United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Administration and Resources Management Office of Administration Management and Organization Division February 1986 OCLC19043701 c/EPA Management and Organization Review of the Great Lakes National Program Office Management Report ------- MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION REVIEW of the GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE February 1986 \ ul O U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, Library (PL-12J) 77 West Jackson boulevard, 12tti Floor Chicago, !L 60604-3590 A Management Review Prepared by: Management and Organization Division Office of Administration, OARM Prepared for: Great Lakes National Program Office Chicago, Illinois Additional copies of this report may be obtained by contacting the Program Management Analysis Branch (202) 382-5000 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Recommendations i I. INTRODUCTION 1 11. METHODOLOGY 1 III. PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE 3 IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 V. M&O FOLLOW-UP ASSISTANCE 17 Appendix — INTERVIEW LIST A-l ------- SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recent efforts by the Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office to improve the Office's management systems/ technical approach, and visibility have been effective. There are areas of opportunity, however, in which further improvement would strengthen the Office. 1. Resources. The Agency should continue to support GLNPO at current and proposed levels, and should give it a high level of visibility. 2. Staffing. GLNPO should continue to utilize its innovative staffing techniques to maintain its high quality staff at current levels. 3. Organization and Functions. The current organization and functional split should be maintained. 4. Independence. GLNPO should be maintained as a separate office reporting to the Region V Administrator. 5. Cooperation with the Water Division. GLNPO and the Water Division should strive to live up to their new MOU. They should better align their planning cycles and explore rotational assignments. GLNPO staff should communicate International Joint Commission commitments to the Water Division more quickly. 6. Cooperation with the Environmental Services Division. GLNPO should maintain this strong, cooperative relationship. 7. Involvement in Regional Planning Committees. GLNPO should continue to utilize the Region V planning committees to the fullest extent possible. 8. Relationships with Region III and the State of Michigan. These good relationships should be maintained and strengthened. 9. Relationships with the Duluth Environmental Research Laboratory and the Grosse lie Large Lakes Research Station. These strong relationships should be maintained.GLNPO should establish a system for coordinating the technical assistance requests that go to Grosse lie. 10. Relationship with Region II. GLNPO should take strong steps to reopen lines of communication with Region II and establish a better working relationship. The two organizations should explore establishing an MOU or MOU's. ------- - ii - . Cross-Regional Efforts in the Great Lakes. Regions V, II, and III should work with the Office ofthe Comptroller to set up a workload model that would accur^tely_rjgj£le_st the division of work and fairly allocate Agency resources to adequately support the various Great Lakes efforts. ~"=-=--_— ,- 12. Relationship with the Office of Water. GLNPO should maintain its good relations with the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection in OW, including resuming discussions on establishing an MOU between the two Offices. GLNPO and OMEP should explore it ways to transfer GLNPO lessons learned to other parts of the | country. 13. Management of Grants and Contracts. GLNPO needs to put much more effort into effective grants and contracts management and tracking. All Project Officers should be certified. Individual-professional and office-wide grants and contracts tracking systems should be established on the personal computer. 14. Travel Funds. GLNPO should utilize its PC to establish a travel funds planning and tracking system. 15. Management Planning and Project Tracking. GLNPO should automate its senior staff assignment tracking system on its PC and should explore establishing a tracking system for all professionals. 16. Administrative Officer. GLNPO should divide up its administrativeduties among the various professionals in the office. 17. Administrative Systems. GLNPO should acquire additional Lexitrons for use by the professional staff, and should put stay-in-school students to work bringing the files and library back up to an adequate level. 18. Staff Chief Vacancy. GLNPO should hire a strong manager who can serve as a back-up to the Director. ------- MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION REVIEW OF THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFFICE I. INTRODUCTION In June 1985, the Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) requested assistance from the Management and Organization Division (M&O). M&O was asked to conduct a comprehensive management and organization review. The objectives of the review were to: A. Analyze the allocation of resources to GLNPO; B. Determine the most efficient and effective organizational structure for GLNPO; C. Determine how effectively the relationships of GLNPO with Regional and Headquarters units and State governments support the Office's mission; and D. Analyze the efficiency of GLNPO1s programmatic processes and supporting administrative management systems. II. METHODOLOGY The review consisted of the following steps: A. Telephone and in-person interviews with the Director of GLNPO and Headquarters staff to gather and review historical and current data in the following areas (see Appendix for the total list of twenty-seven EPA and State officials interviewed during the course of the study): 1. Functions, organizational structure, budget allocations for past, current, and future fiscal years, staffing assignments, and workload distribution; 2. Management and information systems and processes; and 3. Programmatic trends and levels, and associated workload changes; B. Performance of a three-day on-site visit to GLNPO to: 1. Interview, in depth, the Director of GLNPO and five of the Office's senior staff members; 2. Interview the Regional Administrator and the Assistant Regional Administrator, Planning and Management Division; ------- - 2 - 3. Interview the Director of the Water Division and a senior staff member; 4. Interview the Director of the Environmental Services Division and two of his senior staff members; and 5. Gather and review locally-provided data for use in meeting the objectives of the study (including GLNPO's five-year strategy document); C. Follow-up telephone and in-person interviews with: 1. The Region V Deputy Regional Administrator; 2. Additional Headquarters staff; 3. Staff from Regions II and III; 4. The Directors of the Grosse lie Large Lakes Research Station and Duluth Environmental Research Laboratory; and 5. An official for the State of Michigan; and D. Analysis of the data gathered, identification of areas of opportunity for management improvements, and preparation of this report. ------- - 3 - III. PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE"" " ~~~ GLNPO is organized as outlined below: TABLE 1 GLNPO ORGANIZATION REGION V ADMINISTRATOR GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR SURVEILLANCE AND RESEARCH STAFF REMEDIAL PROGRAMS STAFF OTHER REGION V PROGRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING STAFF The major functions of each unit of GLNPO are listed below: A, Director's Office; 1. Manage the Great Lakes National Program; 2. Serve as principal staff advisor in support of the Regional Administrator's participation in International Joint Commission (IJC) Water Quality Board activities; and 3. Represent EPA in Water Quality Board activities; 4. Carry out public awareness activities for GLNPO throughout the Great Lakes area and in Washington; ------- - 4 - B. Surveillance and Research Staff; 1. Manage and implement EPA's monitoring and surveillance of environmental contaminants in the Great Lakes (for water, fish, and acid deposition) in order to assess how well the U.S. is doing in meeting the requirements of the IJC Water Quality Agreement; 2. Evaluate and present the data obtained in monitoring and surveillance activities; 3. Manage the research and development activities of Region V as they relate to the Great Lakes; and 4. Represent EPA in IJC surveillance activities; *-• Remedial Programs Staff: 1. Assure coordination of EPA's statutory and regulatory programs that relate to the Great Lakes so that they contribute to U.S. compliance with the terms of the Water Quality Agreement; 2. Coordinate remedial programs needed to fulfill U.S. treaty obligations under the Water Quality Agreement; 3. Serve as the IJC U.S. point source coordinator; 4. Conduct large, special geographic studies of Great Lakes environmental issues; and 5. Represent EPA in IJC remedial programs activities; D. Environmental Planning Staff; 1. Manage EPA's Great Lakes planning interactions with other agencies; 2. Coordinate EPA/State interactions dealing with non-point source control strategies for the Great Lakes; 3. Serve as IJC U.S. non-point source coordinator; 4. Manage the Clean Water Act Section 108(a) grant program to demonstrate new or innovative techniques; 5. Represent EPA in IJC planning activities; and 6. Provide management staff support to the Director of GLNPO. ------- - 5 - IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recent efforts by the Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office to improve the Office's management systems, technical approach, and visibility have been effective. There are areas of opportunity, however, in which further improvement would strengthen the Office. A. Resources In FY 85 $1.03 million was appropriated for GLNPO salaries and expenses along with an additional $4.69 million in extramural funds for a total appropriation of $5.72 million. The President's budget for FY 86 would change the above figures to $1.04 million, $3.90 million, and $4.94 million respectively. Figure 1 shows a break-out of the funding categories for GLNPO1s FY 85 budget. FIGURE 1 GLNPO FY85 BUDGET CATEGORIES IN MILLIONS lAGs $0.5 Salaries & Expanses $10 ^ GLNPO has had a history of its resources being cut from budget submissions and surviving by Congressional reintroduction of funds and/or Region V coverage of funding shortages out of Regional resources. ------- - 6 - Figure 2 shows the funding for GLNPO from 1977 through 1985. It is important to note that in all years but 1977, 1980, and 1981, the GLNPO funding level was determined by additions from Congress (ranging from $1.0 to $3.4 million) over and above the level requested by the Agency. In 1977 $100K, and in 1981 $500K, were withheld from GLNPO appropriated funds by Headquarters reprogramming. FIGURE 2 GLNPO ABATEMENT AND COMPLIANCE FUNDS BY YEAR IN MILLIONS Allocated funds 1977 1978 1979 1980, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 GLNPO and Region V management assert that for the first time Agency senior managment is giving recognition and support to the program, particularly in the budget cycle. This has largely been due to: 0 The Regional Administrator's perseverance in maintaining and promoting the program; 0 The high quality of the technical staff at GLNPO; and 0 The recognition that the program now receives outside of EPA. ------- - 7 - Recommendation The Agency should continue to support GLNPO and give its efforts a high level of visibility in order to maintain a continuing source of funding for the program. The resource levels currently appropriated and proposed should be maintained in order for GLNPO to carry out its mandate effectively. B. Staffing GLNPO is currently allocated 20 FTE's for FY 85 and FY 86 (15.8 PFT and 4.2 OPFT). The program is actually utilizing approximately 26 FTE's, the difference being made up out of the Regional ceiling by utilizing lapsed positions. This Regional supplement has been the situation for many years due to the funding problems described earlier. Figure 3 shows the staffing levels of GLNPO from 1977 through 1985. Total staffing has been made up of Agency requested positions, positions added by Congress, and additional positions gained from Region V reprogramming. FIGURE 3 GLNPO POSITIONS BY YEAR flllocotlons ------- - 8 - The program also is getting additional help by utilizing the services of two (soon to be three) people contracted for through the American Association of Retired Persons and two computer-firm contract employees. The Office also utilizes a Water Division agricultural expert one day per week, and stay- in-school students to provide additional clerical help. The staff on-board is professionally qualified and experi- enced to perform the complex technical work required by the program. Their technical competence was highlighted by several outside offices contacted by M&O during this study. Recommendation GLNPO should continue to utilize its innovative staffing techniques (lapsed positions, AARP's, contract employees, stay-in-school students, etc.) to maintain its high quality staff at the current level which is necessary to carry out its functions. C. Organization and Functions GLNPO's organization and its functional split are sound. More than three staffs would unnecessarily fragment the already small office and would present potential span of control problems for the Director. On the other hand, based on the functions being performed by the Office, it would be difficult to clearly split them into only two staffs while maintaining a reasonable balance of staff sizes. Recommendation The current organization and functional split should be maintained. D. Independence Throughout GLNPO's history there have been psychological barriers in Region V to its existence as a separate unit reporting to the Regional Administrator. These attitudes are slowly shifting due to increased awareness of GLNPO's multimedia responsibilities, the direct support it must provide to the Regional Administrator, and the need to demonstrate to Canada that the U.S. places importance on compliance with the Water Quality Agreement. Recommendation GLNPO should be maintained as a separate office reporting to the Regional Administrator. ------- - 9 - E. Cooperation with the Water Division GLNPO's strongest relationship within Region V is with the Water Division. In fact, one-third to one-half of the Water Division's workload relates to the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, for several years Headquarters mid-year reviews of Region V have stated that there is not strong enough cooperation between GLNPO and the Water Division. Over the last year, however, cooperation has improved. To further that improvement, in May of this year an MOU was executed between the two Offices to delineate the functions and responsibilities of each and to ensure close coordination of their efforts. Although the new cooperative atmosphere and MOU have gone a long way to correcting the problems, the Water Division states that further improvement could come by better alignment of the Water Division's and GLNPO's planning cycles. In addition, the Water Division claims that GLNPO staff sometimes makes commitments for the U.S. in IJC activities but neglects to tell, until much later, the Water Division who has to implement those commitments. Finally, a GLNPO senior staff member suggested that rotational assigments (exchange of staff members) between GLNPO and the Water Division might be useful in fostering a more cooperative, coordinated relationship between the two Offices. In this regard, GLNPO already utilizes the services of a Water Division agricultural expert one day per week. Recommendation GLNPO and the Water Division should make every effort to assure that both staffs live up to the commitments of the MOU. Cooperation at all levels should be stressed. In addition, the two Offices should explore better alignment of their planning cycles and the use of rotational assignments for their staff members. This would enhance a spirit of Great Lakes cooperation between the Offices and would also provide greater challenges to their respective staffs. Finally, GLNPO staff should make greater efforts to communicate IJC commitments to the Water Division as soon as possible. F. Cooperation with the Environmental Services Division The Environmental Services Division (BSD) officially allocates 1.7 FTE's to Great Lakes work. One FTE is utilized in the Central Regional Laboratory to support GLNPO, including management of the second-shift work done under GLNPO contract (approximately 20 contract employees). The Quality Assurance Office of the BSD utilizes 0.4 FTE's in Great Lakes related work and the BSD has allotted 0.3 FTE's to the on-going Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels study, a U.S./Canadian cooperative effort. In addition to the officially allocated FTE's, the BSD performs other Great Lakes related work that is not specifically ------- - 10 - charged back to the Great Lakes effort. For example, three staff members of the BSD Pesticides and Toxics Substances Branch partici- pate in the work of the IJC toxic substances subcommittee. Both GLNPO and the BSD stated that their relationship was good. It is marked by a cooperative atmosphere that is evidenced by the Regional Water Monitoring Strategy prepared by the BSD in cooperation with GLNPO and the Water Division. Re c omme nd a t ion GLNPO should work to maintain the strong, cooperative relation- ship that exists with the BSD. G. Involement in Regional Planning Committees GLNPO is currently involved in a variety of Regional planning committees, namely: the Water Media Coordinating Committee, the Combined Sewer Overflow Task Force, the Operating and Maintenance Coordinating Committee, and the Great Lakes Coordinating Committee. This invlovement allows GLNPO to have input to the planning processes of other programs in the Region, and for the other programs to have input to GLNPO's planning. Recommendation GLNPO should continue to utilize its involvement in Regional planning committees to the fullest extent possible. Its involvement is a valuable way to get the Great Lakes message across and to further integrate it in other programs' actions. Participation in the committees serves to keep GLNPO needs on the minds of other Region V programs, and also reminds GLNPO of its responsibilities toward those programs. > H. Relationships with Region III and the State of Michigan GLNPO's relations with Region III entail a low level of contact. Based on the small amount of Lake Erie shoreline (40 miles) that Region III manages, it feels its contacts with GLNPO are good and at the proper level for its participation in the program. The State of Michigan asserts that GLNPO's relations with it are working fine. The contacts between the two organizations are based on a logical arrangement that reflects the responsibilities of each in the Great Lakes area. Recommendation GLNPO should carefully nurture these good relationships in order to maintain and strengthen them. ------- - 11 - I. Relationships with the Duluth Environmental Research Laboratory and the Grosse lie Large Lakes Research Station The Duluth Environmental Research Laboratory of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and its field research station at Grosse lie conduct Great Lakes research under both ORD and GLNPO auspices. In addition, Duluth and Grosse lie staff mem- bers participate in IJC activities. Of the GLPNO work that they do, approximately 80% is done at Grosse lie and 20% at Duluth. The Director of the Duluth Lab states that over the last year GLNPO has become more cooperative and open to outside suggestions, better attuned to political and technical issues, and more far-sighted in its research efforts. Although occassionl philosophical differences crop up between GLNPO, and Duluth and Grosse lie, they are able to resolve them through discussions due to the cooperative nature of their relationship. Grosse lie considers GLNPO to be its primary program client office and directs its research accordingly. Both Offices state that a healthy, mission-oriented relationship exists between them. The research station receives a lot of requests for techincal assistance from GLNPO, many with short turnaround required, that forces them to place priorities on how they respond to them. The priorities on occassion disturb the GLNPO -staff since they are sometimes different from GLNPO's priorities. Grosse lie contends that this comes about due to an apparent lack of coordination of the technical assistance requests made of them by GLNPO staff. Recommendation GLNPO should strive to maintain its strong relationships with Duluth and Grosse lie. Particularly it should establish a system to coordinate the technical assistance requests that go to the research station. The system should include a mechanism that communicates GLNPO priorities on requests sent to Grosse lie, and a way for Grosse lie to alert GLNPO when their resources are, at any one time, over-burdened by the requests. J. Relationship with Region II Region II believes that although it has a significant stake in Great Lakes activities, the relationship between GLNPO and Region II is not good. The Region believes that GLNPO views the program as a Region V program rather than a Great Lakes program. Region II contends that it is not included in the up-front planning process for Great Lakes activities, especially for the issues that impact its Region. In particular, it claims that GLNPO sometimes deals with cities and organizations in Region II without informing the Region until much later. For example, GLNPO awarded a grant to New York State without including Region II in the process. ------- - 12 - Recommendation GLNPO should take strong steps to reopen the lines of communication with Region II and establish a better working relationship with the Region so that Region II is sufficiently integrated into the Great Lakes planning and operating processes. This is important for both GLNPO and Region II due to their common interests in the Great Lakes area, such as the Niagara River Frontier work with Canada on which Region II has the lead. GLNPO should explore the possibility of establishing an MOU or MOU's with Region II offices to delineate the duties and responsibilities of each and to establish better operating relationships. K. Cross-Regional Efforts in the Great Lakes Table 2 summarizes the spread of Great Lakes activities across the organizational units of Regions V, II, and III. TABLE 2 GREAT LAKES ACTIVITIES IN REGIONS II, III, AND V REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR WATER DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION MANAGEMENT DIVISION REGION II , construction grants, permits compliance, WQ stds Primary Contact surveillance & monitoring, analysis permits tracking REGION III Primary Contact construction grants, permits, WQ stds surveillance & monitoring, analysis REGION V GLNPO is Primary Contact, Natl Prg Mgr, coordination, research, surv & monitor, grants, special studies, planning, IJC & WQ Bd activities construction grants, permits, WQ stds surveillance & monitoring, analysis ------- - 13 - Region II claims that it has never received recognition for its workload in the Great Lakes area and that it should be given resources (at least two FTE's) to deal with Great Lakes issues. Recommendation Regions V, II, and III, as a team, should work with the Office of the Comptroller to set up a workload model that would accurately reflect the division of work and fairly allocate Agency resources to adequately support the various Great Lakes efforts. L. Relationship with the Office of Water GLNPO and the Office of Water (OW) have a cooperative, informative relationship. The Office of Water has overall management responsibility for the national policy direction and oversight of all water programs, including their relationship to the Great Lakes. The Region V Administrator, however, as National Program Manager, has direct responsibility for implementation of the Great Lakes Program. Within OW, the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) has primary contact with GLNPO. OMEP views GLNPO as a unique, basin-wide program that is mature and experienced. Because of this it tends to respect its autonomy as a National Program Office. OMEP represents GLNPO in the budget process and performs the annual OW review of the program. In that regard, GLNPO is not tracked in the Agency Strategic Planning and Management System, but is reviewed and critiqued against OW criteria. Past reviews have criticized GLNPO's success in accomplishing environmental results. OMEP cbmmented that the most recent review showed improvement in this area, including execution of the MOU between GLNPO and the Water Division. OMEP would like to use GLNPO as a model or framework for other basin-wide programs dealing with such areas as the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and Narragansett Bay. In this regard OMEP believes GLNPO should put more efforts into technology transfer. GLNPO over the years has learned a lot of lessons that would be useful to other areas of the country. Efforts to transfer that knowledge would make better use of the results of GLNPO's projects and would truly make GLNPO more of a national program. OW and GLNPO were in the process of setting up an MOU between their two Offices. That process stopped when the Assistant Administrator for Water moved to become Regional Administrator in Region IV. ------- - 14 - Recommendation GLNPO should maintain its good relationship with OMEP in OW. It is critical that information continue to flow between the two Offices so that OMEP can serve as an effective spokesman for GLNPO in Headquarters and help to maintain GLNPO1s visibility, GLNPO and OMEP should resume discussions on the MOU to formalize their relationship. GLNPO should work with OMEP to expand their technology transfer efforts and support OMEP attempts to use them as a successful model for other basin-wide programs. M. Management of Grants and Contracts Everyone contacted in GLNPO, and the Assistant Regional Administrator, Planning and Management Division, indicated that the grants and contracts administered by GLNPO are not managed very closely. On the whole, GLNPO project officers, who average two to three grants/contracts each, have not completed the Agency Project Officer Certification Course and do not keep consistent records of expended funds and deliverables due. The Office does have a system for tracking the status of funding packages but its accuracy is inconsistent. The Director of the Duluth Lab suggests that GLNPO consider utilizing more competition in the allocation of its grants resources. Duluth and Grosse lie have recently undertaken this approach and have found it to be successful. Recommendation With the large amount of extramural funds that it expends each year (approximately $4.69 million this fiscal year) GLNPO needs to put much more effort into effective grants and contracts management and tracking. All'project officers should be put through the certification program and should maintain accurate funding and deliverable records. The Office tracking system should be transferred to the personal computer which will make it easier to maintain and more accurate than on the Lexitron. Individual professionals may also want to use the PC for tracking their specific grants/contracts. GLNPO should explore Duluth's suggestion for more competition in its allocation of grants resources. N. Travel Funds GLNPO travel funds are tracked after the fact but are not adequately planned for in advance. This situation is aggravated by the fact that, generally, all offices' travel ceilings in the Region (including GLNPO1s) are funded at levels lower than their budget requests. This causes GLNPO to have to request additional travel ceiling during the year based on it's actual needs, rather than to have enough based on solid projections and planning. ------- - 15 - Due to Congressional requirements/ all international travel (including travel to Canada) must be approved by the Office of International Activities (OIA). This requires advance planning and consideration of lead-times, although emergency authorizations can be gained over the telephone. OIA claims that, based on past experience, although 90% of GLNPO's international travel can be planned in advance, it is not. Recommendat ion GLNPO should utilize its PC to establish a better travel planning/tracking system. This will allow it to have its beginning-of-year budget more closely match its actual needs for the year. In addition, better tracking and planning will provide better lead-times and easier approvals through OIA for international travel. 0. Management Planning and Project Tracking GLNPO has established several management planning and project tracking mechanisms that are good starts toward a strong management system. Of particular note are the: 0 Five-year GLNPO strategy document; 0 Detailed, yearly workplans for each Staff; 0 Every-other-month tracking meetings between the Office Director, Staff Chiefs, and each professional to review how their projects' due dates are contributing to the Office's goals; and 0 Weekly senior staff meetings to go over GLNPO's Lexitron- based senior staff assignment tracking sheet. Recommendation GLNPO should continue its efforts to tie its five-year strategy and workplans closely together. The senior staff assignment tracking sheet should be put on the PC for greater flexibility in preparation. In addition, GLNPO should consider establishing a project tracking system for all professionals. It would allow each professional to track the status of his or her own work, would alert GLNPO managers to approaching due dates, would provide GLNPO managers with a mechanism for assessing workload distribution, and if made available, could foster inter-professional information exchange and cooperation on projects as the professionals become aware of related projects that are being handled by others. ------- - 16 - P. Administrative Officer GLNPO claims a need for an Administrative Officer to manage its grants/contracts processing, travel funds, budget, etc. The Deputy Regional Administrator believes the Office is too small to warrant an Administrative Officer and has consisently denied GLNPO1s requests for one. Recommendation GLNPO should take the Administrative Officer type duties (ADP coordination, budget planning and tracking, travel planning and tracking, grants/contracts processing, personnel matters, etc.), break them into definitive pieces, and assign them throughout the Office to different individuals. This is the approach that has been taken in M&O (a similar sized office) for several years. This approach focuses the particular responsibility on an individual who is accountable for it, does not over-burden any one person with this type of duty, gives staff members valuable career experience, prevents the total loss of administrative institutional knowledge that occurs when an Administrative Officer leaves an office, and allows for ease in rotating the duties among the various members of the staff which helps to distribute the workload equitably and vary the type of administrative duties that any one person would be expected to do. Q. Administrative Systems GLNPO has only one Lexitron for each clerical person. The machines are often tied up with paperwork for personnel, travel, and grants. Normal typing is often backed up. / GLNPO1s filing and library maintenance have become neglected items. It is often difficult for the staff to find needed items either from the files or the library collection. Recommendation GLNPO should acquire several more Lexitrons for use by the professional staff who would like to use them for composing their work and in preparing first drafts of documents. All of the new Lexitrons do not need printers; they can be used solely as remote composers with documents printed later at the existing printers. GLNPO should put several stay-in-school students to work bringing its files and library back up to an adequate level. The Office should contact the Information Management and Services Division for assistance in preparation of a good filing system plan and help in organizing its library. ------- - 17 - R. Staff Chief Vacancy GLNPO currently has a vacancy for the Chief of the Surveillance and Research Staff. This is a good opportunity to fill a management need in the Office. Recommendation To fill this vacancy, GLNPO should hire a person who has not only good technical skills, but also very strong management skills. This new hire should be one who can be of great help to the Director as a strong back-up when he is out of the Office on travel, and as a supporting player in Office policy development work that the Director now handles largely alone. V. M&O FOLLOW-UP ASSISTANCE M&O stands ready to provide assistance to GLNPO in implementing these recommendations. M&O has already established a system in which its administrative duties are distributed throughout the Division among the professional staff. In addition, M&O has developed personal computer systems for tracking Division projects, the Division budget, and contract fund expenditures. The Division would be pleased to discuss these approaches with GLNPO as possible models for it to use in establishing its own administrative systems. ------- - A-l - APPENDIX INTERVIEW LIST HEADQUARTERS Tudor Davies, Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water Ginger Webster, Acting Director, Policy and Management Support Staff, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water Paul Kraman, Policy and Management Support Staff, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water Leo Cox, Resources Management and Administration Office, Office of Water Walter Hunt, Manager of Border Environmental Programs, Office of International Activities M. Lisa Tychsen, Budget Division, Office of the Comptroller, Office of Administration and Resources Management Kathy Wilson, Budget Division, Office of the Comptroller, Office of Administration and Resources Management REGION V Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator Alan Levin, Deputy Regional Administrator Robert Springer, Assistant Regional Administrator, Planning and Management Division Peter Wise, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office Vacys Saulys, Chief, Remedial Programs Staff, Great Lakes National Program Office Anthony Kizlauskas, Remedial Programs Staff, Great Lakes National Program Office Kent Fuller, Chief, Environmental Planning Staff, Great Lakes National Program Office Ralph Christensen, Environmental Planning Staff, Great Lakes National Program Office ------- - A-2 - David Rockwell, Acting Chief, Surveillance and Research Staff, Great Lakes National Program Office Charles Sutfin, Director, Water Division Dale Bryson, Deputy Director, Water Division William Sanders, Director, Environmental Services Division Stephen Goranson, Chief, Environmental Monitoring Branch, Environmental Services Division J. P. Singh, Chief, Water Monitoring Team, Environmental Monitoring Branch, Environmental Services Division REGION III Charles Sapp, Basin Commission Coordinator, Water Management Division REGION II Herbert Barrack, Assistant Regional Administrator Barbara Metzger, Director, Environmental Services Division ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, DULUTH, MN Norbert Jaworski, Director LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION, GROSSE ILE, MI William Richardson, Director , STATE OF MICHIGAN William Marks, Assistant Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources ------- |