven’t really mentioned the McElyea task force on teams. I’d like to
                      discuss both of these concepts.

                      Page 22
              Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
              Henson, and Hymm L. Krieger
              December 14,1989

Mr. Krieger   I think too much is made sometimes of the efforts of an organization to
              respond to the kind of things that Frank was talking about earlier. Orga-
              nizations respond to change in a lot of different ways. There was a great
              deal of experimentation. Each Comptroller General that I had any expo-
              sure to encouraged experimentation, rather than rigidity. If you look at
              the record, you can see that.

              We have learned a lot from many of the experimental efforts. The oper-
              ating divisions in Washington had unique personalities, and the regions
              had unique personalities. What never ceased to amaze me was the abil-
              ity of so many disparate kinds of individuals to work towards a common
              end. I wouldn’t characterize any organization that I was ever associated
              with as perfect. I guess we might have approached it, but we haven’t yet
              achieved it. I’m sure that GAO today isn’t necessarily going to come up
              with the ultimate answer.

              What I’ve always felt about GAO and the regions and the relationships
              with Washington-and I think Bob [Robert] Drakert [formerly Regional
              Manager, New York] used to expound on this-was that it was compet-
              ing ideas that unleashed large bursts of energy, that sometimes this did
              wind up in an interminable debate, and somebody had to make a deci-
              sion and then move on.

              What always astonished me was that the discourse sometimes did get
              heated, but I don’t think it left any lasting scars on anybody. Some of
              the regional managers were mavericks, particularly some of the earlier
              generations’ managers, who have long since gone to their rewards. I cer-
              tainly hope that today’s managers-by the way, I have known Dave
              Hanna [Denver Regional Manager] for a long time-are going to set new
              standards for the next generation.

Mr. Fee       I want to add one thought that addresses the question Henry raised
              dealing with the lead region concept. At one time, all of the Regional
              Managers grew up in the regions. At a later stage, people who had
              Washington experience were going out to the regions. That all occurred
              in the late 1960s and from the early 1970s through the mid-1970s. Jim
              Martin, Tim McCormick, Phil Bernstein, Joe Kegel, and I went from
              Washington to the regions to emphasize the idea of accountability,
              which Washington was seeking. At the same time, we wanted to hold on
              to some control over those jobs. That’s where the lead region concept
              and issue area management came in.

              Page 23
                       Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                       Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                       December 14,1989

Generating Ideas for
Programming Work
Mr. Henson             It is hard to talk about the lead region concept without first exploring
                       the progr amming of the work and how we got to where we were. Hand-
                       in-glove with the lead region concept, the regions began a lot of survey-
                       ing and coming up with the ideas. They were given discretionary time,
                       as I recall. They began to generate a lot of the work that the Office did.

                       It didn’t happen the same way in all regions. It certainly happened in
                       Seattle. As a matter of fact, I have heard it said that Seattle was a
                       “make work” region that they had to make work. But this was not true;
                       they didn’t. They preferred to set their own priorities and develop and
                       generate their ideas and sell them, as opposed to simply waiting for
                       whatever work came to them.

                       In New Orleans, we did much the same thing. When I got to Norfolk, we
                       also did the same thing. This is how we got into lead region assignments,
                       and, at the same time, we developed our relationships with Washington.
                       We were principally working in the areas in which we had those rela-
                       tionships and programs.

Mr. Fee                I think that is an excellent point, Dick. One of the great strengths of the
                       regional staffs was their ability to come up with ideas-not always pol-
                       ished, however, and not always exactly those that were ultimately
                       applied in our work. They did have a perspective of what the federal
                       government was doing outside Washington, where the money was being
                       spent, and the effectiveness of federal programs. They were just excel-
                       lent at coming up with good ideas that eventually made their way into
                       specific jobs. They couldn’t always broadly conceptualize the overall
                       issue because they only saw a small part of it, but they were good at
                       coming up with ideas.

Mr. Eschwege           I thought a lot about the Washington-field relationship after I retired
                       because maybe in Washington we weren’t always fair to the regions.
                       Isn’t it true that many ideas did come from the regions but weren’t read-
                       ily accepted by the Washington divisions? What did you do to try and
                       push them through?

Mr. Henson             In one instance?

Mr. Eschwege           I’m interested more in the methodology, but go ahead.

                       Page 24
             l~~terview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
             Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
             December 14,1989

Mr. Henson   Well, I’ll give you an example of how this could happen. At one time, the
             Defense Division had a contract audit group, and the Associate Direc-
             tors-in-charge of each service [Army, Navy, and Air Force] wanted to
             handle the contract work in their own area. So Jim Hammond’s contract
             audit group was disbanding, and he sent his people out to look into ongo-
             ing work and decide whether to kill the job or let it go ahead, depending
             on how far along it was. I had a contract job that was nowhere near the
             reporting stage, but we had the finding worked out clearly, and I saw a
             probable recovery of about $400,000 to $500,000. But we didn’t have all
             the material evidence that we needed, so the Washington people decided
             to kill the job.

             I went out to talk to the comptroller at Boeing and laid it all out for him.
             I did this without telling my boss, Bill Conrardy. If anyone was going to
             get in trouble, it was going to be me. I didn’t want Bill to be blamed. I
             ended up giving the guts of the finding to Boeing’s comptroller. He then
             sent his own auditors out. They did the work for us and the government
             ultimately did get the recovery, but we never reported on it.

Mr. Fee      You asked about methodology, and I, at least, had a two-part approach
             to that. On the region’s side, we constantly encouraged the staff to come
             up with ideas. Once the awards program was developed, we would give
             out an individual award for the best idea or the best audit area or the
             one that eventually led to a congressional report.

             As part of that methodology, we spent a great deal of time talking with
             staff and encouraging them, even if not every idea was to be accepted.

             The other part of the methodology was spending a lot of time in Wash-
             ington. I was fortunate to be close enough to Washington that I walked
             up and down the halls and personally touched base with the Assistant
             Directors and the Associate Directors about work that we thought we
             could do in Philadelphia and New York that fit in with their issue areas.
             Sometimes I was successful and sometimes I wasn’t, but that was the
             approach that I used.

Mr. Henson   We developed these ideas enough that we were able to sell them in most
             instances, but, on occasion, you’re right, they wouldn’t accept them. I
             recall two occasions when I used my discretionary time to develop the
             finding and the report. I then hand carried the report to Washington.
             Both times, the reports were released.

             Page 25
                         Interview With Franc% X. Fee, Walter IL
                         Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                         December 14,168!3

Mr. Ki-ieger             I think we tend to emphasize the exceptions. In this area, my own expe-
                         rience was that Washington people were consistently reasonably intelli-
                         gent and receptive. They would pick up our ideas in most instances.

Mr. Grosshans            The record is somewhat spotty, I think, on that one. Generally, I would
                         agree with you, but some groups worked harder than others. The point
                         that Frank made that people really marketed their products is impor-
                         tant. All of us in the regions-I was in San F’rancisco at that time-were
                         very, very active in that. One thing we haven’t touched on and that we
                         should mention is that in the old days it was a little easier to play one
                         staff person against the other because of the competition, particularly
                         on the defense side. If you couldn’t market an idea or job to one group,
                         you had two or three other groups who might pick up on it. Al Clavelli
                         [Regional Manager, San F’rancisco] was a master at that.

Mr. Fee                  I didn’t have that option in New York.

Mr. Henson               There’s another thing you’ve got to keep in mind. The trouble of getting
                         our ideas accepted was related to the evolution of the way we did our
                         work. There was a time when Washington began to talk about broad-
                         based reviews-the programwide aspects of a finding. The field was
                         lagging behind, naturally, and was still sending in single findings which,
                         under Elmer Staats, we were moving away from. That was when we had
                         a lot of ideas dropped because they didn’t appear worthwhile or just
                         couldn’t be expanded into programwide or agencywide reviews.

Mr. Fee                  I think there was a lag in communicating to the field the direction in
                         which the Office was going.

Mr. Henson               Yes. There definitely was.

Mr. Grosshans            Was there a role for FOD in educating the regions to adapt to this change?

Mr. Henson and Mr. Fee   There should have been.

Mr. Henson               I certainly don’t want to sound as though I’m criticizing John Thornton;
                         I think that guy was one of the world’s best managers. But in this partic-
                         ular area, there should have been a role for KID.

                         Page 26
                         Interview With Francis X. Fee, Waker H.
                         Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                         December 14,1989

Implementing the Teams
Mr. Eschwege             I was going to talk more about the role of FOD. But, before we skirt the
                         whole issue, nobody has given me any opinion or, if necessary, criticism
                         of the teams concept.’ I don’t need to hear from all three of you if you
                         don’t want to talk, but why did teams somehow not work? It was an
                         important turning point in the way GAO suggested its work be done. I
                         think GAO has a teams concept today, but it is an entirely different thing
                         than what we had planned. Since it affected the regional offices so much
                         more-at least they perceived it as a slap in the face-1 thought that
                         you might want to comment on it.

Mr. Fee                  Sure we do.

Mr. Henson               I think it was an organizational catastrophe, to be honest with you. The
                         way we got into it was unfortunate. I certainly don’t want to criticize
                         Stu, because it was a group of Directors that decided this.

Mr. Eschwege             I should mention that I was on the task force.

Mr. Henson               I know you were. And that’s why I’m not criticizing anyone.

Mr. Eschwege             I think you should.

Mr. Henson               Well, the Comptroller General ultimately made that decision.

Mr. Eschwege             I think that’s important to bring out.

Mr. Henson               The story, as I have heard it, is that the task force recommended the
                         teams approach as “a way” to do work and that it was Elmer Staats
                         who changed it to “the” way of doing it; that was an entirely different
                         thing. But he was the Comptroller General and he was able to run the
                         shop the way he wanted to, so I don’t necessarily take issue with that. I
                         still say the way we went into it, the way we relieved the Regional Man-
                         agers and the ARMS [Assistant Regional Managers] of any responsibility
                         or interaction with those jobs except from a people-management point-

                         ‘The team approach, adopted by Comptroller General Staats, grew out of the 197’7 Task Force on
                         Improving GAO Effectiveness. For particular assignments, a team leader was assigned from either
                         headquarters or the field; team members reported to the leader regardless of their permanent organi-
                         zational location; the team was protected as far as possible from competing demands; and hierarchical
                         levels of review were minimized.

                         Page 27
          Inteniew  With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
          Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
          December 14,1989

          of-view was a tremendous waste of talent, and I think it was doomed to
          fail from the day it started.

Mr. Fee   To the extent that these tapes are to be instructional, I have a couple of
          comments about teams because I obviously lived through it as a
          Regional Manager and Director of FOD. I was part of a Regional Manag-
          ers’ task force that had to develop the regions’ methodology and
          approach to implementing teams. Then I became the Director of FOD and
          had to debate that entire issue with all of the Directors in Washington.
          Eventually, I had somewhat of a hand in abolishing the term, so I lived
          through it.

          I agree with Dick that it was doomed from the beginning, notwithstand-
          ing that its concept was a sound one. I agree with the concept of teams
          and that GAO does have teams now. I don’t think we ever got rid of them.
          To some extent, we had them before the concept came out.

          And I was also in favor of removing the word “teams” from our lexicon.
          So I was on both ends of that spectrum.

          But, at the beginning, I did understand it conceptually. I thought it was a
          good idea. Unfortunately-perhaps      because of some personalities
          involved and the pressures of time-the way it was introduced to the
          regions was almost catastrophic because it was imposed upon them
          without definition, debate, or dissension. We struggled as a group of
          fairly intelligent people to determine how to take this thing and make it

          It really was a struggle because it was contrary to everything we had
          grown up with. It opposed heavy involvement of senior people in jobs
          and a hierarchial environment, and it was contrary to the relationships
          we were trying to build at that time, which I commented on earlier,
          between Washington and the regions.

          I think the hardest part of all-and Dick has mentioned this -was
          when we said to senior people, many of whom had come up through the
          associate director level in Washington: “We don’t want your knowledge,
          perspective, and understanding on this job.” That’s the way it was per-
          ceived. It may not have been intended that way, but it clearly was per-
          ceived that way, and that was a difficult thing for people to understand.
          They asked: “If I don’t contribute my expertise, what would I do?” That
          created many problems.

          Page 28
               Interview With Francis X Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               Simultaneous with that, the field perceived teams to be a power play by
               Washington to take over everything. So it was the final nail in the coffin
               (as a couple of folks described it at that time) to the autonomy, author-
               ity, and stature of the regional offices. That was hard psychologically
               and physically to overcome.

Mr. Henson     It was a very emotional thing.

Mr. Fee        Now, during that whole period-and, again, I say this with the greatest
               respect, but the record ought to reflect it-we didn’t have a leader or
               leaders that could work their way through that whole process. We had
               12 people in Washington and 15 people in the regions. When we talked
               about the role of FOD headquarters, I think at that time it had a very
               important role to play in bridging the thinking of all those people. KID
               may not have been very successful in doing it, but it really had a clear
               role at that time and, needless to say, a difficult one.

               We spent 3 full years arguing and debating and writing issue papers to
               describe the roles of regional and divisional people in carrying out
               assignments and who was going to rate whom. We really had no choice
               but to say that conceptually it may have been a good idea, but if we
               were going to survive, we better get rid of it. At least I concluded, based
               on the role I played in it at that time: “Let’s get rid of it.”

Mr. Henson     As painful as it was to the Regional Managers, it was particularly pain-
               ful to me because I was Deputy Director of FOD at the time, and my job
               was to make teams work. Although I strongly objected to this organiza-
               tional change, I was working as hard as I could to make it work. Part of
               that, by the way, was dealing directly with Regional Managers and, in
               fact, helping some of them avoid problems.

Mr. Fee        I will attest that Dick worked many late hours trying to do that.

Mr. Eschwege   We knew of the unhappiness in the field. We held out a little    carrot to
               the field and said: “Hey, you guys. If your ARMS want to run    these jobs,
               we’ll let you.” But, in the back of our minds was the thought    that these
               ARMS, by and large, hadn’t run jobs like that for years. They   had differ-
               ent roles then in the field.

Mr. Fee        That’s right.

               Page 29
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December l&l989

Mr. Eschwege   A few of the ARMS agreed to run the jobs and were good at it. But I think
               we were fooling ourselves here in Washington when we thought that
               many of those guys could run the jobs or wanted to run them.

Mr. Fee        I think also, Henry, it was a concession that you all made to try to deal
               with 55 people that, at that time, we didn’t know what to do with under
               that concept. As the Director of KID, I personally negotiated between the
               Division Directors and the Regional Managers which of those Assistant
               Regional Managers were actually going to be able to do what was
               required. Some were naturals with recent experience in running jobs
               that the divisions were willing to go with. There were others who, with
               years of experiences, good or bad, said: “No, I don’t want that person to
               be my team director.” We had a devil of a time trying to sort that out
               because in the regions it was perceived that way.

Mr. Krieger    I always felt pretty good that, even though I’d always been part of GAO
               and anything that happened in GAO naturally concerned me and every-
               body else there, I was not involved in this particular effort. But there is
               an interesting footnote to this story.

               It just so happened the task force met in Easton, Maryland, at the Tide-
               water Inn to reach agreement on teams when John Thornton was back
               in Washington. I took a day off, and he, Phillip Charam, and I were driv-
               ing down to the shore. Somehow or other, we stopped at the Tidewater
               Inn when the meeting was ending.

               I listened to the conversation. At that time, I was back as part of the
               Washington directorate group. I guess my deepest affection has been for
               the field. I spent 20 years in the field and 20 years in Washington, so it is
               a fairly even split.

               But I just shook my head and said to John “There goes everything we
               have worked for.” I could see, in talking to my fellow Directors who
               were part of that group, that they felt they had given the field a conces-
               sion. I hate to question anybody’s sincerity, but anything that starts on
               that premise is bound to fail; it was obvious.

Mr. Eschwege   Paraphrasing one of your earlier statements today, we did learn from
               this experience.

Mr. Henson     I think both Frank and I, if not directly then at least indirectly, criticized
               the implementation of teams in the field. I would like to put that into
               perspective. Stu had a tough job on his hands. He had 15 mavericks out

               Page 30
                          Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                          Henson, and Hyman L. Erieger
                          December 14,1989

                          there who were used to doing things their way and who were not at all
                          responding to an order such as this. Stu had to come down hard and
                          quick. I think it was a mistake, but I also understand why he felt he had
                          to do it that way, because otherwise teams would have been undermined
                          and have come apart at the seams. That’s what he was afraid of.

Mr. Krieger               I always felt it had a deleterious effect on Stu personally. I don’t think
                          he ever got over that period.

Mr. Fee                   Dick, I think your comment, from your position at that time, is obviously
                          true. The simplest way to say it is that I think there was another way of
                          coming in that door.

Mr. Henson                I would have handled it differently, Frank.

Mr. Fee                   I agree with that. I don’t want to cast aspersions whatsoever on the job
                          that Stu had to do at the time, but it did make the next job much more

Providing Constructive
Feedback on Assignments
Mr. Eschwege              I want to mention a couple of other things in connection with how you,
                          in the field, related with the divisions. There was-these are my
                          words-always       a little friction between the field and Washington. Some
                          of that manifested itself-in the early years, at least-in the field’s
                          referencing a draft that went to Washington; Washington would refer-
                          ence it again, rewrite it, and the field would edit it, and Washington
                          would re-edit it. I think some of that rewriting may still go on today. But
                          with all that, we did get out good products in most instances.

                          We were supposed to give feedback to each other-even during the
                          audit-on how things were going. How honest were we in providing
                          feedback-when I say “we,” I mean the division to the field and the
                          field to the division-on how the assignment was going, especially when
                          an auditor or supervisor would come out to the field and give you some
                          advice or direction or when the draft came to Washington and sat on
                          somebody’s desk for a long time? How did we handle that? Frank, I
                          think you wrote a paper on that one time.

                          Page 31
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Fee        As an Office, we handled it poorly. The Washington staff knew that
               they’d have to work with the field staff again and, as a result, were soft
               in their criticisms or even constructive comments and tended to say
               things generally went okay. So very little concrete criticism came back
               on a job-by-job basis. The litmus test to me was when I tried to match up
               a field person and a Washington person a second or a third time. I knew
               right away whether or not one of the jobs had gone well by the accept-
               ance or rejection of that match. That was the clearest thing to me, and I
               would be able to use that to go back to the Washington staff and talk to
               them about rejecting someone.

Mr. Eschwege   Conversely, you might not give that Washington staff the person that
               they really wanted?

Mr. Fee        Mostly for reasons -at least from my experiences-of availability. We
               tried pretty hard to keep the team together. That’s why I think we had
               teams before we had “teams.”

               When I was in New York, we tried to keep the same people working with
               each other. I remember in the environmental area, which was one of
               your areas at the time, there were two or three people in New York that
               we tried to keep involved in that particular area, job after job. We knew
               there was a good work relationship. We knew the quality of the work
               was good because the Washington staff asked for them again, and we
               knew that the folks were happy because they were getting that recogni-
               tion and getting whatever psychic income comes from being asked back.

               So that worked pretty well. When it didn’t work, you never really found
               out about it and you never really had anything concrete so you could go
               back and say to the person: “This job didn’t work out because of a flaw
               in your logic, a flaw in your methodology, or a flaw in the personality
               relationships.” You had to pick that up yourself. That’s why the
               involvement of the regional hierarchial structure was important on the

               I was once told, under the teams concept, by an audit manager out of
               Washington, that he didn’t understand why I was at a particular meet-
               ing; he wasn’t going to answer my question because I had no authority
               over this job.

Mr. Henson     I recall that.

               Page 32

               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter R
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Fee        We made our way through that particular meeting okay, but it was that
               kind of thing that always strained our relationship. Now, I guarantee
               you that incident got out to all 15 regions before that guy ever got back
               to Washington. And that’s what caused some of those kinds of problems.

Mr. Eschwege   Had we pretty much resolved most of these problems before you left
               here when you were Assistant Comptroller General?

Mr. Fee        I think once we got rid of teams and were able to get into some of the
               program planning efforts at the time Werner was involved in it and once
               we began to use the field as a resource because of the reasons we’ve all
               identified-they    had experience, they had good working relationships,
               they had the knack and ability to identify opportunities-and    when we
               matched them up with the issue area planners here in Washington, most
               of that started to go away.

Mr. Henson     Issue area management was the beginning of the clearing up.

Mr. Eschwege   One other matter that helped a lot in getting the field and its work better
               recognized was that we began to have so much congressional testimony
               that required the field people to sit next to me or the Associate Director
               and participate in hearings.

Mr. Fee        No doubt about it.

Mr. Eschwege   They also felt more responsibility.

Mr. Fee        Sure they did. They felt more involved.

Mr. Krieger    Henry, you were talking about evaluation or appraisal, and I’m sure you
               had the same difficulties in appraising your own people that exist in this
               area. Candidly, it’s too bad that Charlie Moore isn’t here today because
               what you reminded me of was Field Operations Memorandum Number
               One, and I think it was followed by “Number Two.” There have never
               been any since then.

Mr. Henson     That was setting up a review procedure in KID, wasn’t it?

Mr. Krieger    Right. And Charlie Moore and I labored over that, and the whole thesis
               was to do just what you’re talking about-create within the field organ-
               ization a credible basis for making these kinds of evaluations; it was
               done very spottily.

               Page 33
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               My vivid memories, though, in this area-and I’m sure Frank and Dick
               had the experience-are of being called in to referee much shouting and
               intense discussion between both field people and Washington people
               about who was culpable if there was a problem. I can remember, partic-
               ularly, having to go up to New York once with Max Hirschhorn and
               Frank Subalusky and referee a battle between them and Tommy McQuil-
               len and some other very talented people.

Mr. Fee        That was before my time.

Mr. Krieger    I had to sit there for 3 days while we went through an intensive post-
               mortem review.

Mr. Fee        I do know about that because it took F’rank Subalusky until about 1978
               to agree to assign another job to New York. I personally sat down with
               him about a year before I left New York and told him the world had .
               changed since then, and I guaranteed him that we would get the job

Mr. Eschwege   These were my guys you’re talking about.

Mr. Fee        Well, Frank had a good point from what I remember of it. He should
               have been upset.

Mr. Krieger    But how people share this kind of views will always be less than the
               ideal, until you get to the millennium. I can remember concerns raised by
               a distinguished citizen, Clerio Pin, when I was managing New York years
               ago. I’m working for Clerio right now. Art Schoenhaut, who worked
               with him, used to send Greg Ahart out 2 or 3 days before they came for
               their review, and Greg would be sitting there in a corner with all the
               papers piled all around him developing his litany of sins. I can remember
               some of the negotiations that we had to resolve some of these concerns.

               But the thing that always amused me is that the outcome was generally
               a good one. What we-were often talking about were marginal issues.
               Many of them were important issues, I’m sure.

Mr. Fee        But I do recall also, Hy, when you had legitimate professional differ-
               ences of opinion on the job approach and then the conclusions to a job. It
               did take a senior person to sit down at the table and listen to both sides,
               not in an adversarial way, although sometimes those involved thought it
               was adversarial, but as a way of just trying to reach the right

               Page 34

                         Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                         Henson, and Hyman L. Jh-ieger
                         December 14,1989

Mr. Henson               But I think where we had good working relationships, invariably the
                         Washington manager would come out and work with the field staff-
                         especially in Norfolk, which was so close. As far as honest feedback, I
                         didn’t get much of it. As a matter of fact, the only honest feedback I can
                         really recall was when I was in Norfolk and Werner Grosshans came in
                         and told me he didn’t like the way the job was going. He identified one
                         particular person as seeming to have a negative attitude, and he thought
                         I ought to look at this job. We did have a job review after he left. But we
                         didn’t get much of that honest feedback.

Field Participation in
Planning and Staffing
Mr. Grosshans            I’m very happy to hear that we’ve come a long way in resolving some of
                         these issues from the early days through the teams to the current
                         period. I do think we have a much more cohesive organization, and I
                         think the field is much more involved in the day-to-day affairs of GAO.
                         Like Henry said, maybe the work drove part of that-more of the con-
                         gressionals, I think, have forced us to take a look at the total resources
                         and to better use them.

                         Let me go back to the earlier days for the record and establish a little
                         more clearly what the field roles were and how the regions participated
                         in the two major areas; as I see these roles, they provided the clout for
                         the region-that is, the type of work we were doing and the planning
                         side of it. Of course, that also involves resource management. The
                         Regional Managers had tremendous leverage from the standpoint of
                         making or breaking the group they were working with in headquarters
                         by the way they assigned people, when they assigned them, and the
                         type of folks they assigned. Maybe we ought to just talk a bit about how
                         that evolved to the present time and what you recall about some of that.

Mr. Henson               Well, there is no doubt the Regional Managers had a lot of discretionary
                         authority in deciding what jobs to do, who they were going to assign to
                         certain jobs, or even if they were going to do them.

                         The formal programming that took place often was obsolete by the time
                         the Blue Book or whatever it was got out there, except for perhaps some
                         jobs like settlement work. What did take place was the generation of

                         Page 35

                    Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                    Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                    December 14,1989

                    work by the region working through this Washington staff-and some-
                    times the impetus would come from the Washington staff-working
                    together. They would have this worked out, and they knew they wanted
                    to do it before it even got into the issue area plans or work program
                    plans as they came along.

                    So informal programming continued to take place even after program-
                    ming was formalized, and I would be surprised if it isn’t still taking
                    place informally before it gets formalized.

                    Now, at one time the Regional Managers’ discretionary authority did
                    create some friction. I recall I had to look into it when Bill Conrardy was
                    out in San Francisco. Bill had decided that he couldn’t do everything
                    that was there for the region to do. He had decided that some parts of
                    the work in the agencies or on programs could be done elsewhere, so he
                    wouldn’t do those. I couldn’t argue with his decision there.

                    Beyond that, he also had to allocate resources. Bill had decided he could
                    do no more than two Department of Transportation jobs at one time. Vie
                    Lowe, Director of the General Government Division, came in and com-
                    plained to me and asked me to look into it.

                /   But Bill had to make the decision on what jobs he would do, at what
                    agencies, and where he would use his people. And I believe that every
                    Regional Manager was doing that, not just because they were indepen-
                    dent enough to do it; they were filling a void that existed at that time by
                    making these decisions.

Mr. Grosshans       Weren’t they also, to a large extent, influencing what was being done
                    based on their own preferences and biases?

Mr. Henson          Absolutely. No doubt about it.

Mr. Grosshans       When you look around, what one region did versus another varied sig-
                    nificantly. I think it had a lot to do with the viewpoints of the Regional

Mr. Krieger         I think Dick made a very cogent point. The job of the Regional Manager
                    really was to see that, consistent with whatever the overall framework
                    of policies was, the issues to be addressed were relevant and important
                    not only to the Office but to their geographical area, to the development
                    of the staff, and so on.

                    Page 36
                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

                I’m sure there may have been some efforts to allocate resources to
                favored clients, but Regional Managers really functioned in an opera-
                tions analysis mode by taking a look at the tasks and the people and
                trying to match them up. They may not have done it perfectly at all
                times but, to maintain their credibility within the organization, they had
                to do a good job of matching requirements and resources and seeing that
                they dealt fairly with their staff.

                The dilemmas that you had were many. As a manager, I was always
                conscious-and I’m sure all the managers are-of the power that you
                had to influence not only the careers of people in Washington but the
                careers of people in the field as well. Most of the managers tried consci-
                entiously to recognize that, if there was a difficult job and they gave it
                preference by assigning it to the best person-at least in their judg-
                ment-they didn’t penalize somebody else whose job also had to be

                I think there was constant balancing, trying to reconcile demands in
                Washington with what was available and what would produce the best
                outcome. No system works perfectly.

Mr. Grosshans   Let me just ask you two related questions here, and maybe you can
                address both of them, Frank, when you make your comments. What was
                FOD'S role in this? When we talked to John Thornton, for example, he
                mentioned that when the Defense Division came out with its gray books
                and blue books as did the Civil Division, he and some of the staff spent a
                lot of hours with Bill Newman’s staff, trying to make the numbers come
                out right. But did we ever really have any FOD involvement from the
                standpoint of trying to see what type of work should be done in a partic-
                ular region, and what the size of each region should be?

Mr. Fee         Let me try to comment on that, because I think we finally got to where
                most people thought we should have been towards the end of FOD'S exis-
                tence. When I came to Washington in 1979 as the Director of FOD, Jim
                Martin headed up the Program Planning staff. During that period, the
                issue area planning process had really started to evolve and become
                effective. We worked with the Office of Program Planning and the
                Regional Managers in trying to clarify which areas we wanted to work
                in as an Office, where that work should be done based upon the
                demographics of the country, and, given that the work had to be done in
                those places, what kind of resources we had to have in the different
                offices to do that work. We started at the top and worked our way down
                to details, I think prior to that it was the other way around.

                Page 37
                interview WithFrancis X. Fee, Walter   E
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

                Once that process started to work and regional managers began to look
                at the demographics of their geographic area and compared that with
                issue area plans, they would say: “If environment is big in my area or
                defense is big in my area, what kind of people do I need to do those
                kinds of jobs?” They would then develop recruiting plans based upon
                that analysis.

                What we were finding-and Dick started to touch on it a moment ago-
                was that there were some natural matches. In part, this is where we
                applied the lead region concept. There were some natural matches con-
                cerning where certain work ought to be done. It was clear that, if we
                were going to do payroll audits, we would do them in Cincinnati, Detroit,
                and Denver. With other work, we had some discretion. We could do it in
                several places. Where was the expertise in the region? Or what kind of
                expertise did we need to develop?

                I know in New York in the 1976 to 1979 time frame, it was clear that we
                had to develop expertise in the financial market and the urban financial
                crisis areas. We began to concentrate people there. We also began to
                recruit people who had experience in those two areas, and a natural
                linkage began to develop.

                When that occurred, relationships were strengthened and real team
                building began to take place. I think it has been fairly successful.

                IQD headquarters did play a role in that we tried to help the Regional
                Managers-and through them, their staff-conceptualize        the entire
                issue area and begin to look at the demographics of a particular region.
                Based upon those demographics, we began to say: “We need more people
                in Region A than we have, and we need fewer people in Region B than
                we have. How do we get there from here?”

Mr. Grosshans   I remember working with Hugo Becker on that. We’re still struggling
                with some of that, although we’ve come a long way. You’re absolutely
                right. The way we negotiate and reach agreement up front today with
                the regions on what they’re going to do for their respective counterparts
                in Washington has really cemented that relationship because they’re
                part of the negotiations.

Mr. Fee         I think there’s one other thing that really helped, at least from my per-
                spective. I think it happened during that same period, from 1976 to

                Page 38
                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

                As the issue area plans began to crystallize and the Washington office
                got better at the conceptualization of and zeroing in on what the real
                issues were, they invited in from the regions key people that they had
                been working with for a long time, and they sat around a table and came
                up with the issue area plan.

                The Washington staff would emphasize the conceptual framework of the
                issue area, and the regional staff would bring to bear its practical and
                operational experience.

                There were always exceptions, but I think the Washington Issue Area
                Managers, the Associate Directors, and the Assistant Directors began to
                see that they needed input from both sides. I remember going out-and I
                know you went out a lot, Henry-to the different issue area planning
                sessions that were held mostly around Washington but also in the rest of
                the country. We sat there and folks were really trying to say that if this
                is what you want to do, then here is a place to do it or here is something
                that fits in.

Mr. Grosshans   In the early 197Os, we tried to do some of that and it didn’t take. Maybe
                we ought to talk a bit about it. Let me just mention where I’m coming
                from. I don’t mean it in a negative sense here. We brought people into
                some of those dog-and-pony shows in the briefing room. You may recall
                when different groups presented their program plans.

                We brought the regional people in, but what we didn’t do was really
                make them a part of that process. They weren’t sitting next to the Asso-
                ciate Director who was presenting it. They were in the gallery and,
                every once in a while, you’d ask a question they could respond to. We
                didn’t have those planning sessions that you spoke of-those came a
                little later-where  we really got them more involved. I’m just wondering
                how you saw it from the regional perspective, whether you felt you did
                have sufficient say-so in it, or whether something was still lacking.

Mr. Henson      To my recollection, we really began to do this-1 think Monte Canfield
                did it-about 1975. I don’t believe we called them issue areas yet. But
                he had the energy area, and he brought in field people from different
                locations to meet with his staff and put together a year’s work plan.
                That’s what he called it at that time.

                And that worked really well. The regions were committed to do this, and
                Monte committed the time to do it. I think that was the beginning. But

                Page 39
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               before that, too much of it was done at the Washington level. Field par-
               ticipation in the early years was sometimes “iffy.” I think that’s when
               we went through a period when the field staff didn’t quite feel they
               were a part of it.

Mr. Krieger    Everybody’s perspective is their own, but I saw some very useful things
               done, and I’m pretty sure that, if you go into the archives, you will see

               In the 1971 to 1972 period, for example, I can remember Elmer Staats
               and the Division Directors trying to involve the regions-I think it was
               orchestrated by Tom Morris. Each of the regional offices went through a
               drill of identifying what they felt were the primary areas that they
               ought to be working on and where they felt their expertise was. I
               remember individual offices coming in to meet the audit groups. Do you
               have any recollection of those sessions?

Mr. Eschwege   Yes. We had, in some divisions, at least, what we called symposiums,
               where we would not only bring the field and Washington together but
               acquaint them with top officials in the agency. For example, we had
               symposiums on agriculture or environment. Staats would open up the

Mr. Krieger    I’m even going beyond that.

Mr. Eschwege   I thought that was helpful. That was in the early 1970s too.

Mr. Krieger    Right. There were a lot of those. What hadn’t been fully effective was
               the total integration. I think the time was ripe in the period that you are
               talking about to begin to do that. The organization was maturing. There
               was a lot of competence and better ways to use it were needed.

               I urge you to look at that 1971 to 1972 period. And even in earlier eras, I
               know regional offices were asked to develop and provide Washington
               with comprehensive documents examining what was out there in the
               way of government and nongovernment programs and what issues they
               needed to address.

Mr. Fee        Let me give you just a microcosm of the evolution of this whole thing. I
               went to the regions in 1973, and FOD ended in 1982, So that’s a g-year

               Page 40
                    Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                    Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                    December 14,1989

                    When I first went to Philadelphia, there was little, if any, involvement
                    of that region’s staff in any of the planning. There were a variety of
                    reasons, and discussing that would take more time than we care to give
                    it. It epitomized a regional office that did what it thought was best to do.
                    The Regional Manager did, in fact, have a list of jobs in his lower left
                    drawer. He picked the jobs he wanted to do, and that was it. That’s the
                    job you got. His Assistant Regional Managers did the same thing. There
                    was no involvement in the planning or the reporting; they just executed
                    the assignment.

                    Now, over the next 9 years, the Washington Office developed its issue
                    area focus and began to perfect it. In the early years, there was mini-
                    mum involvement. There were some key spots where people had long-
                    standing relationships. But, generally speaking, that wasn’t the case.
                    Gradually, toward the end of that period, we no longer had to convince
                    an Associate Director in Washington that he ought to get field involve-
                    ment. He was out there before we even knew about it making arrange-
                    ments and working with key people trying to get the kinds of people he
                    needed-or, more precisely, the very people he wanted-to work in his
                    particular areas.

                    At the time, the g-year period in which that evolved seemed like a long
                    time. But when you look back on it, it really wasn’t, considering that
                    Washington had to learn something first and then involve the regions in

                    I daresay that, after the demise of FOD, that continued to get better and,
                    from what I understand, continues to get better to this day.

Competition Among
Mr. Grosshans       I think we alluded to this earlier; there was a lot of competition among
                    regions. Everyone was out there trying to market their ideas and work
                    on as many lead region assignments as they could get-1 think Seattle
                    probably comes to mind. They might have been doing a job that was
                    more logical for New York to have done.

Mr. Fee             We always wondered why. As an anecdote, I was in New York, and Seat-
                    tle did a lead region job dealing with the Department of Justice and its

                    Page 41
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Henson     It involved county jails.

Mr. Fee        They did a good job and a good survey. They came up with some real
               issues that they wanted to explore. They came to New York City where
               we had more people in jail than all the people living in the county where
               they did that survey.

               They had a devil of a time trying to meet the audit requirements
               imposed both by themselves and by the Washington staff. Seattle was
               that way. I never did understand that.

Mr. Grossham   Did you see that as a healthy competition?

Mr. Henson     No. Bill [Conrardy] and I saw that one differently. As a matter of fact, I
               remember putting that on the agenda for one Regional Managers confer-
               ence. Hy [Krieger] had Bill and I out to his house one evening during the
               conference. I asked Hy when we were going to get around to discussing
               that point, and then Hy commented to Bilk “Well, now you know why
               that is on the agenda and who put it there.”

               That created a sense that Seattle didn’t have enough work in its region
               which, of course, wasn’t true. If it was going to be a lead region, then it
               was going to expand its activities agencywide or programwide so that
               sometimes these imbalances would occur.

Mr. Eschwege   I don’t think regional offices were particularly   happy as assist regions.

Mr. Fee        They weren’t.

Mr. Ekchwege   I don’t believe those who developed the lead region concept thought it
               through to the point that, once in awhile, there might also be assist

Mr. Krieger    Charlie Moore would have been a very articulate commentator on this
               issue because he conceived the term “fly through&’ [a concept whereby
               the lead region would send its staff into other regions, rather than call
               on the local staff to do some of the work]. It created a fair amount of
               resentment. The driving force was one Henry alluded to-the rewards
               were being associated with taking the lead rather than assisting-and
               we always had to try to reconcile that.

Mr. Fee        Charlie may have had that particular idea, but I guarantee you Phil
               Bernstein perfected it.

               Page 42

                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

Mr. Krieger     Quite candidly, John Thornton and I at various times had to tell Charlie
                to moderate his excursions.

Mr. Henson      Charlie had a gold mine up there auditing the Naval Finance Center.
                And, through their reviews of vouchers and different things, he really
                did identify all sorts of areas that needed to be looked into. On more
                than one occasion, the Pensacola Naval Air Training Command, located
                in the New Orleans Region at that time, was the target. I’d get a survey
                program from Charlie-and I remember this one distinctly-in        which,
                among other things, he had just one survey step in the program to find
                out whether it would be cheaper to contract for the overhaul of aircraft
                or do it in-house.

                I got on the phone and said-this was not the first time-“Hy,     I’ve got a
                thing with Charlie Moore again. I’m not going to do this job he sent me.”
                Hy, I’m sure you followed up on that.

Mr. Krieger     Yes.

Mr. Henson      But, incidentally, that wasn’t Charlie Moore who required that; it was
                one of his audit managers who put that together. I don’t even know if
                Charlie knew it.

Mr. Krieger     Well, Charlie had a rare insight. To this day, I can see him chomping on
                his pipe and energizing some of his people; Charlie was a tremendous
                energy source.

Mr. Henson      He sure was.

Mr. Eschwege    Speaking from the Washington perspective, Charlie was one of the most
                cooperative Regional Managers when it came to doing the work that the
                division had programmed.

Mr. Grosshans   It is unfortunate that Charlie is not here, but I will bring up this story
                anyway. I was sitting next to Harry Finley at a management meeting
                that we just concluded, and Harry told me the story about dealing with

                He went to Detroit one day and reviewed the workpapers. He wasn’t too
                happy. That gets back to the point, also, that some people like feedback,
                and others may not appreciate it. Charlie didn’t particularly care that
                Harry had some comments about his staff, so he told him to pack his bag

                Page 43
                          Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
                          Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                          December 14,1989

                          and go back to Washington. He suggested that Harry never come back or
                          even fly over his territory again.

Mr. Fee                   That’s right. I remember that one.

Mr. Krieger               I’ll tell you my favorite story about Charlie. I was working for Phil
                          Charam at the time. Charlie was managing a big job in Atlanta.

                          I visited Atlanta and the job seemed to be in total disarray. In my expe-
                          rience, I hadn’t seen a job that was in as much trouble as that. I said:
                          “Charlie, we’ll close it down, forget about it, and I’ll go home.” Charlie
                          said: “Hy, you go home. I’ll finish the job.” Charlie worked night and
                          day and converted this disaster into something credible. That was the
                          kind of individual he was.

Mr. Eschwege              He worked hard.

Mr. Fee                   He did not like to be defeated. I agree with that.

Developing the Human
Dr. Trask                 I’d like to go now to a very important question and that is how you
                          developed the human resources in the regions; again, let’s try to do it on
                          a comparative basis with the Campbell, Staats, and Bowsher eras.

Recruiting and Training   First, let’s discuss the areas of recruiting and training. I’d like to read
                          you a quote from our oral history interview with Leo Herbert talking
                          about getting training started in 1956. He’s talking about the regions

                          “The first thing I did was to try to find out where GAO was and that was not an easy
                          task. For example, just getting acquainted with the regional offices, nobody even
                          knew about the regional offices because everything was pretty well handled here in
                          Washington. The regional offices were pretty well told what to do and how to do it. I
                          felt that eventually, if we were going to really have a meaningful organization, the
                          regions would have to be professional, just like the Washington people.”

                          I guess that was the first thing Leo Herbert encountered and the first
                          thing he thought about as he began to consider the training effort in the

                          Page 44
             Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
             Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
             December 14,1989

             regions-apparently          about the same time this training effort also began
             in Washington.

             So, let’s talk about that. Very much related to this, of course, is the
             recruiting effort-the    policies, the techniques, and the introduction of
             specialists and nonaccountant types.

Mr. Henson   At one time and for a long time, we hired only accountants. I first
             started recruiting in Seattle, where we were fairly successful.

             When I moved to New Orleans, we were still hiring only accountants. I
             was having an awful time putting together a staff there. It was virtually
             impossible with the money we could offer to hire top-quality people.

             I remember at one meeting-it must have been a Regional Managers
             meeting in New Orleans-Leo Herbert and I were talking about the
             recruiting problems. I didn’t know it but the Comptroller General, Elmer
             Staats, was standing behind us talking to someone. I was pointing out to
             Leo that I just was not going to be able to build a staff there because I
             couldn’t find the accountants to hire because we couldn’t pay them

             My argument was that we ought to start hiring from other disciplines.
             Leo was telling me why it took accountants to do our work. Mr. Staats,
             standing behind me, had stopped his conversation and was listening to
             us. He turned around and asked Leo: “Tell me again why we can’t hire
             nonaccountants?” A few months later, we got our walking orders to go
             out and start hiring people other than accountants. So, indirectly, I kind
             of got us started in that direction.

Dr. Trask    This has to be about 1966 or after.

Mr. Henson   Yes, in the late 1960s.

Dr. Trask    What about staffing in the regional offices between 1956 and 1966? Dr.
             Herbert came in 1956, and, essentially, they were still hiring

Mr. Henson   In the mid-1950s they were hiring CPAS directly out of CPA firms. I think
             I probably got in on the tail end of that when I joined the Office in 1957.
             It was about then that we began to try to hire accountants right out of
             school. Leo set up basic, fundamental training programs. Training was
             centralized at that time. Later on, it got decentralized. It got centralized

             Page 45
              Interview With Francis X. Fee,Walter   H.
              Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
              December 14,1989

              again, and then it got decentralized again. Finally, it was centralized and
              apparently has stayed that way.

Mr. Krieger   I’ll endorse Leo’s. comment. I think it was relevant at that time. Leo was
              brought in with a clear mandate from Joe Campbell to expand recruit-
              ing. Up to that .point, it had been done by a half -a dozen people.

              Charlie Murphy was one of them, but before him there were Mel Werner
              and Harry Trainor. They did an exceptional job;-.They focused on a very
              limited number of schools. They relied heavily on the public accounting
              community. Many people were brought in from--public accounting. They
              also relied on another resource that hasn’t been mentioned before. Ini-
              tially, the population of the Office was heavily weighted towards people
              who had served in the Navy Cost Inspection Service, the Air Force con-
              tract audit groups, or in the different defense-oriented units that had
              been demobilized either after World War II-or after the Korean conflict.

              Leo recognized the need and the Office was growing, also. If you look at
              the manpower statistics, you’ll see, as-GAOwas-losing people who had
              been involve&in accoLtntirr$~~~~kee~~g~~~~~~~~~~d          audit &me7>
              tions, it was building again by hiring accountants.

              Leo, prior to having served as the Assistant State Auditor of Louisiana,
              had been an academic, and he was better acquainted with the recruiting
              potential at the schools. GAO began to emphasize that and the in-house
              training programs. The early ones were definitely modeled after the
              same programs in the public accounting firms.

              He stressed the need to develop relationships with the academic commu-
              nity in the area and recognized that GAO had~to make a long-term invest-
              ment in that.

              It was difficult to recruit at the universities. The public accounting firms
              were in a growth period. They were our natural competitors. GAO had to
              work very hard to get recruits.

              Herbert and his assistant, Ed Breen, with the support of the Washington
              groups, catapulted us into university relationships. As time went on,
              other competitive forces took effect. In reference to Dick’s conversation
              with Leo, I think our public-accounting-oriented types grudgingly
              accepted the ability of people from other disciplines to make a contribu-
              tion-but I believe the field organizations welcomed this earlier than the
              headquarters organizations.

              Page 46
              interview With Francis X Fee, Walter H.
              Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
              December 14.1989

              I can remember some of the kidding we got for hiring music majors to
              make audits. But, as Dick mentioned, this was nothing unique. We had
              gotten away from the attest function to a great degree. Those standards
              were no longer directly relevant to many of the things we did.

              It was really Staats who provided the great push there. Once we recog-
              nized that other disciplines could and should contribute and that our
              work was getting more complex, we began to recruit not only music
              majors but mathematicians and others.

              It wasn’t welcomed universally in the field, but I think those manag-
              ers-unable to recruit sufficient accountants, but having the work at
              hand-went out and developed some very good sources for recruiting
              people from other disciplines.

Dr. Trask     Did the regions do their own recruiting at this time?

Mr. Krieger   Yes.

Dr. Trask     And what role did Regional Managers play in that?

Mr. Krieger   You had a structure within the regional office. In the early days,
              Regional Managers-certainly      during the Campbell period-felt    they
              needed to have a direct involvement in that decision-making process
              because recruits were going to be exposed at the home office. The man-
              agers directly participated in the recruiting. I can remember visiting
              many universities.

              But, over time, Regional Managers developed training organizations and
              had training coordinators. The strategy was to send people who were
              graduates of individual institutions back to act as primary recruiters.
              We had some very creative programs-l-      or 2-day sessions for faculty
              from different institutions to expose them to our work. We had the early
              internship programs. These programs, I believe, have persisted to this

Dr. Trask     It sounds pretty much like what was going on here at headquarters in
              recruiting and training. Is it fair to say these activities were duplicated
              in the regions?

Mr. Fee       I think so. Certainly, by the time I got to Philadelphia and then went on
              to New York, this evolution to a multidisciplinary group was well
              entrenched within GAO.

              Page 47
                           Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
                           Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                           December 14,1989

                           I think we had business-related disciplines in the regions at that time.
                           We didn’t start breaking out of the business-related disciplines until the
                           program planning sessions, which we were talking about earlier, started
                           to evolve and get perfected. Once that happened, then the regions spot-
                           tily began to break out of that set of disciplines as well.

Mr. Krieger                One of the earliest groups of nonaccountants hired was the computer
                           folks, who were to create a capability to do our work via the computer.

Mr. Fee                    I was going to go back to the question as it relates to the efforts under
                           the different Comptrollers General. While I didn’t have much to do with
                           it at all when Mr. Campbell was here, Elmer Staats was instrumental in
                           transforming the staff from one purely of accountants to a multidis-
                           ciplined staff. He continued to push that through almost to the last day
                           he was here.

                           When Chuck Bowsher came, one of the first things he did as Comptroller
                           General was to ask questions about the capabilities of people and the
                           kinds of disciplines that we had, both in Washington and in the regions.
                           In fact, he was sworn in in the morning, and, that afternoon, he had a
                           session with ail the Regional Managers in Atlanta. Much of the focus of
                           that discussion was on the kind of people we had and what their train-
                           ing and development programs were. So he obviously has maintained
                           that as well. It has been fairly high up on his priority list.

Regional Grade Structure
Dr. Track                  What about the grade structure in the regional offices? Werner [Gross-
                           hans] told me yesterday that for a long time Al Clavelli as Regional Man-
                           ager of San Francisco was a grade 14. How did that change? Did the
                           regions feel that they were being cheated, for example, compared to
                           Washington in terms of grade and qualified people?

Mr. Fee                    I don’t remember when the Regional Managers were grades 14s and 15s.

Mr. Krieger                They were 13s at one time.

Mr. Fee                    When I got involved in it, they were at the supergrade level -grade    16.
                           In the early 1970s everyone was a grade 16.

                           Page 48
               interview With Francis X Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               Eventually, some were 16s and some were 17s. You began to see that
               grade creep up, at least at the Regional Manager level. It related to the
               size of the staff and the relative complexity of work of the particular

               The real crunch came at the 13 and 14 levels where the regions were
               somewhat more limited in the numbers of people they could have in
               those positions, depending on their responsibilities on particular jobs.
               The way the system worked in government, the folks in Washington,
               because they had more ultimate responsibility for the assignment, were
               able to justify a somewhat higher grade structure in relation to the top
               person. In the regions, because a lot of the work involved the execution
               of assignments and only limited overall reporting responsibilities, the
               grade structure tended to be somewhat lower.

               That always bothered the people in the regions. They couldn’t under-
               stand exactly why they couldn’t command a higher grade. But when you
               looked at their relative responsibilities, I’m not so sure that GAO could
               easily have justified too much of a higher grade structure than they had.

Mr. Krieger    Can I share an anecdote? You may remember the episode. You can go
               back in history and check it out.

               Mr. Campbell was testifying on the GAO appropriation act one year. I
               believe it was Albert Thomas, a very distinguished Representative from
               Texas, who asked how many supergrades GAO had in the regional
               offices. At that time, GAO had none. Campbell went back to the office
               and pursued the matter. As a result, Jim Rogers and I became the first
               two supergrades in the field. I was managing New York at the time.

               The sad aspect of that was that I outranked my boss, John Thornton. It
               wasn’t until I moved to Washington that John was promoted to a

Mr. Eschwege   Who provided that question to Albert Thomas?

Mr. Fee        The gentleman to my right [Hy Krieger].

Mr. Krieger    That’s the way history is often made. Mr. Thomas was a friend of the
               Office, of course, but I thought it was an interesting human issue there. I
               think I had enough involvement with both the regions and headquarters,
               having really grown up in Washington and the field. There were field
               offices with people in them who, I think, were capable of assuming as

               Page 49
             Interview With Fhncis K Fee, Walter H.
             Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
             December 14,1989

             great a burden as anybody in Washington. The challenge to the organi-
             zation has always been in creating those opportunities.

Mr. Fee      I agree with that. I didn’t mean my comment to be inconsistent with

Dr. Trask    What about the role of the Assistant Regional Managers? There were a
             few, I gather, in the earlier years. How did they fit into the management

Mr. Henson   This varied among the regions. In Philadelphia, I recall that Harry Ken-
             sky had a definite responsibility in the defense area. We found other
             regions where the Regional Manager was “the audit manager,” and the
             ARMS had to kind of carve out a niche for themselves. Dion Decker in
             Dallas concentrated on training, and he was very good at it. As for some
             of the other guys, we weren’t sure what they were doing, to be honest
             with you.

Mr. Fee      It was hard to justify and develop a grade structure above grade 14 in
             the region-especially the grade 15 level. It was relatively easy to jus-
             tify a supergrade position for the Regional Manager, because of the
             scope of responsibilities, the number of people supervised, and the geo-
             graphic area covered. It also was reasonably easy justifying a grade 14
             for an audit manager rurming multiple assignments. That ground in the
             middle [GS-151was very difficult to justify in either areas of responsibil-
             ity, as Dick is saying, or in the overall general management of a region.

             In talking about the general management of a region, maybe one person
             was needed to help the Regional Manager do that-especially  if you had
             125 or 150 auditors.

             As for the work load and functional responsibility, maybe one was eas-
             ily justified. Justifying that second one was harder.

             When the regions began to expand to two and then three Assistant
             Regional Managers, that’s when it was really difficult to provide a
             career ladder with any degree of certainty to it.

             Page 50
                         Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                         Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                         December 14,1989

Maintaining High Staff
Dr. Trask                One aspect of the human resources area that we want to talk about is
                         morale. I assume the problem of grade structure is one of the things that
                         affected morale, but what other problems were there regarding morale?
                         Were there things that were bothering staff in the regional offices?

Mr. Henson               I’d say the biggest factor was travel. This varied among regions. Week-
                         end returns home in many instances were just impossible. Each Regional
                         Manager tackled that differently because they had different territories,
                         different sizes of regions, and different concentrations of work.

                         I remember Boston and Norfolk-and      I think Seattle-did it one way.
                         We simply took a look at the cost to stay at the site and decided the
                         regions were geographically small enough that it would be economical to
                         bring the staff home on weekends. We would split the time: They’d
                         donate half of their own time, and we’d donate the other half by giving
                         them time off from work. That helped an awful lot.

                         When I got to Washington, I thought that was probably the one single
                         thing that I really wanted to tackle. We had a study made, and somehow
                         we did work it out.

Mr. Fee                  You’re right. You did spearhead that effort when you came to Washing-
                         ton. It was just a question of justifying it on a cost basis-the number of
                         days out of town versus the number of days back in town and the rela-
                         tive cost of returning home on weekends was worked out.

Mr. Henson               Costs of the loss of staff and the retraining of new staff were also

Mr. Fee                  That’s exactly right. We related it to the turnover of staff. If we could
                         cut down on our staff turnover through a more generous return-home
                         weekend policy, we’d be able to justify the additional cost. And, indeed,
                         that’s what happened. That one point, getting home on the weekend,
                         was the single biggest reason for losing people in certain regions. We
                         were able to demonstrate the benefit of allowing them to return home
                         every other weekend or whatever it was. Our turnover went way down.
                         I don’t recall the exact statistics right now, but the lower turnover easily

                         Page 51
              Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter E
              Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
              December 14,1989

              justified the additional cost. The group we worked with included mem-
              bers of the Office of the General Counsel. We had a very specific
              formula to satisfy.

Mr. Henson    Right. We had to ask for a Comptroller General’s decision.

Mr. Krieger   But you see, even in this area, we saw signs of a maturing organization. I
              think Werner alluded earlier to GAO'S Interior work and travel crews.
              When GAO was a younger organization, many of the individuals were
              single and had no problems being away from home for extended periods
              of time. Our Interior people might have left in February and not have
              returned until November. I can remember leaving Washington one year
              in April and not coming back until December. But I was young and sin-
              gle, and many of the regional offices were staffed with such people.

              As the staff matured and acquired families, it did become a problem.
              GAO did work out some very intelligent approaches to that.

Mr. Fee       One other area worth mentioning with respect to morale is the percep-
              tion by the field staff that the Washington staff accepted them or felt
              good about the work they were doing. To the degree that those compli-
              ments came and that recognition of involvement came, morale remained
              very high, and people could put up with the travel and the grade limita-
              tions as long as they thought they were part of a team.

              Once that broke down-or if it didn’t exist-then it became harder for
              people to justify in their own minds the extra hours they were devoting
              to the job.

Dr. Trask     Was there a particular time when, from the point of view of people in
              the regions, things like that looked better?

Mr. Fee       It was cyclical, to be honest with you. At the height of teams, as we
              talked earlier, it was at an all-time low for some people. The program
              planning process that we talked about in which the regional people came
              in and sat around the table with the Issue Area Manager and the staff
              here in Washington resulted in morale being at an all-time high. So
              morale tended to fluctuate depending upon how much involvement and
              participation people felt they had.

Dr. Trask     Is it fair to say that there was a time in GAO'S history when the people in
              the regions felt like they were second-class citizens? Is there any of that
              at the present time?

              Page 62
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Fee        The phrase “second-class citizens” was thrown around at times. My rec-
               ollection of it is that it was thrown around more at the time of the teams
                debate than at any other time. It depended on who you were whether
               you felt that way. A grade 14 in a region who was a Team Leader on a
               job or even a Team Director thought that was the greatest thing in the
               world. He got rid of that hierarchy that sometimes got in his way in the
               region, and he was dealing directly with an Associate Director in Wash-
               ington. His or her morale was reasonably high at that point in time.

               The morale of the management in the regions, however, was really low
               at that time. So it did depend a bit on who you were or what position
               you held.

Mr. Krieger    But, over time, it seems to me the critical issue has been and continues to
               be that the range of opportunities in a small operation-and even a lOO-
               to 150-person operation-is self-limiting. As Henry mentioned, one-third
               of the work force is in 14 regional offices, and two-thirds of the work
               force is here in Washington. Inevitably, there is a maximization of
               opportunities here. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Frank, Dick,
               myself, and others in trying to inject a degree of realism, the field people
               didn’t always take advantage of opportunities to come to Washington.

               I can recall many times encouraging people to consider the risks and the
               benefits involved in moving to another location. Inevitably, that was a
               factor that weighed more heavily on field people than it did on the
               Washington staff. As far as my knowledge, there was always the option
               for talented people to move within the organization.

Mr. Eschwege   That was subject to the limitation of travel funds, which arose every
               now and then, and the cost of living in Washington was higher than in
               some of the regions, like Texas.

Mr. ICrieger   I can remember that when there was a standing joke in MID that FOD had
               a rotation program, it was Hy Krieger moving.

Mr. Fee        It certainly sounded that way.

Mk Krieger     But those opportunities were available to everybody. Also, looking at it
               in an even-handed fashion, there were morale issues. Frankly, I just did
               not believe that they were beyond the capability of either the local man-
               agers or the people involved to solve for themselves.

               Page 63
                 interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                 Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                 December 14,1989

Mr. Grosshans    I’d like to get into a slightly different area, that of dealing with the
                 responsibilities that we gave our younger people. For example, when
                 some of us came through the ranks as grades 7 through 9, we ran assign-
                 ments. We even testified. We were assigned to committees. I testified as
                 a GS-9. We don’t have that today. We’ve gotten more structured, and a
                 lot of that is appropriate. We look to 13s and 14s to be EICS [Evaluators-

                 I remember a lot of people in the regions were very, very unhappy that
                 they didn’t get some of those opportunities and responsibilities when
                 they felt they were ready.

                 Did you sense any of those concerns as we moved towards the current

Mr. Henson       I guess I can’t speak from a fieldwide perspective, so I’ll have to speak
                 from my experience in Seattle, New Orleans, and Norfolk.

                 I think when we had lead region assignments or when we worked on a
                 single finding, I can’t recall that people felt they were second-class

                 On the other hand, not having that kind of work had a very definite
                 effect. The Washington Regional Office was established basically to
                 assist work at the Washington level so that the field wouldn’t have to
                 send their staffs to headquarters so often. Well, Don Scantlebury imme-
                 diately discovered that his staff wanted to have lead region jobs, too. So
                 what we ended up with was a region in Washington that operated like
                 any other region.

Mr. Fee          I guess, Werner, there were some of those concerns that you raised as we
                 began to change. Some of the opportunities that we were thrown into
                 and capitalized on and were fortunate to have didn’t appear as often as
                 perhaps they once did. As a result, not everybody had those same

                 My sense was, at least towards the end of FOD'S existence as we were
                 getting away from teams and back into a normal operating structure,
                 that wasn’t a big problem. It was there and people talked about it, but it
                 at least didn’t seem at the time, as I try to recall it, to be a major issue.

Mr. Grossharts   One other area falls into this category. You alluded to the fact that some
                 of those who were Team Leaders and Team Directors really liked that. I

                 Page 64
                Interview With Francis X Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

                also know that some of the folks who were audit managers before and
                were thrown into these new categories didn’t particularly appreciate
                that. A lot of them-particularly at the 14 level-really  struggled with
                that changing role.

Mr. Fee         I agree with that. I think your assessment is correct. Dick had mentioned
                earlier that he favored the audit manager role as the highest and best
                use of that level of person. When we asked audit managers to run one
                job and/or a primary job and maybe also take on a collateral duty, they
                had a very difficult time. I would literally spend hours talking to people
                in the different regions when I was Director about how they were coping
                with that.

                They felt that lessening the number of things that they could contribute
                to at any given point lessened their value to the organization. We had
                hoped, however, that by lessening the number of things they had to tend
                to, they could give more attention to the assigned work and get it done
                quicker and better. There clearly was a difference of opinion among the
                management and the staff on that point. I don’t think it ever went away.
                I don’t think we ever convinced traditional audit managers that the pain
                they were going through was really good for them.

Mr. Grosshans   Do you think the fact that we didn’t apply that across the board hurt
                us? Dick mentioned already that in some regions they still used audit
                managers. They may have given them a different title, but they still
                used them in somewhat that capacity. Other regions strictly imple-
                mented the teams role, causing some of the folks who were looking
                across the regional boundaries to say: “Gee, they still have the good life.
                We have to be satisfied with one job.” I’m curious whether you had any

Mr. Henson      There was an awful lot of discussion about that. Conrardy started the
                project manager role in the mid- to late 1960s so the staff in Seattle was
                used to leading a project and had been used to that for years. Irwin
                [D’Addario] implemented it when he went to Denver, and I remember
                talking to him about this at some length.

Mr. Fee         Yes. I ran into it a lot; the inconsistency among and between the regions
                and Washington during that era was a real morale problem. We didn’t
                have an easy answer. Some regions were trying to implement the policy
                we laid down and implement the guidelines, and they were taking the
                heat for trying to do it. Others were able to branch out in small ways to
                mitigate the impact of that and either were allowed to get away with it

                Page 55
                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter R
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

                or were able to get away with it because we couldn’t oversee everything
                that was happening. That caused a great deal of dissension and concern
                at times among people at the same grade level and across organizational

                The other point worth noting is that that was a double-edged sword.
                There were some people who were really given an opportunity to
                achieve in their new GS-14 role because they could do one thing very
                well as opposed to being able to do nine things very well. So some people
                did benefit from it, but I say that only to provide a bit of balance to that
                issue. I don’t think that’s intended to override the fact that the vast
                majority of the grade 14s in the regions disagreed with that particular

Mr. Grosshans   I looked at it more from a standpoint of their quality of life. They had
                achieved a certain status, and all of a sudden they were back running
                assignments like they were at the grade 11,12, or 13 level.

Mr. Fee         That’s a good point.

Mr. Krieger     There was a heavy human cost, unfortunately. I certainly do hope we
                recovered from that many years ago. But Werner’s point is important.
                These people had been aspiring for many years to get to the point where
                they could spread themselves around and get involved in a number of
                jobs; it gave them options that other people didn’t have.

Mr. Fee         In retrospect, I think we did underestimate that point. Again, we were
                trying to implement the concept as it was laid out by the task force and
                as the Comptroller General wanted it done. In doing it, we pushed that
                point. I think we clearly underestimated the impact.

Mr. Krieger     I realize we’re talking about the field organization, but I always thought
                the problem was in Washington, rather than in the field.

                I can still remember-and Henry, correct me if I am wrong-people say-
                ing: “I’m managing 60 or 70 assignments” or some absurd number like
                that. We just wondered, if you’re managing that much, are you really
                managing anything? That was seen as a badge of honor back in Wash-
                ington, so it wasn’t surprising that, on a smaller scale, it was a measure
                used also in the field.

Mr. Henson      Also, when we limited the audit managers in the field to a single assign-
                ment, we didn’t see the same thing happening in Washington-or      at

                Page 66
                   Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                   Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                   December 14,1989

                   least not to any great degree. We had GS-14s still running more than one
                   job in Washington. Now the field could look at it and honestly and cor-
                   rectly say: “Look what they did to us, but they didn’t do it to the other
                    side.” That had a big affect on morale.

Mr. Fee            That was a tough one.

Hiring Women and
Dr. Trask          There is one other aspect of human resources that we need to at least
                   mention and that is the effort to create a healthy EEO [equal employment
                   opportunity] environment-hiring     women and minorities. Did that cre-
                   ate problems for the regions? How was that handled by the regions?

Mr. Hertson        I’d like the record to clearly show this because I have heard it said that
                   we, as an Office, didn’t really start trying to hire minorities-and,  more
                   specifically, blacks-until    about 1974 or so. That just wasn’t so.

                   Leo Herbert came to us in New Orleans in 1966. First, he had me iden-
                   tify all of the predominantly black colleges. He and I went to every one
                   of those schools and talked to the presidents, got to know the placement
                   officers, and, starting that fall, began to actively recruit.

                   We weren’t all that successful because we simply could not pay enough
                   money. At that time, the big corporations like IBM were out hiring the
                   top people. We did hire a few minorities in those days, but they were
                   hard to find. So we were trying, and I’m sure that was happening else-
                   where in the field because I know Leo went out to the other regions for
                   the same purpose.

Mr. Fee            Yes. By the early 1970s the Office had begun to change the makeup of
                   its work force from a predominantly white male organization to one that
                   had women and minorities as well. And I think that objective, as laid out
                   in the civil rights legislation and as implemented by people like Leo Her-
                   bert, Elmer Staats, and later Chuck Bowsher, was reasonably well
                   accepted. I didn’t sense at the time any great animosities or resentments
                   about trying to change the work force.

                   We occasionally had some problems when it was perceived that someone
                   was promoted to a GS-13 or a GS-14 position in the regions or a GS-14 or

                   Page 67

                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

                a GS-15 position in Washington because the individual was a woman or a
                minority. That was just something we had to deal with. We always knew
                we had the support of senior management of the Office in doing so, so
                we were able to carry it out. But, throughout GAO, I didn’t see it as a
                very disruptive thing during that entire period. I think it was handled
                reasonably well.

                We had a program that dealt with functional racism. The message of the
                functional racism program was a good one. Its implementation failed ter-
                ribly, and that affected the regions more than Washington.

                Stu McElyea was a strong supporter of equal opportunity and of trying
                to build the right type of organization, but its implementation fell so
                short that it caused a great deal of anxiety and discussion within the
                field structure. Once we went back to a program of affirmative action
                and equal opportunity, the issue settled down again.

Mr. Krieger     I share your views, but I would add that, from my perspective, the field
                organization was in the forefront of many of these efforts. We were
                working in different communities and areas and felt strongly about the
                necessity to pursue affirmative action. We may not have been as aggres-
                sive as we should or could have been. But we were aware of affirmative
                action and working at it, and it was happening.

                As a matter of fact, in managing an organization in the Los Angeles area,
                it would have been foolish not to try to avail ourselves of the total
                resources of the Hispanic community and actively seek out people.

Mr. Fee         And, in fact, you accomplished that.

Mr. Grosshans   I want to echo what you said. I think we did the same thing in San Fran-
                cisco. But one area of some concern was the impact of extended travel
                and the introduction of women auditors to GAO. Was that a concern? In
                retrospect, it didn’t prove to be a big one.

Mr. Henson      We did have some problems, but they were fairly isolated. Some of the
                wives objected very much to their husbands being sent out on the road
                with other women, but I think that was just a question of their getting
                used to it.

Mr. Krieger     That was the initial shock.

                Page 58
                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

Mr. Henson      I don’t want to name any names, but there was an instance in which one
                young lad ended up divorcing his wife and marrying the auditor.

Mr. Krieger     But you’re talking about life. That’s a cross section of life.

Mr. Fee         I think it was a relatively short-lived problem. As the work force began
                to change and everyone recognized that, the concern disappeared.

Mr. Grosshans   What helped was that we had some very good candidates. Mary Nobel in
                San Francisco was one of the first women auditors; she is now the Assis-
                tant Auditor General of California. She was just super and that really

Mr. Krieger     Candidly, that’s what I thought was the great value. Not only were these
                people scarce human resources we needed, but. they injected a degree of
                competition that had been lacking in the past.

Mr. Henson      And it was quite pleasant to all of the sudden find that we could hire
                these top-quality people.

Role of FOD
Mr. Eschwege    We’ve already talked quite a bit about FOD, but. I want to tie up some
                loose ends. Maybe this is directed towards Hy more than the others
                because I’m trying to pinpoint how that division functioned before Stu
                McElyea took over.

                Here was a division of about three or four people in Washington trying
                to manage the operations in the field. Now, you have previously said
                that you, as Regional Managers, had certain direct lines to the Comptrol-
                ler General and that you worked directly with the Washington audit
                divisions. What was left for FOD to do? Hy, you were the Deputy Director
                at the time?

Mr. Krieger     Right. John Thornton had an extraordinary ability to break problems
                down into their simplest components and solve them on the spot. With
                John, you generally didn’t have to wait 2 or 3 weeks to get a decision.

                Page 59

               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Eschwege   Are these problems that arose between the divisions and the Regional

Mr. Krieger    The whole panorama. When you’ve got thousands of people in your
               organization, you have a geometric number of problems, ranging from
               the personal problems of an individual to the most complex interrela-
               tionship problems. I’d like to think that maybe I even helped John in this
               regard. You might start out in the morning with a laundry list of con-
               cerns that had been conveyed to you, and you’d just walk down the hall,
               stop in and see people, and get them resolved. It was a simple and direct
               kind of operation. John’s guidance helped me in that, over the years, I
               committed very little to writing; if you didn’t record it, it wouldn’t come
               back to you. I know it is a problem for historians, but we generally
               tended, for better or worse, to solve the problem right then and there. It
               didn’t hang over us.

Mr. Eschwege   So you were a problem-solving organization? Did you get at all involved
               in the technical aspects and the substance of the work?

Mr. Krieger    Well, Field Operations Memorandum Number One-

Mr. Eschwege   I am more interested in how you did it in practice. I know Stu did it
               differently, and Frank did it differently than John.

Mr. Krieger    Well, John and I were different. People sometimes used to make the
               same nasty comments about me that I heard them make about Frank.
               Having grown up doing audit work and fancying that I had some knowl-
               edge of what it was all about, I tended to intrude more than I probably
               should have. But yes, we got involved. The fact that we were operating
               as a headquarters element and were the link between the region and the
               home office didn’t keep me from doing that. John occasionally used to
               chide me about it, but he generally let me do whatever was sensible.

Mr. Eschwege   That was true of the Regional Managers, too.

Mr. Krieger    Right. It was a very informal, one-on-one kind of operation. You must
               remember that at one time John managed that whole operation by him-
               self with one secretary, Kay Chaconas. He had incredible recall. He was
               just an individual with rare talent.

               Page 60

               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               I used to chide John about having a better knowledge of the work than
               most people in the organization, but he would tend to refrain from get-
               ting involved directly in the technical issues unless they were of such
               magnitude that he felt he had to.

Mr. Eschwege   But as one of you mentioned earlier, you did get, of course, into budget-
               ing and staff resource questions. What about questions such as, “Do we
               still need this suboffice?” Or, “How big should Chicago be in terms of
               staff resources?” What did you do about it, if a regional office was too

Mr. Krieger    That was constantly under review by John in his travels. If you read the
               trip reports, you will see that we were raising these questions regularly.
               Should St. Paul be a regional office or a suboffice? Should New Orleans
               be an office? Did we need an operation in Syracuse?

               We would generally discuss it with the managers. Typically, it would be
               a rare Regional Manager who would be comfortable with closing an
               office-or even a reduction in staff. I see Werner grinning at me. I know
               of the rivalry between the San Francisco and Los Angeles offices.

Mr. Eschwege   I was going to bring it up if you didn’t.

Mr. Krieger    The popular perception is that, once they moved me out to Los Angeles,
               the fulcrum swung the other way because Hal Ryder [Regional Manager,
               Los Angeles] was constantly complaining about Clavelli [Regional Man-
               ager, San Francisco]. When I got out there, there were no complaints.

Mr. Eschwege   San Francisco was a federal city designated by OMB [Office of Manage-
               ment and Budget], right?

Mr. Krieger    Right.

Mr. Eschwege   I always thought it would have been easier to move the federal city to
               Los Angeles than to make peace between GAO'S San Francisco and Los
               Angeles offices.

Mr. Krieger    Well, my thesis at that time-which I think you folks are going to have
               to look at in the future-is that that area is going to be the center of the
               universe. Eventually, the Pacific rim, the real fulcrum, will be not only
               the center of population but of literally everything.

Mr. Eschwege   It might even be the center of an earthquake.

               Page 61

               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

Mr. Fee        One day, Los Angeles might even be where San Francisco is.

Mr. Krieger    But, in any event, I recall Mr. Campbell raising these questions. I recall
               Elmer Staats wanting responses. While the nature of GAO'S work was
               criticizing other organizations, we generally saved our most searching
               criticism for each other and our own operation. Would you agree with

Mr. Fee        Absolutely, I agree with that.

Mr. Henson     As for the role of John and FOD, I and most of the other Regional Manag-
               ers-not all of them-made it a point to talk to John about once a week.
               He liked to be kept informed. We would often talk to him and get his
               advice, if not consent, on some move or change we were about to make.

               Many, many times, I called either John or Hy when I had a problem,
               whether it involved a job, an individual in Washington, or another

               Now, if you multiply that time spent with one region with similar
               efforts in the other 18 regions (which we had when I was in New Orle-
               ans), you’re talking about a big chunk of time. It was a very necessary

Mr. Fee        I think it changed later.

Mr. Eschwege   That’s why I confined it to that earlier period. Would I be wrong in say-
               ing that it was a useful operation as a sounding board and problem-
               solving organization, but it wasn’t what you might call an authoritative
               division directing Regional Managers every week or two to do this, that,
               and the other thing?

Mr. Henson     John’s style was not to direct or tell. He had the authority; he could
               have. But he didn’t exercise it that way. He gave you his thinking.

Mr. Krieger    But he was respectful and mindful of the roles of the other Division
               Directors. Frankly, when he chided me occasionally it was because he
               felt I was getting into areas of responsibility of the operating divi-
               sions-that it was these divisions that had the final say on the issue, its
               significance, its prosecution, and so on. He had a clear line of demarca-
               tion regarding the institutional aspects of the regions-why they were
               there, what they were supposed to do, the personnel they had, and so
               forth. He believed that the technical work of the regions-he could tell

               Page 62

                       Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                       Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                       December 14,1989

                       you this better than I-was           really the responsibility of the operating

Rotation of Regional
M r. Eschwege          There was one directive that did come down from M r. Staats. He wanted
                       the Regional Managers to rotate every 8 years. I think John had the
                       responsibility for implementing that. How did that work out?

M r. Krieger           They never had any problem with me.

M r. Henson            I don’t think that was ever implemented. A few of us did move. I moved
                       four times-probably more than that. I’m trying to remember.

M r. Fee               W e kept it going. The part of the policy that we didn’t stay with, as a
                       hard and fast rule, was the &year term. At times, it was shorter than
                       that to accommodate a particular personal situation. Sometimes it made
                       sense to extend it to 9 years rather than move someone again who was
                       going to retire. But in the tim e that I was in FODwe moved almost

M r. Krieger           I think you bore the brunt of it.

M r. Fee               Yes, I did; I moved a lot of people. Jim Hall eventually retired; that took
                       10 years.

                       Bill Conrardy in San Francisco eventually retired. Tim [McCormick] went
                       out there. But one of the reasons that Bill retired was that we said,
                       “Your tim e is up.” Dick, you went out to Seattle about the same tim e I
                       came in.

                       It was tim e to move Irwin D’Addario in Dallas. W e were fortunate he
                       wanted to go back to the Northwest, so we were able to accommodate
                       him. Jim Martin replaced him there. Dave Hanna went from Kansas City
                       to Denver. In any event, we moved a lot of people around. So it wasn’t a
                       hard-and-fast rule, Henry, but it happened.

MY.Eschwege            But we got the feeling that some Regional Managers did retire rather
                       than rotate.

                       Page 63
                           Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                           Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                           December 14,1989

Mr. Fee                    Yes. Charlie Moore, Bill Conrardy, and Jim Hall did retire rather than

Rationale for Abolishing   The one area that we didn’t touch on that might be worth commenting
                           on for our record is the demise of FOD. We might comment on how at
FOD                        least the three of us felt about that because I was the Director at the
                           time that decision was made, and Dick was a Regional Manager.

Mr. Krieger                I was gone.

Mr. Fee                    But recently gone. Let me make a comment, and I’m be interested in how
                           the other fellows feel about it.

                           When Chuck Bowsher came in and began to look at the organization and
                           its environment, that is, the demands placed on him by the Congress and
                           a changing U.S. and congressional environment, in particular, he felt he
                           needed a somewhat different organizational structure than had existed
                           for several years.

                           We spent a great deal of time talking about FOD, what it contributed to
                           the overall organization, what its role was, and whether it should con-
                           tinue. We literally had hours of discussion and debate among a lot of
                           people about the best way to use the resource that was out there.

                           Chuck’s idea-and I think his organizational sense about it-was that
                           we should integrate the two operations, so that people would not be
                           talking about Washington and the field but about how best to get GAO'S
                           work done.

                           I supported the concept. The demise of FOD to me was natural. I thought
                           it was the right time and was appropriate. It was just another step in a
                           continuum of change that had taken place during the whole period that
                           we have been talking about. So I was in favor of it, and I spent the next
                           3 years trying to make all of that work.

                           There was a down side to it, clearly-that   loss of identity on the part of
                           the regions. They were organizational entities unto themselves and not
                           tied in any organizational sense but 1 of 22 - or whatever the number
                           was - organizational elements of GAO. They lost, I think, that voice in
                           Washington that was one role of the Director of FOD: trying to solve
                           problems, smooth relationships, and square away the alignment of

                           Page 64
                          Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                          Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                          December 14,1989

                          That had a negative effect on a lot of people, and it probably still is
                          evolving. People probably still feel that we should have kept a strong
                          KID, but at least it was my sense at the time that, given the evolution of
                          GAO'S role and the way Chuck was working to accomplish that, the two
                          separate operations really were incompatible.

                          So, from where I sat at that time, that’s how it looked to me.

Mr. Krieger               In all candor, having been there at the birth of FOD but not at its
                          demise-although I still have a little difficulty with that word-1 have
                          no reservations about what you just said. I think it probably was time to
                          realign the organization.

                          I believe organizations are living creatures, and they need to be modified
                          and to adapt to change. That’s what makes for survival. So I don’t have
                          any reservations. I hope we see more migration. If you’re going to have
                          integration, you’re not going to have a revolving door but movement. I
                          think you did a beautiful job just now of outlining the rationale.

Impact of
Dr. Trask                 On occasion, there have been some problems in the relationships
                          between GAO and the Congress, and we want to talk about two or three
                          of these briefly. One was the so-called zinc case in 1955 or the “zinc
                          stink,” as it is sometimes called. That had an impact, among other
                          things, on the Office of Investigations. Do you have any observations?

Demise of the Office of
Mr. Henson                Yes. We did a job at American Zinc, a company headquartered in St.
                          Louis. There was a factual error in our report. It had nothing to do with
                          the finding, but the contractor’s attorneys were able to take that and, in
                          congressional hearings chaired by Senator Stuart Symington from Mis-
                          souri, get it so turned around as to clobber us with it to the extent that
                          Joe Campbell had to make a public apology.

                          Page 66

                Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                December 14,1989

                One of the outcomes was the demise of the Office of Investigations,
                which probably made a lot of sense anyway because of the change in
                direction that the Office had already initiated.

                Another outcome of that was the introduction of the referencing pro-
                cess. We made a factual error in that report because it had not been
                reviewed for accuracy by someone not involved in the assignment. So we
                established a procedure whereby someone not associated with a job
                looked at the supporting evidence to verify the facts, and raise ques-
                tions as necessary.

M r. Krieger    Could I respectfully clarify that? Referencing was part of GAO'S culture
                as far back as 1946, but the Office of Investigations didn’t apply it.

M r. Henson     Oh, is that it? Okay.

M r. Krieger    But the audit divisions had referencing; that was a requirement.

M r. Henson     But wait a m inute. Referencing was introduced in Seattle only after I
                joined the Seattle office in February 1957. I suspect we had a sometimes
                procedure that was institutionalized Office-wide after the zinc case

M r. Krieger    Well, I can speak for Washington.

M r. Eschwege   That goes to show how independent Seattle was.

M r. Krieger    Seriously, that was, as you say, a traumatic experience.

Dr. Trask       At least in part, Campbell blamed that on the Office of Investigations,
                but were there other problems with the Office of Investigations? Did
                something else enter into the decision to abolish Investigations?

M r. Henson     Not to my knowledge. I thought they were doing a fair job. I know they
                had some good people, for example, Fred Thompson, whom I knew very
                well. Bill Ellis, the Director, had a good reputation.

M r. Krleger    They were exceptional people. The Office of Investigations really had
                become an anachronism at that time. It had lost its function. Most of its
                work was being done on audits of post offices and commissaries; they
                actually did the early corporation audit work. When the Corporation
                Audits Division was established, it did whatever work the Office of

                Page 66
               Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               Investigations had been doing under the Government Corporation Con-
               trol Act.

               I recall going over and getting from Investigations the earlier
               workpapers of some of the government corporations that we were work-
               ing on during that period.

Mr. Eschwege   Did they have CPAS?

Mr. Krieger    Sure. They had some-Frank Matchet, S. B. Tulloss-were        a couple of
               the old-timers who worked there.

               By 1955, Investigations had some very talented people, but it really
               didn’t have a mission any longer. Even though our credentials said we
               should investigate expenditures, the function didn’t exist, and we were
               just tying up ends of things. We were still going to post offices and
               counting the stamps and cash and doing cash accountability work.

               I happened to be working on the GSA [General Services Administration]
               stockpile at the time, where a major problem was the lack of coordina-
               tion between the people on the audit side in GSA and the Office of Inves-
               tigations. The decision was made that the functions needed to be

               It made for some very tense times. I believe Bill Ellis left shortly there-
               after to go with the Federal Power Commission. Bill certainly was and is
               a very talented individual. The change freed up some resources for the
               audit area.

Dr. Trask      Apparently, a lot of investigators were absorbed by the regions, weren’t
               they? Were they well received? Could they be integrated?

Mr. Henson     It was a mixed bag. We were able to convert some of them to auditors. In
               part, it became a problem of being able to certify them as auditors. Some
               of the more talented investigators moved to Washington or to other
               agencies all over the country.

               Those who were converted eased into the job fairly well. I don’t recall
               any real problems.

Dr. Trask      Another related event occurred about the same time-the so-called
               “Lipscomb” report was released. Congressman Glenard P. Lipscomb of
               California held hearings on GAO'S operations; Campbell testified. As a

               Page 67

                            Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                            Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                            December 14,1989

                            matter of fact, the Lipscomb report recommended abolishing the Office
                            of Investigations, which Campbell had already decided to do by the time
                            the report was released. Partly as a result of that report, GAO'S Account-
                            ing Systems Division was also abolished. Did that have any impact on
                            the regional structure?

Accounting Systems Work
and Labor Rackets Probe
M r. Krieger                Not really. That was more of a Washington issue. There were actually
                            two competitive forces at each of the major Washington job sites-the
                            good guys and the bad guys. The Accounting Systems people were condi-
                            tioned to working in a very constructive way with the agency and trying
                            to encourage them to improve their systems. The audit people were out
                            there trying to describe how poorly things were going. So there was
                            some tension there. Relations improved when we didn’t have GAO repre-
                            sented by as many as two or three different groups responding to differ-
                            ent stimuli from Washington.

                            One event with regard to the Office of Investigations is maybe being
                            overlooked. Almost at the same time that Investigations was abolished,
                            we had heavy demands placed on us to assist in the labor rackets probe.
                            For the first 2 or 3 years from about 1956 to 1959, the hearings by Sena-
                            tor John McClellan and his assistants, including Bobby Kennedy and
                            Pierre Salinger, were sort of living with us. As a Regional Manager, I
                            found the investigators to be very responsive to the work that needed to
                            be done. They were a significant resource in helping us meet the McClel-
                            lan Committee demands.

M r. Henson                 They sure were.

The Holifield Hearings of
Dr. Trask                   There is one other event that we can’t pass over in this interview,
                            because it was, in some respects, the most traumatic event in GAO'S his-
                            tory and that was the Holifield hearings of 1965. I am particularly inter-
                            ested in what you have to say, if anything, about the impact of the
                            Holifield hearings and recommendations on the regions, Among other

                            Page 68

               Interview With J?nncis X. Fee, Walter H.
               Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
               December 14,1989

               things, Defense contract auditing was by and large suspended, and that
               probably had some impact.

Mr. Henson     We continued to do contract audits for awhile after the Holifield hear-
               ings, but Elmer Staats came aboard and he favored and introduced the
               concept of programwide or broad-based reviews. As we began to move
               into that concept, individual contract audits and reports really were no
               longer appropriate. Although I’ve heard it said often that we backed off
               from contract auditing because of the Holifield hearings, I don’t believe
               that at all. I think we were going to do it anyway because that was not
               the Elmer Staats approach. Elmer Staats wanted broad-based auditing,
               and, if he wanted to get into a procurement problem, he’d sample a
               bunch of contracts as opposed to doing a single contract audit.2

               So I think that’s really what happened then, at least from my perspec-
               tive. Ironically enough, over the years, we lost all that contract audit
               expertise, and, when I left the Seattle Regional Office, we were in the
               process of reeducating some people to regain that expertise.

Dr. Trask      Any other comments on the Holifield hearings?

n’k. Fee       It was a little bit before my time. I was only at                 GAO    a couple of years at
               the time.

 lr. Krieger   I don’t know whether anybody has brought up the following issue-our
               policy of personal accountability and identification of the individuals
               involved in that process was an issue. Campbell was a great believer in
               personal accountability and moved us in the direction of identifying peo-
               ple specifically involved with transactions. That contributed to the
               intense emotions on the part of DOD [Department of Defense] and its con-
               stituency and helped to generate those hearings.

               ‘Elmer Staata pointed out in his oral history interview (GAO/OP-l-OH, Spring 1987) two events
               which influenced the changes in approach to GAO audits of defense contracts. The enactment of the
               Truth in Negotiations Act in substance said if there is an arms-length negotiation between govern-
               ment and a contractor, placing all the facts and all the costs on the table, then the contract would not
               be subject to challenge and a request for reimbursement to the government. Also, the establishment of
               the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DC&Y) raised a question whether GAO should try to duplicate
               the work of DGAA. Staats noted that GAO’s audits continued, but they were done in the context of
               ensuring that the Truth in Negotiations Act was being enforced and that DCAA was doing its job

               Page 69
                     Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                     Henson, and Hyma.n L. Krieger
                     December 14,1989

Reflections on GAO
Dr. Trask            Our time is just about expired, but we’d like to give each of you a minute
                     or so to reflect on your GAO career and talk about your accomplishments,
                     disappointments, unfinished business, or whatever.

Mr. Henson           Well, if I am to talk about disappointments, I guess one has to be the
                     inability to raise the professional level and quality of the staff in New
                     Orleans. I would still be down there trying to do that, but John Thornton
                     saw that the problems were just too great to overcome and he knew
                     exactly what he was doing when he closed the regional office.

                     On the other hand, what I enjoyed the most and felt the best about was
                     being able to do just that with the Norfolk staff. Al Strazzulo [prior
                     Regional Manager, Norfolk] had already hired good people, and it
                     became a kind of building-block process. He had already started recruit-
                     ing some very strong people, and I was able to go on from there. I felt-
                     of course, we all felt this about our regions-that Norfolk was the
                     strongest of the regional staffs.

                     To be candid, if I had it to do over again, and if I knew then what I know
                     now, I don’t know if I’d come to work for the government. I’m not talk-
                     ing about GAO, I mean the government.

                     Over the years, the Congress has just bashed the federal civil servant
                     and the retirement benefits in every way it can-we are forever fighting
                     to keep what we have. For example, right now, we don’t know what is
                     going to happen to our health coverage. In all probability, we will end up
                     under Medicare with severely reduced health coverage. There has just
                     been so much of that over the past 12 years that I don’t think I could
                     recommend that a young person go to work for the government today. In
                     my view, the government simply has not honored the contract we
                     entered into when I came to work for GAO.

Mr. Krieger          Well, I may have blinders on, but I’m going to walk the other side of the
                     road. I’m ready to sign up for another 40 years.

                     Frankly, I always looked upon my involvement with GAO as kind of a
                     continuous educational experience. I’m sure I got more than I gave, but I
                     was impressed by the people, the work, the basic mission. I guess I was

                     Page 70
          Interview With Fra.ncis X Fee, Walter H.
          Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
          December 14,1989

          in a group that was indoctrinated early in the process regarding the pur-
          pose of the organization and I sort of went along with it. I hope the peo-
          ple today have that sense of-I’ll use a bad word-romance or
          excitement that we had when I was growing up. It is largely a manage-
          ment function to inspire the organization with a sense of discovery and
          something new.

          When I look back on my career, I’m sure there were other things I might
          have enjoyed as well, but I can’t think of any. I would have certainly
          gone down the same path.

Mr. Fee   I really don’t have any regrets whatsoever about the time that I spent
          with GAO. I enjoyed my career tremendously. I enjoyed every assignment
          that I had, whether it was in Washington or in the regions. I just found it
          to be a great place to work with a great group of people. I enjoyed some
          challenges more than others, but the less enjoyable ones were just some-
          thing to deal with.

          But in terms of the things I did and the people I met and had the oppor-
          tunity to work with, both in Washington and in the regions, and to the
          extent that I helped this organization change over the time that the
          three of us spent in it, it was really interesting and rewarding.

          I understand Dick’s comment with respect to a long-term career in gov-
          ernment. That’s something that perhaps we won’t see too much of as
          time goes by. I think it is more a function of the times we live in and that
          several presidents have made adverse comments about the civil service
          in their political campaigns. That has tremendously hurt the ability of
          the government to attract and retain highly qualified people; that is

          Yet, if I were counseling someone on a career path today, I’d clearly
          counsel them to spend some part of that career in government.

          I think that it is worthwhile and, in fact, I sense in the country at least a
          willingness on the part of young people to spend some of their career
          doing it. Whether it is a long-term career for people like it used to be, I
          don’t know. I think that will change from time to time, and it certainly
          depends upon the person.

          As long as this organization continues to work on the issues that are in
          the forefront of what is important and what is happening in this coun-
          try and the world, GAO can take on highly capable and qualified people

          Page 71

                 Interview With Francis X. Fee, Walter H.
                 Henson, and Hyman L. Krieger
                 December 14,1989

                 and challenge them. There is no doubt in my m ind about that. But, in
                 doing so, we have to be m indful of the things we have talked about
                 today-that is the impact of certain actions on people, how you chal-
                 lenge them, how you make them feel they are participating in the organ-
                 ization in which they spend a fair amount of their waking hours.

                 As long as we can do that, the government-and GAO-Can         continue to
                 attract people to meaningful and contributory careers. I always find it
                 unfortunate when I either hear about something happening in Washing-
                 ton or listen to people who are perhaps not as familiar with the govern-
                 ment structure as I a m that the capabilities of people in government are
                 questioned as though they were less than those of people in industry.

                 Yet, when I mention a person’s name or the things that government is
                 able to accomplish and the environment within which it accomplishes it,
                 it pretty much dissipates the argument fairly quickly. But that percep-
                 tion is something that, unfortunately, the leaders of the country have
                 contributed to, and it is going to take us a number of years to get around

                 I think Chuck Bowsher and the program that he started here and the
                 things we’ve been talking about and have all been working on for 20
                 years can help in that direction. I do find GAO an exciting place to be
                 associated with.

Dr. Track        Let m e just say, as GAO’S Historian, that you have helped to create for us
                 some significant additions to our record. It has been a very interesting
                 learning experience for me.

M r. Grosshans   W e appreciate your coming today. I think we had a good tim e remi-
                 niscing about some of the good old times. I appreciate the comments that
                 Frank just made. I think those are important comments because those of
                 us who have made a career in government have felt that maybe some
                 recent administrations have been a bit unfair.

M r. Eschwege    I want to thank all of you for coming and putting a further spotlight on
                 GAO’S field operations and the regional offices. I think the record of this
                 discussion is very much needed for our Historian to take into considera-
                 tion when he writes GAO’S history. W e may call upon some of you again
                 when we talk about other vital activities that you were involved in
                 while at GAO.

                 Page 72

Videotape Cross-Reference

              Tape1              Introduchon                                                                  00:00:55
                                 Bfographical      information                                                00:04.17
                                 Regional      Structure   Prior to 1956                                      00:18:33
                                 The Role of the Regional         Manager                                     00:39:30
                                 Changing       Relationships    Between       Field and Washington           00:59:28
                                 Field Participation       In Planning   and Staffing   Assignments           01,50:12
              Tape2              Developing       the Human Resources                                         02:16:32
                                 Role of FOD Headquarters                                                     03:02:56
                                 Impact of Congressfonal          Criticisms                                  03:15:38
                                 Reflections      on GAO Career                                               03:27.13
              The Table of Contents is reproduced above, followed by trme sequences on the vrdeotape The hme
              sequence indrcates the beginning of the drscussron of the particular topic on the videotape Users of
              this oral history are advised to consult the index for specific page references since these toprcs may
              appear In additional places in the transcrrpt.

              Page 73

A                                                          Eschwege, Henry,
Accounting Systems Division, 68                               v; comment on headquarters-field relations, 24; headquarters
Affirmative action IGAO hirina). 57-58                        awareness of field reaction to teams concept, 29-30; assist
;:aa,‘aGrgory    J., 34      -”                               regions in lead region framework, 42; rotation of Regional
                                                              Managers, 63
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, iv, 2            F
American Zinc, Lead, and Smelting Company, 65              Federal Executive Association (FEA), 14
Assignment planning and staffing, 3,22,24-26,30,35-41,52   Federal Government Accountants Association, 14
Atlanta Regional Office, 48                                Federal government professional associations, 13-I 5
Audit Manager role, 21-22,50,54-56                         Federal government service, 70-72
Audits, Division of, iv, 3                                 Federal Highway Administration, 2
6                                                          Federal Personnel and Compensation Division, iv, 4,21
Bailey, Charles M., 7                                      Federal Power Commission, 67
Bandy, G. Ray, 5,7                                         Federal Railroad Administration, 2
Becker. Huao. 38                                           Fee, Francis X.,
Bernstein, i;hiiip A., 23,42                                  biography, iii-iv, 2; education, 2; career summary, 2-3; comment on
Beta Alpha Psi, 5                                             Regional Managers as representatives of the Comptroller General,
Boeina Companv, 25                                            15; GAO’s promotion policy, 17-i 8; field-headquarters relations,
Bosto: Regibnaibffice, 3-4, 51                                19-22; comment on lead region concept, 23-24; his contact with
Bowsher. Charles A.. 2. 15-16.48. 57. 64.72                   headquarters during tenure as Regional Manager in Philadelphia
Breen, Ed, 5,46           ’                                   and New York, 25; teams concept rmplementation characterized,
British Columbia, 5                                           28-31; his role as Director, Field Operations Division, 30; handling
C                                                             of assignment staffing in New York Regional Office, 32; effect of
Campbell, Joseph, 3-4, 9, 10-17, 46-48, 62, 65-68, 69         move from teams to issue area management, 33, 37-39;
Canfield, Monte E., Jr., 39                                   competition among regions described, 41-42; staff recruitment,
Certified public accountant (CPA), 3,45,67                    47-48; regional grade structure, 48-50; travel and staff turnover,
Chaconas, Kay, 60                                             51; morale in the regions, 52-53; Audit Manager role, 55; impact of
Charam, Philip, 3, 30, 44                                     perceived inconsistent application of policy, 55-56; affirmative
Chicago Regional Office, iv, 3, 12, 61                        action efforts characterized, 57-58; role of the Regional Managers,
Cincinnati Regional Office, 10                                63; abolition of FOD described, 64-65; assessment of GAO, 71-72
City College of New York, 5                                Field-headquarters relations, 7, 18-21,24-26,29,31-41,52-53,55,59,
Civil Accounting and Auditing Division, 2                     62,64
Civil Division, 2, 37                                      Field Operations Division, iii, iv, 2, 6-8, 26, 28, 37-38, 59, 62, 64-65
Clavelli,.Alfred M., 26, 48                                Field Operations Memorandum Number One, 33,60
Columbra University, 13                                    Field operations prior to 1952, iii, 7
Comprehensive audit, 6-7,8-g                               Field staff grade structure, 17-18,48-50, 54-55, 57-58
Comprehensive Audit Manual, 8-9                            Finance centers (military), 10, 43
Congress,U S 19 4Y 64 bS                                   Financial issues, 38
Conrardy, William N., 6, 21, 256&7:2, 55, 63-64            Finley, Harry, 43-44
Contract audits, 8,68-69                                   “Fly-through” work by lead region staff, 42
Corporation audits, 8, 66                                  G
Corooration Audits Division, iv. 3. 6. 66                  General Services Administration, 3, 67
D                                                          Georgetown University, 3
D’Addario, Irwin, 6,21,55,63                               George Washington University, The, 5
Dallas Regional Office, 21                                 Grosshans, Werner,
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), 69n                     v; comment on GAO promotion policies, 17; regional marketing of
Defense, Department of, IO, 68-69                             ideas, 26; headquarters-field coordination on assignments, 38-39;
Defense Division, 25, 37                                      Charles Moore’s reaction to Harry Finley’s review of Detroit off ice,
Denver Regional Office, IO, 21, 54                            43-44; grade structure and staff responsibilities, 54-56; women
Detroit Regional Off ice, IO, 19-20                           auditors, 59; San Francisco Regional Office, 61
District office operations evaluation, 3                   H
Drakert, Robert, 23                                        Hall, James T., Jr., 63-64
E                                                          Hammond, James H., 25
Easton, MD, 30                                             Hanna, David A., 23, 63
Ellis, William L., 66-67                                   Heller, John D., 20


                                                Page 74

Henson, Walter H.,                                                          rivalrv. 61: Office of lnvestiaations characterized. 66-67: imoact of
    biography, iii, 5; education, 5; comment on the Corn rehensive             congressional labor rack%ts investigations, 68; Joseph Campbell’s
    Audit Manual, 8; payroll audits characterized, 1Ti7AXp5y
                                                         -                     belief in personal accountability characterized, 69; his assessment
    regarding tederal professional associations, 14-15; Regional               of GAO, 70-71
    Manager contact with headquarters, 15-17; Regional Manager              Krouse, Kurt, 7
    autonomy, 20; Audit Manager role characterized, 21-22;                  Krueger, William, 20
    programming of assignments described, 24; his aborted                   L
    investigation turned over to Boeing controller, 25; field-              Labor rackets investigations (Congress), 68
    headquarters relations, 26; assessment of the teams concept, 27;        Ladett, Mac, 20
    his role as FOD Deputy Director in teams implementation, 29;            Layton, Fred D., 20
    comments on Stuart McElyea’s handling of teams, 30-31; his              Lead region concept, 22-24,38,41-4454
    meeting with Werner Grosshans on Norfolk job review, 35;                Lioscomb. Glenard P.. 67-68
    Regional Manager role in job assignments, 35-36; competition            Lipscomb’report, 67-68
    among regional offices characterized, 42-43; staff recruiting in        Logan, Will, 6
    regions, 45; role of the Assistant Regional managers, 50; impact of     Lona. Robert. 3
    travel requirements on staff morale, 51; morale in regions              Losxngeles Regional Office, iv, 4, 58, 61
    characterized, 54; the Project Manager role characterized, 55;          Lowe, Victor, 20,36
    perception of differing standards in policy application, 57;
    affirmative action efforts described, 57-58; contact with John          M
    Thornton, 62-63; demise of the Office of Investigations, 65-67;         Madison, Richard, 7
    William L. Ellis characterized, 66; impact of Holifield hearings on     Management and Budget, Office of (OMB), 61
    contract audits, 69; his assessment of GAO career and federal           Martin, James D., 23,37,63
    service, 70                                                             Matchet, Frank, 67
Herbert, Leo, 5,44-46,57                                                    Minority hiring, 57
Hirschhorn, Max, 34                                                         Moore, Charles W., 7, 19-20,33,42-44,64
Holifield, Chet, 68-69                                                      Morale in the regions, 19, 28-29,51-53, 54-55
Holifield hearings of 1965, 68-69                                           Morris, Thomas D., 40
Houston, TX, 8                                                              Morse, Ellsworth H., Jr., 3,9
                                                                            Multidisciplinary hrring, 45-48
I                                                                           Murphy, Charles, 46
Illinois, 5
Illinois, University of, 5                                                  MC
Interior, Department of, 2, 7, 52                                           McClellan, John, 68
Investigations, Office of, iii, 7, 12, 65-68                                McCormick, Thomas P. (Tim), 23, 63
Issue area management, 22,33,38-39,41 I 52                                  McElyea, Stuart, 2, 6, 16, 30-31, 58, 59
                                                                            McQuillen, Thomas A., 34
Johnson, President Lyndon B., 8
                                                                            !ational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 8
K                                                                           National Science Foundation, 2
Kegel, Joseph W., 23                                                        Navy Cost Inspection Service, 46
Kennedv. Robert F.. 68                                                      New Deal, iii
Kensky,‘Harry, 50                                                           Newman, William A., 11,37
Korean War, 3,5,46                                                          New Orleans Regional Office, iv, 6, 8, 16, 21, 23,43,45, 54, 61-62, 70
Krieger, Hyman L.,                                                          New York Regional Office, iv, 2, 3, 12-13, 15,21,25,32,34,38,41,47
    biography, iii-iv; career summarized, 3-4; education, 5; creation of    Nobel, Mary, 59
    the Washington Regional Office described, 4; regional work prior        Norfolk Regional Office, iv, 6,8,21,23,35,    51, 54, 70
    to 1952, 7; result of his survey of military finance centers, 10-l 1;   Norfolk, VA, 14
    role of the Regional Manager characterized, 13-14; his role as          North Carolina, 5
    John Thornton’s Deputy, 16; his visits to field offices, 16-17; as      Northeast District (GAO), 4
    Director, Federal Personnel and Compensation Division, 21;
    comment on field-headquarters relationships, 23, 26; his reaction       P
    to Easton, MD, meeting of teams task force, 30; personnel               Payroll audits, 1O-12
    evaluation procedures characterized, 33-34; responsibilities of         Pensacola Naval Air Training Command, 43
    Regional Manager, 36; efforts to get field planning input               Permanent audit files, 9
    described, 40; Charles Moore’s lead region fly-throughs                 Philadelphia, PA, 1
    characterized, 42-43; Leo Herbert’s recruiting and training efforts     Philadelphia Regional Office, iv, 2, 15, 25,41,47, 50
    described, 46; Regional Manager role in training, 47; regional          Pin, Clerio P., 34
    grade structure, 49; impact of travel requirements on staff, 52-53;     Policy, Office of, iv, 3
    comments on affirmative action, 58; assessment of John                  Portland, OR, 8
    Thornton, 59-62; Los Angeles-San Francisco Regional Office              President’s Executive Exchange Program, 2
                                                                            Price Waterhouse, 5

                                                   Page 76



Program Planning, Office of, 37                                   Texas, 8
Program review, 69                                                Thomas, Albert, 49
Promotion policies (GAO staff), 17-18                             Thompson, Fred, 66
                                                                  Thornton, John, 4,7, 10-I 1, 16,26,30,37,43,49-63,70
Racism (functional), 58                                           Tidewater Inn, 30
Rasor! Robert, 9                                                  Trainor, Harry, 46
Recrurtment of staff, 3,44-48,57                                  Transportation, Department of, 2,36
Referencing (review), 66                                          Trask, Roger R., v
Regional Manager role, 12-22, 18-20,23,28-29,36-37                Travel (GAO staff), 7,51,53,58
Reaional office competition, 41-42.61                             Truth in Negotiations Act, 69n
Rehtions with other’federal’agencies, 14-15, 68                   Tulloss, Stuart B., 67
Rotation of staff, 53,63-64                                       U
S                                                                 United Nations, 15
St. Paul. MN, 61                                                  Urban Mass Transit Administration,     2
Salinger, Pierre, 68                                              v
Samuelson, Adolph T., 7                                           Villanova University, 2
San Francisco Regional Office, 26,36,48, 58,59, 61                Voucher audit, 6
Saturn (rocket) Moon Project, 8                                   W
Scantfeburv. Donald L.. 4. 54                                     Warren, Lindsay C., iii, 6
Schoenhaut; Arthur, 34                                            Washington Regional Office, iv, 4,54
Seattle Regional Office, iv, 8, 22, 23,41, 45,51,54, 66           Watson, Thomas, 13
Seattle, WA, 1,5-6                                                Wells, Charles, 7
Smith, Frederic H., 9                                             Werner, Mel, 46
Staats, Elmer B., 4, 14-15, 16, 25, 27,40,45,48,57,  62, 69,69n   Westfall study of GAO, 7
Staff cutbacks and transfers (GAO), 6-7, lo,38                    Westfall, Ted B., 3, 7
Staff performance evaluation, 32-35                               W illiamson, Randy, 22
Strazzulo, Alfonso J., 70                                         Women, recruitment of (GAO), 57
Subalusky, Frank V., 34                                           World War II, iii, 5, 46
Symington, Stuart, 65
Syracuse, NY, 61                                                  Z
                                                                  “Zinc stink,” 65-66
Team approach, 27-33,54-55

                                                 Page 76
   -     for copies of GAO documents      should be ser

U.S. General Accounting     Office
Post Office Box 6015
Gaithersburg, Maryland     20877

Telephone   202-275-6241

The first five copies of each report   are free. Additio
$2.00 each.

There is a 25% discount    on orders for 100 or more cop-
single address.                                             I

Orders must be prepaid by cash o
out to the Superintendent of Docu