Memoirs
South Atlantic Division's engineer in Atlanta. Shortly after that as the deputy when General
Johnson retired. So in the course of a couple of years, he had two important
exposures-division engineer and deputy chief.
While deputy, he and I spent a lot of time talking together, and there were some specific
suggestions. The thing I tried to emphasize to Joe was he had a great staff and the Corps was
made up of good people, so he should give the authority to the people who work for him and
let them do the work. Also, unless he had some reason to change or modify a staff
recommendation, he should accept it. Otherwise, the paperwork would kill him. The other
thing I mentioned was to keep the OCE organization that was being put in place on track. In
that, I did suggest something about keeping the ACE's shop small and staff oriented and
getting the director of the Engineering and Construction Support organized with the top
civilian in charge.
The other point I recall mentioning was the hazardous waste program. Joe was a little
concerned about taking on that mission because he felt the Corps wasn't properly trained to
do it. Well, neither was anyone else, and besides, the Corps could do it better, so I felt he
should try to land that Superfund program. Which he did.
You know, I'm not a great believer in passing advice to your successor. One should answer
questions if asked. As a matter of fact, I never believed in overlaps. Everybody has to arrive
at his own conclusions on what he's going to do.
You may recall that back in our earlier discussions I had the good fortune of having been in
OCE for four years after having been in a Corps of Engineers division. I knew what I wanted
to do when I took over, but even so, I had to sit in that chair for a little while to get the-to
really grasp the breadth of responsibility and authority. After you've done that, whatever
somebody may have told you probably has been forgotten.
In summarizing the period from 1976 to 1980, I believed the Chief of Engineers' primary role
was to be a practical visionary who stayed in close communication with his people and
represented them and the organization with deep pride and respect. Respect for the Corps'
illustrious past, which when combined with pride in the quality and capability of the men and
women under his command, provided him the confidence to defend the Corps and to seek
aggressively new and challenging roles which ensured a solid future for the organization. I
personally never doubted that the Corps would respond to any challenges. In fact, I sincerely
believed one of the two ways to weaken the Corps would be to fail to change when necessary
or fail to grasp new opportunities as they arose. The other, more insidious threat would be to
weaken the ability of the commander to command. History has shown that the transfer of the
command-and-control mechanism into the hands of those who do not have direct control
responsibilities for the people and the mission is a more dangerous and ultimately fatal trend.
This process had been in the works only about seven years when I retired and at that time
seemed under control. I am afraid the process is now somewhat out of control and worsening.
It needs to be reevaluated and reversed quickly if appropriate.
Answering the Army's need for good facilities for its soldiers and their families, new or at
least well-maintained support activities for the Army's equipment, and strengthening our
national defense is the Chief's primary responsibility. All else leads to the fulfillment of the
Corps' mission as part of the U.S. Army. Public works, albeit of great positive value to the
nation and a steady demand on the Chief's time and attention, is in its best sense a source of
202
Previous Page
