________________________________________________________________________Richard S. Kem
Our engineer point was that districts are really command. We want success in that very
important position that happens to command more civilians than troops, so it's really not
troop command, but it is command. So, we had a lot of dialogues and a lot of different
people dialoguing.
Anyway, the 30 March memo was written just to set down thoughts as opposed to being the
typical staff study. That gave me a little freedom in providing analysis and dialoguing and
talking about it, but it did have advantages and disadvantages and so forth.
We started the coordinating process off, went on up the tape. Then I had to go back over and
brief the Chief of Engineers and his assembled staff and general officers on kind of a "what
do I want to buy in on?" discussion. Before that, General Clarke had really said, "Let's go in
concept," but he hadn't said, "Let's do it."
So, I had to go back and brief. The last paragraph or last couple of paragraphs of the paper
really put it into perspective. It said, "If board selection for engineer troop commanders is
valid, it would appear that it'd be valid as well for district engineers." Whether you pick from
a slate of candidates or by centralized board selection appears to rest on three issues.
First of all, could the Chief of Engineers live with his loss of flexibility? That is, you would
have to buy in to the Army's peer groups and system; you couldn't have it all separate. The
Corps would be part of it. The Chief of Engineers had had all kinds of flexibility, as I
described before.
We also had a feeling that we liked a longer eligibility span and longer deferments. Would
officers be able to be used in both positions? Could you be a troop commander and then a
district engineer? How many years would that take them away from other things like key
staff positions and the rest? So, that important issue depended on the question, "What were
the rules?"
A second issue would be, are eligibility and selection criteria compatible in relation to
available engineer colonels?
Third was the issue, would OPMS be adaptable to meet branch differences? Of course, that
could be an arguing point. Everyone, we thought, who had the goal to do the right thing by
the individual and the Army should be able to accommodate differences within the OPMS
system.
So, my summary said a district is not a troop command, but it is a command. Elimination of
commander "shopping lists" had been a driving force behind centralized troop command
selection. It had not been such a severe problem in engineers as for other combat arms since
we were spread thinly.
Consequently, the real drive was to provide board credibility in the selection process, and in
that case the same argument would prompt me to believe it would be valid for district
engineer selection.
155
Previous Page
