John W. Morris
The idea of getting OCE out of the operations business helped us in OCE devote needed time
and our capabilities to dealing with those externalities which were so important to us.
Q ..
Turning to the Corps of Engineers itself, how did you feel about the internal organization of
the agency?
A
The organization of the Corps of Engineers was a delicate issue to the Congress. We should
talk about that a little bit because the organization of the Corps of Engineers has been a
continuing subject for many years. Joe Tofani and I worked out a plan in 1974 to manage the
continental United States with five or six divisions.
We also knew there were districts we didn't need. So the first suggested change in the
organization involved the districts. We got slapped around so badly politically we re-
evaluated whether or not that was a good idea. We rationalized and concluded that the district
distribution was not exactly the way we would want it, but we needed a certain number of
districts in any case. The number we had wasn't too bad. While we might make it a little
more logical to change them around, we probably wouldn't improve the operation a great
deal especially when compared to the pain and cost of moving them. That was our logic train
and it's probably true because there's so much political interest in these districts by the local
people and by the Congress.
As far as the organization of the offices was concerned, I had always felt that the structure
within the division organization was excellent. Not so at the Corps headquarters. The districts
were similar to a division with normally a deputy for military, a deputy for civil, with all the
other functions in support of the two programs. You didn't have a separate engineering
division for military and a separate engineering division for civil.
Since the districts and divisions were organized one way and because OCE was structured
differently, communication presented some problems.
long before I became Chief. Once in OCE, I noted that the
My thoughts began in the
civil works organization was a cradle-to-grave kind of thing; whereas, the military program
was fragmented between program development, facilities engineering, and military
construction. So the idea evolved to combine the related military functions into a directorate
similar to the directorate for civil programs. They would be structured the same internally.
Then, with that in place the directors would become program managers. Support activities
would be combined into a directorate with a civilian in charge. That was the idea, but there
was much work to do before we could get to that point.
First off, we designed the Army Real Property Management Program, which spanned real
property from concept, acquisition, planning, authorization, construction, operation, and
disposal to be one program. It became part of the Army program management plan and was
published. It was then lectured at the Army War College and carried to all the major
commands. There was a general consensus at TRADOC and FORSCOM in support. All real
property funding was combined except for the operation and maintenance money, which was
allocated to the post commander, who didn't want that money going someplace else. I can
understand that.
The ACE's shop required definition to break out the Assistant Chief of Engineers' function.
For policy and staff work we agreed that the ACE would work for the Chief, but for the
military programs part, he'd report to the director of Military Programs. Major General Bill
Wray had been the Assistant Chief of Engineers and became the first director of Military
Previous Page
