Mr. MONAGAN. On October 1, 1970, there was a meeting of the Dunn County Board of Supervisors which approved the purchase of $34,798 worth of communications equipment pursuant to a grant from the council. This was made without competitive bidding.

The minutes for the meeting on that date in Dunn County read that: Sheriff Daryl Spagnoletti was present and introduced Bill Kenyon and Don Rassback, representing Motorola Communications Co., who explained the radio communications system.

A motion was made, seconded, and carried, to purchase radio communications equipment from Motorola Communications Company, providing the District Attorney is of the opinion it is not necessary to request bids for said equipment. Do you know whether that Don Rassback is the same person who is on the task force?

Mr. KELLY. I do not know whether or not he is, and I do not know, as a matter of fact, whether or not the minutes of the county board are referring exclusively to Mr. Kenyon, who has made a practice of appearing at governmental meetings such as these and stating a position on behalf of Motorola.

In short, I do not know whether or not there is a Donald Rassback who is employed by Motorola, and I do not know, if there is, whether or not he is the same Donald Rassback who is a member of the communications task force.

a

Mr. MONAGAN. If he were the same one, it certainly would present

Mr. KELLY. I would be very concerned.

Mr. MONAGAN (continuing). A question of conflict of interest, would it not?

Mr. KELLY. Yes; it would.

Mr. MONAGAN. This is something that should be 'ooked into.

Mr. KELLY. Yes; it is. The question of the membership of the communications task force at the moment, and whether or not it should be expanded, contracted, or otherwise changed, is another question on which I have advised the Governor and which will be the subject matter of some consideration on our part.

Mr. MONAGAN. Our concern here, of course, is with the conflict of interest in having someone on the task force who is connected with a manufacturer. We have seen this before in other areas in this program, and we want to make sure it does not occur here.

Mr. Thone?

Mr. THONE. First, Mr. Chairman, do I understand the statement. that Mr. Kelly submitted to the committee has been made a part of the record?

Mr. MONAGAN. No. If Mr. Kelly would like to have it placed in the record, we will place it in the record at the beginning of his statement. Mr. KELLY. I have no objection to that.

Mr. MONAGAN. Without objection, it will be done.

Mr. THONE. I understand from your figures, Mr. Kelly, that the percentage of the action grant funds that were allocated toward the purchase of communications equipment in 1969 was about 10 percent of your total amount.

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. THONE. And that it will be 16 percent in 1971.

Mr. KELLY. Yes, subject to the asterisk qualification with respect to the 1971 funds. A substantial number of communications grants, as I indicated before, have been held up. Those figures are not included in the per centum figures for 1971, and they would, of course, if included, increase the percentage figure.

Mr. THONE. About how much, do you know?

Mr. KELLY. I do not know. My guess would have to be that at the end of 1971, if we continue to follow the policies of the previous council, the percentage will probably be up around 15 percent again.

Mr. THONE. Referring to the Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice, I understand from your exhibit B to your statement that the chairman is the Governor.

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. THONE. How long has Governor Lucey been chairman of the council?

Mr. KELLY. Since the time that the council was appointed. There was a period of time from the time when he took office until the time that he appointed and charged the new council when there was really, in effect, a period of dormancy. I would say the effective date would have to be June 22, 1971, which is the release date of the press release for the appointment of the new council listed in exhibit B.

Mr. THONE. The attorney general, you say, is Robert Warren.

Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. THONE. He is a member of the council?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, he is.

Mr. THONE. He has been a long-time attorney general?

Mr. KELLY. He has been attorney general for some time. I cannot give you the exact time. He is the person who had the council previously within his jurisdiction. He is now a member of the council. Mr. THONE. I see.

Mr. KELLY. That is the switch I referred to earlier in the testimony which was made when Governor Lucey was elected. As you know, under the statute the Governor has jurisdiction over the program, and that is the precise wording of the statute. Upon the recommendation of a governmental reorganization task force in Wisconsin, Governor Knowles relinquished the administrative control over the council to Attorney General Warren, who had it from February of 1969 to the beginning of 1971..

Governor Lucey came in and, by executive order, withdrew the council from the administrative jurisdiction of the attorney general and returned it to the Governor's Office.

Mr. THONE. That was effective, you say, in about June?
Mr. KELLY. Effective in June of 1971, correct.

Mr. THONE. The reason I was trying to establish somewhat this chronology is that you did include in your statement some exhibits that pointed out that General Electric had complained about this procedure in January of 1971, and that the attorney general was fully advised.

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. THONE. I think this is a bit repetitious, Mr. Kelly. Frankly, I think you have been an excellent witness and have been very responsive. But as I understand, communications system technician assist

ance is available from both the Technical Assistance Division and the National Institute under the law enforcement of criminal justice, and all that is required, really, is a request to the regional office. Has this been your experience?

Mr. KELLY. That is definitely my experience.

Mr. THONE. So far, what has been your reaction to their competence? I know you have not had much experience with them.

Mr. KELLY. I want to withhold judgment on that, because the first real opportunity that I will have to make that judgment is the computer application that I previously discussed. All I can say to date is that they have been very helpful and very responsive in terms of coming in and assisting us in an exceedingly difficult problem.

Mr. THONE. Are you familiar with the Milwaukee Police Department program evaluating the police mobile radio teleprinter? Mr. KELLY. No; I am not.

Mr. THONE. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you.

Mr. Fascell?

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kelly, I certainly want to commend you for your prompt response and the action that you have taken pending the opportunity to decide for yourself on various questions that have been raised here today. I am sure the subcommittee would welcome having the information from your studies when they are completed, and what your recommendations and future policy will be on those questions. Mr. KELLY. Fine.

Mr. FASCELL. I must add my commendation to the consideration given by you to trade-in policies, overpayment, equipment substitutions, and other apparent discrepancies. I think the concept of on-site audit above $5,000 is excellent.

I want to get into the question of communications. Does your council have a policy or guideline with respect to a statewide system?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, it does. It is included in an exhibit to my statement. Mr. FASCELL. Does that include compatible equipment? Mr. KELLY. What do you mean by "compatible equipment?" Mr. FASCELL. I am not sure until I know what you have in the way of a communications system. You talk about a police emergency network. You talk about using computerized data processing, data banks, being able to talk to a central office in Madison.

Mr. KELLY. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. I just wonder if the sheriffs all talk the same language at the same time with Madison, the State capital?

Mr. KELLY. My understanding is that the entire thrust of the program is to make that possible. In fact, the 7-to-1 factor will influence the fact that one particular manufacturer has the lion's share of the market.

Mr. FASCELL. I was going to say that is one of the things I do not believe we touched on. It is possible not only that Motorola is aggressive, but because the need to establish a statewide system, lends itself to a single source procurement.

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.
Mr. FASCELL. That is possible?
Mr. KELLY. Yes; it is.

Mr. FASCELL. I do not know whether it is true. But that is one of the possibilities you will be examining?

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. FASCELL. That gives rise to the next question. If it is good for Wisconsin to have a statewide integrated communications network, what about a naitonwide communications network? Are there any national guidelines which tie Wisconsin with the other States and a national system?

Mr. KELLY. I expressed, in my statement, some considerable concern about the question of computerization of the criminal justice system, and I said that that is a problem not just of the localities of the States, but also the Nation.

The reason I say that is this: I see a considerable attempt to persuade, as a matter of policy, the States and localities to convert to almost a uniform national system of informational exchange, including hookups to the National Crime Information Center at the FBI. I regard this as, perhaps, the most important of the questions that LEAA faces in the next few years. I think LEAA is taking a very strong position that that is a desirable social phenomenon. Mr. FASCELL. You are not so sure?

Mr. KELLY. No; I am not so sure.

Mr. FASCELL. Neither am I. But I am for speedy communications in some aspects of criminal justice.

Mr. KELLY. Let me tell you what I think some of the dangers may be. Prof. Arthur Miller of the Michigan Law School has stated in his book, "The Assault on Privacy," that one of the dangers with linking all of these methods of communication into a central system is that that system will become closed off to persons who are in it. That is to say, a person who has a criminal record may be included in the system, and there will be no way for him to get access to it to determine whether or not the rap sheet which provides the basis of the information therein on him is accurate. Since that will affect judges' dispositions, and the like, it would seem to me to be very important.

I should say that I think there is an attempt being made to have a very careful guideline regulating the control of such a system. It is a question which bothers me and troubles me so much that I wonder whether or not the guidelines would be effective in the sense of affecting the generality of persons who are in the system. It is that aspect of it that is very troublesome.

There is also the very difficult question of the security of the system in the sense of making available criminal justice information to unauthorized persons. Here again, strict regulations are being drawn, but I really wonder whether or not those regulations will have a serious effect on the generality of persons who are within the system.

In my view, it would be a terrible thing for commercial entities to have access to any crime information system. I just do not think it is any of their business, frankly.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Kelly, on what do you base your belief that the national office has this drive on to establish a national communications system? Is it the preparation of the guidelines that you are talking about and other data?

Mr. KELLY. When you are State director, an awful lot of information crosses your desk pertaining to the national program and pertaining to what the various States and localities are doing. All I am really saying is that a high percentage of that material that comes across my desk indicates to me that all of the States are moving toward a uniform system of dissemination of criminal justice information and communications throughout the country.

Mr. FASCELL. Is that with or without LEAA's assistance or knowledge?

Mr. KELLY. I would say that as a general matter, it is with both the knowledge and the assistance of LEAA.

Mr. FASCELL. If that is true or if at least that possibility exists, and if we have equipment as the basis of the system, would it not also be plausible to examine the proposition that an aggressive supplier-I am not inferring anything wrong here-under this kind of impetus would capture the market in most places so there would be a basis for a uniform system to start with? It may not be a written policy.

Mr. KELLY. That is a possibility. Certainly it is. Particularly, I think there is a good measure of concentration in the data processing line of commerce. It is a possibility, but I cannot say anything more

than that.

Mr. FASCELL. We do not know, either, but it seems to me it is something we ought to interest ourselves in. It may actually be going on, as I say, without a written policy position on it. If what, in effect, is taking place is the establishment of such a system by actually the capture of a majority of the market by one equipment supplier, the net effect is the same. I do not know whether that is going on. Certainly it is something we ought to be interested in.

Mr. KELLY. It seems to me you may find that computerization is presently in the posture that communications was in a couple of years ago. Rather than having a subcommittee investigate computerization 2 years from now, you may, perhaps, be interested in looking at it right now.

Mr. FASCELL. I appreciate that. You anticipated what I was about to

say.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this whole question of national policy on an integrated communications system for criminal justice is extremely vital. If that decision is being formulated, either directly or indirectly, or if it has been already made, it is a matter of the greatest importance for this subcommittee. I would hope we would have the opportunity to pursue this general line of inquiry with LEAA and find out exactly what our policy is with respect to this kind of system and its application to criminal justice.

I agree with the witness that now is the time to determine what policy shall be, and let us not back into a system about which there may be subsequently considerable criticism.

Mr. MONAGAN. May I say that there will be hearings with Mr. Leonard tomorrow, and you will have an opportunity at that time to ask some questions on that score.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot have that opportunity tomorrow, but I hope somebody will ask them for me. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. St Germain?