Mr. ST GERMAIN. I think the record has a void in it. Would you be kind enough to give us your educational background and your work experience background and qualifications for the position you presently hold?

Mr. KELLY. I am a graduate of Holy Cross College in Worcester, Mass., and a graduate of the Boston College Law School. I was law clerk to a judge whom you probably know rather well, Judge Raymond Pettine in Providence, R.I., for a 2-year period.

I then moved to Wisconsin and became associated with the Milwaukee, Wis., law firm of Foley & Lardner for approximately a 14-month period. Then I took the job which I presently hold as director of the council on criminal justice.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. You say you were clerk to Judge Pettine for 2 years. I am trying to determine whether you have done any work in the criminal justice field, so to speak. Was there any concentration in the law firm you were with, or what have you?

Mr. KELLY. Yes. I am also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and in that capacity I have been heavily involved in the area of penal reform and, in fact, I testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Law Revision approximately 2 months ago on this very issue.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. With respect to my colleague's question about the statewide plan perhaps contributing to the fact of one supplier having the lion's share of the market, I question that, because in reviewing some of them, it was brought out that General Electric was the low bidder, and there was a second bid where the trade-in allowance was involved. This seemed to indicate that at that time a statewide plan was in effect or had been adopted.

Mr. KELLY. Perhaps my answer was not directly responsive. There is and has been for some time a statewide policy with respect to the building of a communications network, in certain priority communications matters; but there has been a policy determination made by the previous council, which is reflected in one of the exhibits in my statement, that the issue of bidding and procurement is an issue to be determined by each locality. That has been the past policy of the council. In effect, it just says to the localities if they are bidding, in procurement problems:

You solve them. If you have an ordinance which requires bidding, then you have bidding in accordance with that ordinance. If there is a violation of it, the remedy is local. Or if, in your judgment, State statutory law requires the bidding process, then you go ahead and have bidding, because that is your judg

ment.

But hands off on the part of the council.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I was not referring to the bidding process. I was referring to the establishment of a statewide communications network. Mr. KELLY. OK,

Mr. ST GERMAIN, Mr. Fascell in his colloquy with you observed that in so doing, the consequence might be that one supplier would end up with the entire market.

Mr. KELLY. That is not an inevitable consequence. It may be that all of the suppliers have equipment which will fit into a single system. Mr. ST GERMAIN. I agree with you, because it appears, with GE and Westingthouse bidding, GE was the low bidder. It would appear that

in your type of network, though it is statewide, compatibility can be achieved and yet purchase from different suppliers.

Mr. KELLY. Correct. I do not take any position. I just say that is one factor which should be considered.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. In the workings of your council and in the preparation of plans and applications for grants in Wisconsin, do you use outside consulting firms, or do some of the counties use outside consulting firms?

Mr. KELLY. I am very much opposed to the use of outside consultants. I cannot answer the question as a matter of fact whether or not the localities have used outside consulting firms. My guess would be that they have not.

You see, what they have done, probably, is to rely very heavily on field representatives of Motorola and perhaps of the other companies in the actual preparation of their application.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I was not limiting this to communications equipment. I was thinking of a broader county plan or regional plan, and the preparation of the plans.

Mr. KELLY. There is a lot of attempt to get us to use consultants, and we are not using many.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. By the consultants?

Mr. KELLY. Yes.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Have you heard of a firm called Ernst & Ernst? Mr. KELLY. Yes; I have.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I think you should look into that firm. They earn handsome salaries. We figured out something like $156,000 a year on an hourly basis, if you compute $75 an hour at 40 hours a week. Mr. KELLY. Not bad.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. It is a very lucrative field.

One last question. Has Wisconsin or any of its subdivisions in LEAA purchased any aircraft?

Mr. KELLY. No.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. INTRIAGO. Mr. Kelly, do you keep any pricing information or price catalogs from the manufacturers in the council office with regard to communications equipment that is available?

Mr. KELLY. Not to my knowledge, although I will say that we receive an awful lot of wastebasket literature that comes in, a sort of glossy portfolio type of material respecting hardware. My practice is just to pass it on to the concerned staff members, and my guess is that they pass it on to their wastebasket.

Mr. INTRIAGO. Have you any knowledge of instances in the State of Wisconsin where communications equipment has been purchased for list price or more?

Mr. KELLY. I would not be in the least surprised to find that communications equipment is purchased for list price. One of the factors which of course influences the decision whether or not to move to a central procurement is whether or not we can effect cost savings.

I also have received an indication that one reason the equipment sells at list price is because it is heavily used. This is information received from a Motorola representative. I make no bones about the source of it. He simply said that if it is used 24 hours a day, they bid the top of the line on price because they anticipate, I guess, heavy usage and heavy service and possible occurrences of breakdowns.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Kelly, there is one question that you have suggested, a big question among others in communications equipment purchases, and that is the capabilities of different suppliers or of different systems that they supply, whether they are comparable, and whether one could be substituted for the other or not.

Is there any process of evaluation that is available to your council? Do you propose some sort of evaluation of this sort, or do you propose to ask LEAA for assistance in making a determination of this type that would apply in the event, for example, you had central procurement?

Mr. KELLY. I do not propose anything, because I had not thought of the problem in those terms, but I would guess that the answer to the question whether or not such equipment is available is a fairly straightforward answer. It is almost like a mathematical matter. You can integrate the products of the X Company, the Y Company, and the Z Company. I suppose the first place I would go would be to the person on my staff working in the area of communications, and that job is presently unoccupied, incidentally. Then I would go to the task force and simply ask the technicians, "Is Motorola, is General Electric, is RCA, and anyone else, integratable into the uniform system?"

Mr. MONAGAN. In other words, if there were a capacity of one piece of equipment or one supplier that was greater than another, that might explain why there was reliance on that supplier to the exclusion of practically all others?

Mr. KELLY. I think Motorola does and will take the position that they have better equipment with better capacities, if you will.

Mr. MONAGAN. However, that determination by a supplier would not be final so far as you were concerned?

Mr. KELLY. No.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Kelly, I could not help noticing your reservation. Is there any relationship between a vacancy in the position of staff communications specialist and the testimony that we received from the State of Wisconsin today?

Mr. KELLY. None whatsoever.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you. I just wanted to clear it up.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Kelly, you have certain files that you brought for our inspection, I believe. We would like to receive them for examination and possibly for the record.

Mr. KELLY. Certainly.

(Project documents pertaining to purchase of communications equipment by St. Croix, Dunn, Barron Counties, and city of Prescott follow :)

65-812 0-72-pt. 2- -7

5.

Terms and Conditions:

It is understood and agreed by the undersigned that (1) funds granted as a result of this request are to be expended. for the purposes set forth in this application and in accordance with all applicable lawe, regulatione, policies and procedures of Wiscons ein and the U. S. Department of Justice; (2) no expenditures will be eligible for inclusion if occurring prior to the effective date of the grant; and (3) funde awarded by the Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice may be terminated at any time for violations of any terms and requirements of this agreement.

Name and Title of Individual Legally Empowered to Commit Applicant to this Agreement

Name: Norman Anderson

Signaturo: backin

Title:

County Board Chairan
Date:

November 18 1969

(a) Name and Address of Agoncy Providing Cash Contribution:
Name:

Address:

6.6ཤ4= c-ས ་

(b) Amount of Local Share to be Contributed in Cash:

(a) Percentage of Total Project Cost to be Provided
by Local Sharo Cach Contribution: (Divido Cach
Amount by Total Project Cost)

$15.428x8

სე

In-Kind Contribution:

(Attach Substantiating Statements)

(a) Summary of In-Kind Contribution to be Provided:

Pair Valué

(Divido

(b) Porcentage of Total Project Cost to be Provided
by Local Sharo In-Kind Contribution:
Fair Valuo by Total Project Cost)

(a) Substantiating statemonts fully describing in-kind contribution and mothod of arriving at its fair value must be attached to Form ACT-3.

(b) Concult "Local Matching Sharos" section in Appendix A of the
Guide for Application of Federal Action Funds in proparing the
Local Matching Share Summary and substantiating statements.

COUNTY OF ST. CROIX,

MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Sheriff's Office, Hudson, Wis.

November 14, 1968.

GENTLEMEN: As a result of the planning and recommendations set forth by the Communications ad hoc committee for the council on criminal justice, the following equipment and system changes are necessary for St. Croix County's communications system proposal of June 30, 1969.

The equipment and system changes necessary to comply with these recommendations are as follows:

1. Change mobile unit capability to a wide-spaced transmitter, which requires power output to decrease from 110 watts to 80 watts.

2. An increase of 100 feet on their existing tower due to the decrease in power output of the mobiles of 30 watts.

3. The deletion of low-band monitor receivers for the squad cars.

4. Addition of 1 control station to allow control of the repeater by the City of New Richmond.