State of Arizona Project S.L.I.M. report on the Arizona Department of Agriculture

              I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STAlE OF ARIZONA
PROJECT S. LI. M. REPORT ON THE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
JtJy 2, 1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRIQJLTURE
PROJECrSUM
TABlE OF CONTENTS
EXEQIT1VE SlJUMARY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Animal Services DlvlsJon
LIvestock Inspectors .•.••.••.•••••.•••••..•••.••...••••••••.•........•..•... " 14
AnImal to Plant services Functions Transfer ..•....•.......•.•.....•......•.....•.... 19
Plant Services pMslon
Closure of ADA Border Stations .•.•....•......•................................ " 22
Combining Plant Inspection Regional OffIces ........•.•....•.•....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
Special Projects Manager Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .. 28
Evaluation of Program Specialist- Eastern Region ....••.......•.•.••..•..........•.... 31
Utllzatlon of NatIve Plant Manager and Staff ..........................•...•.•....... 33
Transfer of Seed Inspection Function .•...•....•.............•..•................ " 35
Fruit and Vegetable Standardization StaffIng ....•......••.•.•....•.•.....•.•......•. 40
Office of Inspectlonffialnlng
Assignment of Inspectlon/ Tralnlng Functions ...•................•................... 43
EnvIronrnenta! ServIces pMslon
EnvIronmental ServIces Division ActIvIties .•...•••.•.•......•.•"..................... 48
ARIZONA O£ Pl 0' bl~~ AilV
ARCHIVES& PU~ b!~ ~ f€ OORiji
MAR 1 91993
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRIaJLTURE
PROJECT SUM
TABU: OF CONTENTS
( Continued)
EXtIBITS
1. Interview list 8
2. Current OrganIzation Chart - ArIzona Department of Agriculture . • • . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • . . . 9
3. Summary of TItles and Savings . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
4. Summary of Positions Savings •.•.••.••.•.•••.•....••.••.................. 11
5. Proposed Organization Chart - ArIzona Department of AgrlCl. dture ..•.•......•...... 12
6. Implementation Schedule 13
7. LJvestoek Service Measurements . . . . • . • . . . . . • • . . • • . . . . . . . . • . . • . • . . . . . . . . . .. 18
8. Present Organization Chart - Plant Services Division .......•.................•.. 38
9. Proposed Organization Chart - Plant Services Division ........••........•....•.. 39
10. Organization Dated July 1, 1991 •..•....................................... 46
11. Organization Dated March 12, 1992 .•...................•................... 47
12. Organization Dated March 19,1992 .....•................................... 51
II
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
JUy 2,1992
Mr. KeIth Kelly
DIrector
ArIzona Department d Agrtculture
1688 West Adams
Phoenix, ArIzona 85007
Dear Mr. Kelly:
The Governor's Project SUM review of your agency has been completed, and the project team Is
pleased to present you with this summary of our findings and recommendations. The study was initiated
on Feb. 28, 1992 and the field work was completed approximately April 3, 1992.
The summary restates the objectives of the review, the approach which was used, and highlights
the major changes recommended as a result of the study. It quantifies the potential benefits for your agency
and the public at large and summarizes the key implementation actions and legislative support needed to
convert the potential ito actual benefits. The summary is followed by the detaled findings and
recommendations.
In total. the recommendations identify approximately $ 1.785,086 in benefits for your agency.
QBJECJJYES & GOALS
The overall objective of this study was to find ways to improve the delivery d services In the ArIzona
Department of Agrtculture ( ADA). The goals were to Improve the process of delivering public services and
reduce the cost of government whenever and wherever possible. Impediments to prompt and effective
services were to be identified and removed where possible. and structures established which support the
long- term goal of continuous improvement using total quality management concepts throughout the agency.
We reviewed the shelf data from the Department to understand the mission, responsibilities. and
workloads. Interviews were conducted with all levels of supervision and selected technical and clerical
positions. We observed work activities. computer system use and obtained either actual or estimated work
Mr. KeIth Kelly, Director
Arizona Department d AgricUture
Page 2
measurement standards for the proces. S8S which were reviewed. We discussed procedural findings wtth
work center managers and supervisors.
ExhibIt 1. Interview LIst, lists the 21 individuals we contacted during the review. Many of these
individuals were contacted more than once to confirm our understanding d their areas of responsibUlty and
to discuss the feaslblity d proposed ptocess changes and structures. Because d their cooperation and
participation, the SUM Team and your managers have been Involved together, Interacting and Interfacing
on the information that has resulted In the recommendations.
exhibit 2, Current Organization Chart - Arizona Department of Agriculture, dated March 12, 1992
shows the structure of each dMslon as It was presented to us during the review. Though changes have
occurred during and since the Project SUM review, It Is Included to provide the reader a frame of reference
and a benchmark against which all changes can be measured.
During the study there were 318 budgeted positions within ADA of which 270 positions were funded
from the General Fund and 48 were Federally funded under a 90/ 10 ratio.
SUMMARY ANDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Major potential savings come from combining Units or Sections where there Is duplication or
fragmentation of workload, and the elimination of activities and processes not considered essential or cost
effective.
Our review recommends placing some Sections and functions · In a more homogeneous
arrangement. As examples, the ApIary functions were spilt between the Animal ServIces Division and the
OffIce of Inspection and Training; Feed and Hay, and Feed Brokers Sections were under the Animal Services
Division, but relate more closely to Plant Services; and Plant Quarantine, exotic Pest Survey Design, and
Integrated Pest Management were under the OffIce of Inspectlon/ Tralnlng rather than Plant services.
Specific recommendations by area are listed below.
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
t
I
I,
I
Mr. KeIth KaIIy, DIrector
ArIzona Department cI Agrtcdure
Page 3 •
In the Eastern and Western Regions we recommended the closure of the agriculture inspection
border stations and augmenting the Internal inspection offices with 15 additi0nai positions. The net savings
Is $ 1,119,105. The vehicles required for the additional positions can be obtained from the Animal Services
DIvIsion reduction in livestock inspectors and from nHIIlocation within the Department.
As the result cI closing the agriculture border stations, we also recommend combining the Eastern
and Western Regions. This action eliminates two positions with a savings of $ 66, 289.
The primary duty of the Special Projects Manager Is to oversee the cotton p1aw- dOYm program as
a pest control measure. Though this Is a new and successful program, It Is not a full- time effort. We
recommended this function be transferred to the Entomology Office along with a clerk- typlst position, saving
$ 48,505.
AProgram SpeclaIlst Is assigned to the Eastern Region whose principal duties relate to the State
Seed Program. This position Is under utlized and to some extent dUplicates yak performed In the Seed
Section, recommended as the Seed, Feed, and Hay Section. We recommended this position be eliminated
with a savings of $ 36,504.
The Native Plant OffIce enforces the NatIve Plant Law, working closely with the Native Plant Advisory
Board and the field Inspectors. The workload In this office did not Justify the need for three FTEs, based
on data made avaIabie to the SUM Team. We recommended the elimination of two FTEs with a savings
of $ 59,914.
The Seed Program was assigned to two different organizations. We recommended the
consolidation of these functions to eliminate any duplication. No direct savings are calculated, the
Improvement being In organization structure and operations.
Mr. KeIth Kelly, DIrector
ArIzona DepartmentmAgrIcWture
Page 4
The Fruit and Vegetable Standardization staffing indicated a one- on- one ratio at the supervisory
levels. We could find no impediments that would accrue or be evident by eliminating one of the supervisory
positions. We recommended the elimination of the AssIstant position resulting In a savings of $ 48,400.
In the Animal ServIces Division we recommend a reduction In the number of livestock Inspectors
due to reduced herd sizes and the transfer of some functions to the Plant ServIces Division. The result of
our review Indicates a reduction of eight FTEs and a corresponding cost reduction of $ 255,500 per year.
In addition, there wli be a cost avoidance In the amountm$ 36,500 for a tataI savings of $ 292,000.
We believe that the functions related to ApIary, Feed, and Hay Brokers are more closely aligned with
Plant ServIces aetIvItIes and shol* S be located there.
In the Office of Inspection/ Tralning we recommend transferring the four positions In Integrated Pest
Management, Plant Quarantine and ExotIc Pest Surveyto the Field Entomology section of the Plant Services
DMslon and abolishing the Office. The net result Is a reduction of one FTE and a budgetary savings of
$ 53,000.
Based on the current workload In the Environmental Services Division, we recommend the
eilmlnatlon of the Pest Control Supervisor to Improve the span of control without Impairing the function. All
Pest Controllnspeetors wli report dlreetly to the Compliance Assistant Director. Further, we recommended
hiring a female In one of the Industrial Hygienist positions to address female workers' problems. The vacant
Pest ControIlnapector position was eliminated.
The Team's recommendations, and the accompanying exhibits which deecrIbe them, are based on
the situation as It existed at the time of the Interviews and analysis.
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. KeIth Kelly, DIrector
ArIzona Department a AgrkUture
Page 5
exhibit 3, Summary of TItles and Savings, shows the Impact of each of the recommendations. and
Includes avoidance of future costs. redudlon of present costs, and any Independent Impact on the public.
The magnitude a each Is:
Implementation IBtershJp wi determine If the maximum 8BVIngs are achieved by putting In place
the concepts proposed In this document, and resolving 8ny differences which exist due to Interim changes
In the organization.
$ 61,369
1.723.717
= 0-
Total: 11 · 785' 086
Cost Avoidance
Cost Reduction
Public SavIngs
The Improved services and benefits outlined above are achieved through the 11 Recommendations
discussed In this report. The recommendations apply to several areas such as organization restructuring,
management controls, functional realignment, work measurement, public benefits. and staffing requirements.
exhibit 4, Summary of Positions SavIngs, shows how the recommendations would Impact the
various divisions and major sections of ADA. As Indicated In the exhibits. the recommended staffing totals
255 against the 318 proposed by ADA for a savings and cost avoidance of 63 positions. At the time of the
review, there were two vacant positions In the total of 63.
exhibit 5, Proposed Organization Chart - ArIzona Department of Agrlc&. dture. shows the proposed
structure of ADA following the implementation of these recommendations. These structures are consistent
with the recommendations. but are not the only possible structures which can achieve the Improved service
end benefits. Actual structures wli be finalized as the recommendations are Implemented.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
Ii
I,
I
I
I
I
Mr. KeIth Kelly, DIrector
ArIzona Department of AgrtcUture
Page 6 •
IFLEMENTADON
Implementation Is the critical step In the process of achieving savings. Potential savings are often
identified but not achieved when the implementation process Is distracted by day to day activities and
managers Shy away from the necessary reduction In staff. Successful Implementations are marked by two
things: a strong commitment from senior management to achieve as much of the savings as proves
possible; and designation of Implementation team leaders with the requisite mental toughness to see the
task through to completion. The Implementation process Is best carried on soon after the review process.
this maintains momentum whUe the topics are fresh In people's minds.
We estimate that most of the recommendations contained In the report can be Implemented within
a period of twelve months.
exhibit 6, Implementation Schedule, shows an Implementation sequence and approximate duration
for each recommendation. A detaUed plan can be scheduled at the outset of the Implementation. Individual
recommendation Implementation requirements are Shown with the recommendation In the detaU section of
this report.
There are three major components of cost associated with Implementation. These are typically one­time
costs and represent a reduction In first year benefits. They Include the costs of current employee time
during Implementation, outside assistance, and employee redeployment. We believe an Implementation
team, appropriately supported and guided during Implementation can complete Implementation In six
months. Outside implementation assistance can significantly Improve the total value of benefits achieved,
the probability that benefits wli be achieved, and can reduce the total time necessary to achieve
implementation through the use of focused. dedicated resources. These costs depend on the total scope
of the assistance required, and are not Included In this Individual agency report.
* * * * *
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. KeIth Kelly, DIrector
ArIzona Department of AgricUture
Page 7
We wish to thank you as the Director of ADA and your entire staff for their complete cooperation,
participation, suggestions and comments, and support of our efforts during this study.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Governor and the SUM SteerIng Committee
In this endeavor. ShoUd you have any questions regarding this report please feel free to contact the Project
Executive or any member of your Project SUM Team.
• Milam Rley, Department of Transportation
• Amjad Huda, Coopers & Lybrand
The Agency Director's comments follow this signature page.
r~ SnLJofh'O
executive Director I
Project SUM
ADA · 7A
With the projected net loss of 45 inspectors, the remaining 55 inspectors
If the Executive Office, Legislature, and SLIM take the position that the
border offices must close, I urge that ample time is allowed to phase in
another system of identifying agricultural shipments before they reach
their interior destinations.
Pursuant to paragraph 5 of George Leckie's memo of June 3, 1992, I offer
the following response. The Department of Agriculture is committed to
supporting the objectives of Project SLIM, however we have significant
differences with the SLIM analysis, which" we have pointed out previously.
KEITH KELLY
Director • Sllrizona 7) eparlrrumt of Sllg" riculture
1688 West Adams, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
( 602) 542- 0998 FAX ( 602) 542- 5420
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR
June 8, 1992
The Arizona Department of Agriculture will require information on all
trucks bringing agricultural and horticultural commodities into the
state. I believe your report is in error where you state " ADOT presently
collects and records this data for that purpose". ( Page 24)
I believe that the premature closure of border offices and the loss of 45
Plant Services inspectors will have a devastating effect on the state's
agriculture and horticulture. Closure of these offices before some other
effective means of identifying agricultural trucks' origin, destination
and time of arrival, will almost certainly cost the Arizona taxpayers a
great deal more than the cost of border offices. Serious urban, suburban
and rural plant pests will not immediately become a visible problem but
a major infestation will present itself soon.
Dear David:
David st. John, Project SLIM
1700 W. Washington, Third Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
On page 24 of the SLIM draft report dated June 15, 1992, it is stated
that before border office closure, a system of notification will have to
be put · into place to notify the Department of Agriculture of the identity
and destination of vehicles delivering into the state.
It is my opinion that you are correct in that analysis. I therefore
appeal to you to carefully ex~ mine the existing ADOT system, the number
of trucks expected to be participating in the " Crescent" transponder
program in the near future, and what information can presently be
obtained via the Crescent system.
FIFE SYMINGTON
Governor I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
Letter to David st. John
June 8, 1992
Page 2
will attempt to routinely visit several thousand destination sites
scattered over the state. This presents a monumental task, one which is
unquestionably destined to fal~ short of success.
Concerning the reduction of eight livestock officers ( not " inspectors") ,
the apparent reason for this action is a " steady" decline in business
ranging from miles driven to number of inspections to the statewide
cattle inventory. This is faulty reasoning' -- the statistics typify
normal annual variations. ' For example, miles ' driven and cases . closed
have increased, and the number ~ f ~ attle inspec~ edin 1990 was up over
the previous year. ~ ur~ her, since 1989, the number. nf cat~ le and yalves
in Arizona has remajned constant and will increase in 1992.
The review by Project Slim personnel was cursory in the Animal Services
Division. Only a very few hours were spent with livestock inspections,
and then only in the metropolitan area, not in rural locations with their
different inspection needs. It is not true, for instance, that " the
greatest utilization of livestock inspectors is at auction houses." This
statement is incorrect regarding both the number of animals inspected and
time spent attending to this task.
Through self- generated efficiencies, Animal Services Division has
voluntarily reduced its livestock inspection staff over the years, from
83 in 1975 to 47 presently. It already is a lean operation.
If the proposed staff reduction takes place, concurrent changes will have
to be made in statutory responsibilities. The most important is ARS 3­1332,
which mandates livestock inspection " ••• within twelve hours."
Several days will be needed should this reduction take place. Statutes
concerning strays, seizures, illegal killings, dogs killing livestock and
starving horses will also need'to be changed to insure realism.
The Dapartmp. nt of Aqricult~ re will carry out its mission as efficiently
as possible, and we welcome the opportunity presented by Project ~ L~ M to
work toward greater efficiencies. However, I urge your careful
consideration of my foregoing comments so that our efforts are both
realistic a~ based on sound analysis.
~ y; relJlU!'~
Keith Kelly,
Director
KK: tg
e:\ wp51\ teilb\ llim06.08
ADA - 78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I,
I
I,
I
I
I
I
SUM INTERVIEW UST
ADA
Name ntle Date
Kieth Kelly Director Feb. 28,92
John Hagen Dap. Director Mar. 2, 92
Bud Saylors Admin. Services OffIcer Mar. 2, 92
Bill Allen A. D.- Animal 5ervices Div. Mar. 2, 92
Dr. Ray Hinshaw State Veterinarian Mar. 3,92
June Greves Admin. Off.- Anlmai Serv. Div. Mar. 3,92
Ray Collier Section Mgr.- Dalry Prod. Mar. 4,92
Dart Easterday Mgr.- Egg Products Section Mar. 4,92
Bob Payne Mgr.... UlfBStock Insp. Sect. Mar. 5,92
Bill Webster Mgr.- Investigatlons Section Mar. 5,92
Eva Norton livestock Insp., CtI. Region Mar. 6,92
Dan Rice A. D.- Plant Services Mar. 9.92
Almad Nasser Field Entomologist Mar. 9,92
Glen Thaxton Mgr.- Westem Region Mar. 10, 92
Bill Gorman Mgr.- Eastem Region Mar. 10,92
Jim McGinnis Native Plant Mgr. Mar. 11,92
Art Hernandez Port Supervisor Mar. 11,92
Joe Friesen Mgr.- Special Project Mar. 12.92
Ed Foster Fruit & Veg. Std. Mar. 12, 92
Keith Kelly Director Mar. 16,92
Larry Stanford Mgr.- Off. of Insp. JTraining Mar. 19,92
Bud Paulson Mgr.- Envir. Services Mar. 25, 92
ADA - 8.
EXHIBIT # 1
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE
EXHIBtT 2
N
! g
... AH012
... - - - .. .. .. .. - .. ..... 01' 1/ 1
DIRECTOIl
2
DEPUTY
DIRECTOIl
2
I 2Z I 131 I ,. 2 2. I 5 I n I J
CENTItAL PLANT SERVICES ANIMAL ENVIItO* ENTAL OFI'IC! OF STAT! OF!' IC! 01'
ADMIN. DIVISION SERVICES SERVICES INSI'! CTION & AGlUCULTURE cc. lODITI! 5
3 13 DIVISION 3 TMINI'" 1 LAB 1 3
EASTERN DAIRY AClItIC. PLANT CflEII. - REGION
"""""
PROOUCTS ..... CHEll.
"""""
QllMANTINE
"""""
SECTION
49 7 13 1 U
- WREEGSTIOENRN EGG OFFICE OF EXOTIC I'! ST BIOLOGICAL
55
"""""
PItOOUCTS ...... WORKER ..... SURVEY DESIGN "- SECTION
6 SAFETY 2 1 9
- ENT!' OINUODLGY
1 INVESTIGATION Al'IAitY
I- ...... ,
4 1
FRUITS & - VEGETABLES
19
LIVESTOCK
"""""
INSPECTION
45
MATIVE - PLANTS
3
MEAT &
I- POULTRY
INTEGRATED INSPECTION
I- PEST 23
MANAGEMENT 1
SEED STATE - - VETERINARIAN • 4
HAY &
L- FEED AQUACULTURE • - •
4D
~
- .. - -- .. .... " J _ - - - .. - _.... -
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUMMARY OF TInES & SAVINGS
Agency 1 TOlal 1 Federal-- I- Stale - Total Revenue Avoided Saved FTE Vacanl evenu AvoIded saved FTE Vacant evenu Avoided saved FTE Vacant r Rec: ommendallon TIlle Enhance Cost COSI FTE nhanc COSI Cost FTE nhanc Cost Cost FTE
UvesloclllnspectOtS
Closure 01 ADA Border Stallons
Comb. PlanIInsp. Reg. orr.
Sp. Prol. Mgr. Poshlons
Eval. ol Prog. Spec.- Eastem Reg
Utlllz. Nallve Planl Mgr. Siall
Fruits & Veg. Std.
IAsson: oi Insp. lTralnlng. Funcl.
EnvIron. Slrv. DlvlsIon
Agriculture Subtotal
292.000 0 36.500 255.500 7 1 38,500 255. soo 7 •
1.119.105 0 0 1.119.105 45 0 1,119,105 45
66.289 0 0 66.289 2 0 66,289 2
48.505 0 0 48.505 1 0 48,505 1
36.504 0 0 36.504 1 0 38,504 1
59.914 0 0 59.914 2 0 59.914 2
48.400 0 0 48.400 1 0
53.000 0 0 53.000 1 0 63.000
61.369 0 24.889 36.500 1 1 24.869 38.500 I 1 I ..
1i785.086]'%{ JB() Ef61.389:: Il~ 723.717 "' · · . r; .' 61]: ii> 2It,? ol: W'M: ol · : · WHO li{ I\; OI;} qdL~ ltWiffilQl>] kIl1; tWtI1. il7$; 3ttL; Y? i6ll11>+ 2
~•
- o
1- 0Iher 1 1 OneTIme SIaMe Rule Computer Months
Revenue Avoided saved FTE Vacant Public One TIme One TIme Change Change Program
1 Recommendation TItle Enhance Cost Cost FTE Tolal savlnas Cost ..
llveslock Inspectors
Closure 01 ADA Border Stallons
Comb. Plant Insp. Reg. Oll.
Sp. Prol. Mgr. Positions
Eval. ot Proa. Spec.- Eastern Reg
U1lllz. Natlve Plant Mgr. Stall
Fruits & Veg. Std.
Assgn. ol Insp. ITralntng Funct.
Envlron. Slrv. Division
48.400
x 12
12
2
2
2
3
3
2
KiifCiiIt\ lf8 SublC! lal ';{' · V:)&?.. fliin': · wP: 0 · · J. f" o · lh 748.400 IS@ H' fl •.,','}; 0 · 1 · ) VT · to : · :: · ~;~~~ n~ ;~ f$,: o.: 1 h{ wrt: ~::: o..: l:_:; ittt0;@ H. ml/ t? t! t1d~ nl1tf:( ff: § (~? C:~~ i~ t;:!
~
iii
= i
Co)
SUMMARYOFPOSmONSAVINGS - ADA
CURRENT RECOMMENDED REMAINING
t-----------+--- i CHANGE
Animal services 102 - 8 94
Plant 8erYices 131 - 48 83
Envir. services 28 - 2 26
State Agric. Lab 23 0 23
Office of Insp. 5 - 5 0
Office of Commod. 3 0 3
Central Admin. 22 0 22
Director 4 0 4
ADA · 11
EXHIBIT 4 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- .. - .. - .. ...; .. .... - .. - .... -_ .. -
~•
- N
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DIIlICTCIlt
I
DDIREEC" T" C" Ilt
I
I II I 8J I .4 I 21 I 13 I
CIIlTIW. I'UltT MIIIAL EllVI-. nAL STATI ..., ICI
AIlIIIII. SEIlVICES 1 SERVICES 13 SERVICES 1 ~ ICULT_ , • DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION LAIIOltATOIl't C-. oDnm
... STATEWIDE Mm ~ ICULTUIlE IIISI'ECTION 53 I- I'llOOUCTS 7 - ClfEJIlCALS .. ... CIBIC: M.
I-nELD
I- I'llOOUCTS • llCIltHll
f- 11IT0N0l0ClY • - SAFETY 4 "- aIOL_ ICA&.
ACCIUA-I-
CULTur
I'IlUITS
f- I t7
VIGITABLI! S
I- IMsn. nOll
NAnVl
I- I'LAJITS t
LIVISTOCI
I- IIISI'ECTJON
SEED,
I- nED I 3
HAY IUTI
I- l'OULTIlY
IIISPECTION
'-- Al'IAIlY , STATI
L- VlTEIlINAIlIAN
! Xtt8T s
~
ii
:::: t
en
AHe19
A .. ' nt.,'... .,
EXHIBIT 6
.
I• ---• 1
~ -
! -.. p -
: -
-=
~ -.. p i -: 1 p -
! -
• LLI
... I - ::> • e:::: l
~~ -.. ~ I
V)- -
z~ •
Q< - -- - - z .. JI 1-- < 2 - I- -
1Z.-.:- l • 1-- ~~ 11 -
- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1=
.. LLlCo.
... 1- - ~- I- 1--
! i .. ~ I- 1~ - - I-- - 1- ~ -
< p t e:::: l - < fi ! 1I I .. I, I i
~ I p' _ .. II ~ I • ~ i ' I .. L I I I S I = .. e .. .. :.
I • I .. I .. .. I I.. I .. .. .. A • I ~ .. iI .. .. • t .. .. ..
II n Ii ~ .. A g t ! , I I t " iI .. A ~ A ~ g I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ! .. I I I .. " t i
..
I ~ ~ ! .. I lip i ~ I I .. I ~ I ~ .
I ! I ~ ~ eli .. I I I III ~ I I.. I i • .. .. I .. g • & . .: I ! ! • I • I & • I i I" ~ a I II I i ~ ~
I! I.. ~ I I Iii ..
I i . . . . . .. . ... .; .. ... p I • • • .. • • p p ..
ADA.. ' 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UVESTOCK INSPECtQRS
Livestock Inspections operates as aSectIon underthe Assistant DIrector, AnIinaI Services DMslon.
The primary function ~ the SectIon Is to enforce livestock laws and entaIs the monitoring ~ branding,
transportation and sale ~ animals. Typical duties Include: inspection ~ equine and cattle to be shipped;
inspection of cattle and equine at various auctions; highway road stops of vehicles hauling livestock;
inspection ~ livestock at county fairs; and Inspections of special sales and preliminary Investigations of
thefts, butchering and other Livestock Law violations.
To conduct the livestock Inspection program the livestock Inspection section Is divided Into three
geographical units, Northern Region, Central Region and Southern Region. Staffing of the Section Is as
follows:
• One Section Manager who Is the Chief livestock OffIcer
• Northern Region with 15 FTEs
• CentraJ Region with 12 FTEs
• Southern Region with 16 FTEs
• Total FTE count of 44.
The SectIon manager position was vacant at the time of the study, leaving 43 field personnel
assigned. The centraJ Region manager Is HUng In for the Section manager.
The present workload consists of 60% of Inspectors time devoted to routine Inspections, 20% to
handling complaints, and 20% to miscellaneous activities Including reports of animal abuses, strays, thefts,
and public service such as assisting In the round- up of livestock Involved In accidents or escape due to
insufficient containment.
Inspectors keep a daly record of their activities prImarly for pay purposes. Thesummarlzatlon
of work on a weekly, rnonthIy or aemi- annual basis Is not done. An annual report Is prepared for budget
ADA · 14
purposes. MOlt inIpectors are In daly contact with supervisors. however. direct aJpervIsion of Inspector
aetJvIties Is not possible. MOlt Inspectors have a vehicle uslgned to them and they work out of their
1' 88idences.
In the past, field Inspectors spent time visiting ranches and livestock owners to check ownership.
In 1979there were approximately 100 livestock Inspectors In the field. At. the beginning of 1992. the number
of Inspectors had been reduced to 44. The major Inspections are now conducted at feed lots and auctions.
Road stops are conducted for livestock In transit.
Since most of the Inspection personnel operate out of their private residences. there is no way to
determine or evaluate their productivity. Although there Is radio contact between the Inspector and his/ her
supervisor. they may not actually meet face- to- face tor several weeks. A daUy activity report Is prepared,
however. verification of their report Is not possible. Most people In the field are on the - honor" system.
There has been a steady decline In the number of various kinds of livestock inspections. I. e.• cattle,
horses. sheep and goats due to decline In the population of Bovine, Equine. and OvIne. This decline ranged
from 9% to 29%. averaging 15% during the past year. The number of warnings Issued, road stops
conducted. mUes driven. and Investigations closed have also declined, on an average of 8% ( see exhibit 7,
livestock Service Measurements).
The greatest utltzation of livestock Inspectors Is at the auction houses. Most of the miscellaneous
aetlvltles could be handled by local law enforcement agencies. Abuses could also be handled by local
agencies. Investigations conducted by the State are seldom concluded.
The changes In Inspection priorities plus a decline In the number of Inspections. complaints,
citations. investigations and associated travel. and the projected wortdoad In the livestock Inspection
aetIvItIes. should require eight less personnel from the currently authorized level of 44 FTEs based on an
average of 15% decline In workload during the past year. The eight FTE count includes one currently vacant
position.
ADA - 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"" GIl'.""-.
We recommend achieving a greater efficiency and utllzatIon ci peraonneI through the following
,
8t8ps:
• Transferring miscellaneous activities such as strays, and thefts, to the proper local authorities
• Concentrating Inspections on feed lots and auction houses
• Reducing the number of assigned vehicles by seven
• Reducing the number of FTEs by eight ( from 44 to 36) In the LIvestock Inspection Section
• Transferring the seven vehicles assigned to the livestock Inspection function to the internal
inspection stations In the Plant ServIces DIvIsIon.
The benefits to be achlevecl by implementation Include:
• The reduction In Inspection workload equates to approximately seven FTEs at an annual
salary, of $ 36,500 each for a total savings of $ 255,500
• The requirement to fBI the current vacancy Is negated resulting In a cost avoidance of
$ 36,500
• Total savings of $ 292,000 per year
ADA - 16
ImpIIrNwM · '"
Implementation mthe above recommendations Involves the reduction or reassignment of
employees and the release mvehicles for other LB8S If retained In the State 1rMIntory. The time line
81t1mated for implementation Is from six to twelve months.
ADA · 17
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...... _-. __ ...... . ' - -~..... -
I ~ Grtrc) AlbA LIY! STOCI sunny
PROGUK
PDI e
PERHAHENT BASC REOIICTIOH OPTIOII DETAlL
SERVICE KEASOREHROTS I! XHf8IT 7
12
55
250
I no
UO: 101
1,800
', 200
411,'" U, 380
112,00'
308
UD
no
1,011,008
U
~
. I.. CD
,
I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1111:: 1111::: 1
, "'" ESTIMATED ' BSTIIATIB '
'. ACTUAL ' ACTUAL , aCTUAL , ESTIIATED 1 " IU2 I " UU J SlIVlCE nASunHBIITS I PI 1988 : n uu J FY 1990 : n 199' ImOOT I Iltl I
, I'" PBI omo. PI' OPTIOI ,
' IITlILllSllSl edITHL: ----,------,-- -~, -- I
'
I IHPOUS, BUP CAUU I U5, eoo I 313,000 I 331,000' uo, OOO 310,008 3U... 8 "
I IMPOIfS, Dun CUTLB I 1&, 000 I 11,000 , 20,004 20.000 lO, O" 20,100 ,
IKI'ORtS. RORSIS H, OOO 16,000 11,000 11.000 11 000 11 000
( BRDeBLI. OSIS tEST IOlnonla l 119,98' ( lIZ, 591 95, e" 96,000 100: 000 100: 000
, FlUD COHtLUUC£ IUSPBCTlOHS I 196 , UI 132 240' 21D • UO
' LIVBSTOCI nsncTlo.: , t ClTTLB IISrEcn. I 531,000 : 126,000 eu, oOl no, ooo I U5,800
I lSOIEUEIPS/ GIOHnSSPECUtRSDPlCTlD : UUI, O, 1O0O0 I 12115,,& 00300 11H6,, U00O0 11H5, O, 0O0O0 , I 12II0; 1500D0
VAlHIHGS ISSUID 131 331 ) So no
I CIUTIONS ISsua. " IU 30& 300 I 300
J IOU STOPS conDUCTI' 1 1 513 212 1 350 I 300
, KlLES DIIVEN I I ', 815,515 I, Dl5, UI I 1,100,000 " I 1,201,001
I INYBSTIGUIOIS CLOSIO I I 19 2t , 30 , 30
lHEAT 1 POULTRT IISPICTlOU: " , l OFFICIAL SflTl SLAUGHTeR/ PIOCBSS PI. ARTS I II ( n IS ( & 2 " II
cunOK IlBapt PLlUfS 52 55 55 55 55
I LlcnSES ISSUID I 250 I 2,. 251 I ISO I 250
I CATfI. 2 SLAVGn.. ID UIDIIIISPICTlOII ' ', 200 , 1.000 ', Oil , ', 200 I , 200
: POULTRI SI. AUGnTnU UHDIR INSPECTlO. I 382,000 : 351,' 00 I 3& 1,221 : 360,000 I' 360; 800
SAIEP SI, IUGUTBRED ulOn INSPECtiON 1,100 1.015 1,08& 1.100 I 100
f SVIH£ SUUOIlflUO UHOBR IKsnctloN f ', SOD f 10,000 ', 903 f 10,000 I 10: 000
, I I I
I I I I I ,
, I I I I I
I " I I I I " , I ,
I I' I I ,
I I I I I ,
, I I " I
I I I I I , ,, I '," II ,' I . ",- I ,, . ;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: i-
\, RI TlTl. I __ I'ROGRAH PRIORlTtVUHBEI I
\ _ JAGElle! PRlORnT IIUKBBI "
COllnCT IIAH£ - ' 1IOliE ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
!
~
.....
., r
~"" V1\ 1'" ,
NtMAL TO PLANT 8fRY'CE' FUNC110NS lMNSFER
Omnt .....
At the startmthe study the Apiary SectIon, Feed SectIon and Hay and Feed Brokers SectIon were
.. usigned to the Animal ServIces Division. The functions performed In these three SectIons are more
closely aligned with thosemthe Plant ServIces Division.
The functions mthese SectIons are:
• ApIary: Inspection program which controls contagious and Infectious bee diseases, parasites
or pests of honey bees
• Feed: Inspection and product registration and sampling to ensure accurate labeling and
quality assurance
• Hay and Feed Brokers: Ucense. Inspect hay brokers and enforce the Hay Broker's Law.
In addition to the ApIary SectIon In Animal ServIces Division there Is also an ApIary SectIon and
the Apiary Advisory CouncIlocated In the OffIce of Inspection/ Trainlng. Untl recently one person worked
both sections ( see exhibit 2, Current Organization Chart - Arizona DepartmentmAgriculture).
As a part mhis assessment of the Department of Agriculture, the new Director transferred the
organization and functions of the above mentioned SectIons from Animal ServIces Division to other DMslons
( see exhibit 2, Current Organization Chart, dated March 12, 1992).
We believe that the transfer of the Hay and Feed Brokers to Plant ServIces Is a realistic move.
However, the transfer of the Feed function to Environmental ServIces, and the ApIary function from Animal
ServIces to the OffIce of Inspection/ Tralning Is not as organizationally sound as transferring these functions
to Plant ServIces. Further, It appears that the functions of Hay. Feed and Seed could be combined Into one
organizational element rather than three. Operationally and functionally these three are closely related.
ADA · 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The functions remaining under the AnImal ServIces Division are naN closely & llgned and & II related
to animal services.
It Is recommended that the following steps be taken:
• Transfer the Hay and Feed Brokers to Plant ServIces
• Transfer the Feed functions from Environmental ServIces DIvIsion to Plant ServIces
• Combine the functions of Seed, Feed, and Hay and Feed Brokers under one organization
unit
• Combine all Apiary functions and assign to Plant ServIces Division
• The proposed organization Is shown In Exhibit 5, Proposed Organization Chart - ArIzona
Department of AgricUture
Beneftts
The following benefits should accrue by implementing the above recommendations:
• Uke or associated functions wli be grouped together providing for easier management
• Dual assignment of personnel to two different organizations will be eliminated
• A central point of contact for the public as well as intemal offices wli be provided
• No qL8ntlflabie savings can be calculated as the result, however, ease of communication
IhoUd be enhanced for more effective operations.
• Implementation of the above recommendations can be accomplished within 90 days
ADA - 20
• Personnel action Is required to r& WI1te position descriptions
• OrganIzatIon charts could be redrawn 88 shOwn on ExhIbIt 2, Current Organization Chart ­ArIzona
Department c: A ~ re
• A policy memo can be written to rBIIect the changes 88 recommended.
ADA - 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g OSIJRE OF ADA• BORDER STADONS
Qmd" P! Im
The Agrtcl* ure border stations are under the direction of the Eastern and Western Regional OffIce
of the Plant ServIces Division. TheIr primary functJon Is to Inspect all incoming shipments of agriculture
products to Intercept commercial vehicles transporting plants to ArIzona distributors and users. Particular
IIlt8ntion Is paid to such damaging Insects as red Imported fire ants, fruit files, red scale, ,., Ifonn nematodes
and other harmful Insects. The purpose Is to protect ArIzona agrIcUturaJ Industry from Infestation.
At the present time there are 60 personnel assigned to the border stations. The largest numbers
are on Interstate routes 1- 8, 1- 10 and 1- 40, traversing the State In an east- west direction.
The general duties performed at the border stations are as follows:
• Process documents identifying all shipments of agrlcUture commodities
• Reject shipments not meeting ArIzona's quarantine requirements
• Perfonn quick visual Inspection of vehicles carrying fruits, vegetables and plants
• Perform preliminary identification of any Insects found, package samples of suspect Insects
for shipment to the Phoenix Lab for final identification
• Take seed samples of bulk loads of seeds
• FAX wamlng- hoId or drop- sheet documents to appropriate ADA district or office nearest the
shipment's destination
• Distribute tourist Information
• AssIst Federal, State and local jUrisdiction as appropriate
ADA- 22
• ... Federal Rejections and 8881 trucks found Infested with Federal qlBBntlne pests
• AssIst Motor Vehicle Division ( MVD) Inspections for proper credentllls and pennIts ..,..,
During FY 1991 the number of trucks, R. V. s, Vans and Boats Inspected was 2,951,005. Of this
total, the border stations Identified 4,095 vehicles carrying - A- rated pests, those under Federal quarantine
8UCh as fruit flies, Imported fire ants. red scale, and reniform nematodes. this interceptfon rate equates to
approximately 0.1" of total Inspections. The personnel costs for the border stations was approximately
$ 1,492,140 based on 60 FTEs at an average annLBI salary of $ 24,869 per year, including employee related
mcpenaes ( ERE).
Personnel interviewed stated that It was Impossible to Intercept all vehicles carrying pests due to
the quick inspection process at the border station. It was further stated that the probabHIty exists that a
large amount of Infestations discovered were from plants that entered the State either dUring the time a
border station was closed, or from vehicles by- pesslng the ports of entry. The subject of by- passlng has
been a problem In ADOT as well as ADA. By- passlng Is not convenient on the border due to the limited
number of Colorado River crossings. However, ADOT studies have shown that border crossing on the
Eastern boundary Is rather easy. The Southem Border with Mexico as wetl as the Northern border Is fairly
open. fire ants. as an example, enter ArIzona prlmarly from the East and South.
Several examples of Infestation were cited both on commercial and private property. None of
these were detected at the border stations.
Due to recent budget constraints as the result of diminished State revenues a strong effort has
been launched bythe Joint LegIslative Budget Committee ( JLBC) to eliminate the border stations. this effort
Is bolstered by the relative ineffectiveness of the border Inspections. There Is concern, with cause, that the
closing of the border stations wli have an adverse effect on the agriculture Industry within the state, and
ultimately Increased costs for those products. Amajor eradication program, once the pests have proliferated
due to lack of controls, Is extremely expensive based on the experience In California and Texas.
We believe that the Inspection program wli be more effective If the Internal inspection program
Is expanded rather than maintaining the present border station activity. A system of notification wli have
to be put In place to notify ADA of the identity and destination of those vehicles delivering within the State.
ADA- 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADOT presently collects and records this data for that purpose. We believe that an Interagency agreement
with ADOTto provide this IlIformat1on to ADA by FAX or a modem would suffice and would be considerably
less expensive than maintaining an ADA staff of Inspectors at border stations.
Border station personnel also assist ADOT In processing commerciII trucks through the ports of
entry. At times when ADOT Is short- handed ADA Inspectors wli man the ADOT positions. According to
ADA personnel Interviewed this seems to be a regular happening. We coUd find no Instances where there
was reciprocity If the ADA Inspectors were short- handed.
A number d ~ were considered for staffing the Inspection functions within the Plant Service
Division. Those were; closing all border stations; closing the Western border StatIons only; retaining a
reduced staff at the border stations; maintaining a reduced staff at only the Eastern stations; and retaining
the current stations. After detaled review d the effectJveness d .00 d those above options, we believe
that the closing of all border stations Is the most viable option. Associated with this 881ection is the
conclusion that the IntemaIlnspection staff should be augmented to more effectively Inspect shipments at
the delivery points; I. e., distribution, wholesalers and rstaIIers.
The implementation of the first option of closing all border stations wli eliminate 60 FTE positions.
However, the augmentation d the Internal Inspection staff wli require approximately 15 additionat'lnspectors.
These additions are not the res& Jt d wort< mMSurement analysis but rather are based on best estimates of
the OffIce of Management and Budget, the JLBC and members of the SUM study tMm.
We support the following recommendations which are currently being prepared by JLBC:
• Closing all ADA border Inspection stations, reducing the staff by 60 FTEs when the
agreement with ADOT and the technology is In place
• Augmenting the intemal ADA agriculture Inspection staff with an additional 15 FTEs
• Establishing an inter... gency agreementwith ADOTto furnish ADA with data identifying trucks
haUing agricultural products into Arizona with points of origin and destination.
ADA- 24
.. 0 · .
IIIIfl111s
• The ADA border station closing wli reUt In a reduction m60 FTEs. At the same time, 15
positions wi be transferred to the IntemaI inspection function. The net result wli be a
savings m45 FTEs. The dollar savings wi be 45 FTEs X the average I8Iary and ERE of
$ 24,869 =$ 1,119,105 0
• There wli be additi0nai savings In faclltles cost which were not quantified dUring the study
• The costs 88SOCIated with the ADOT interagency agreement should not be significant and
should not be more than the accrued faclltles savings.
Implementation mthe above recommendations Involves the actions necessary to close or
discontinue ADA activity at the border stations, the reassignment and transfer of 15 personnel to other
locations, and the preparation and negotiationman agreement with ADOT. The time line for these actions
should not exceed twelve months.
ADA - 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CXMIINNG e.. ANT INSPECDON REGIONAL OFFICES
amrc.....
The two plant inspection Regions employ 108 personnel. About 102 of · these personnel are
deployed at inspection 8tatIons throughout the State and at the nine border stations at the Ports of Entry.
Approximately 60 FTEs are employed at the border stations with the balance throughout the Interior stations.
ThIs staff is divided Into two regions. Western and Eastern. each headed by a manager who Is
8dmlnistratlvely supported by a eecretary.
The primary function of the Inspectors Is to protect agrlcLdturai and horticultural crops by
inspection and quarantine enforcement throughout the State.
A discussion of the border inspection function Is contained In Recommendation entitled - Oosure
of ADA Border Statlons.-
A recommendation contained In the above referenced recommendation advocates the closure of
the border stations and the augmentation of the interior stations. The implementation of that
recommendation would essentially reduce the staffing of the Inspection function by 60 FTEs and augment
the Interior Inspection forces by 15 FTEs for a net reduction of 45 FTEs. The effect of the reduction amounts
to approximately 45%. The remaining Interior Inspections. Including mabHe Inspections will be approximately
55 Inspection personnel assigned to five sections or organizational units. this does not exceed the span
of control expected of a supervisor whose staff does basically the same tasks.
We recommend the following steps be taken:
• Combine the two Regional OffIces with one Manager over the state- wlde Inspection program
• Eliminate one Regional Manager and one Secretary position.
ADA .. 26
III""
Implementation of the above recommendations wll result In the fallowing:
• Amore realistic span of control over the inspection program with one person In charge
• A reduction In the budget of approximately $ 66.289 annually ( one Regional Manager, plus
one Secretary. includIng ERE).
Implementation tasks and time frame:
• Revise position classification
• Review and I' 88SSign duties
• CoordInate with border closings
• Complete In 60 days.
ADA - 27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SPECIAl PROJECTS twW'fl! POSITJON
Omd.....
On June 25,1991 a Special Projects Manager position was established In Plant ServIces Division
which woUd report directly to the Division Manager.
The principal duties of this position are: Supervise the cotton plow- down, pest eradication, and
mabie Inspection unit management. One clerk typist Is assigned to the office to perform normaJ clerical
duties.
A review of the Cotton Plow- down program Indicated It covered a period ofapproximately 90 days.
Approximately two years ago this task was performed In the Entomology OffIce by personnel assigned there.
Pest eradication Is a cooperative effort Involving the field Inspectors and the Entomologist. The
mobUe Inspection unit appears more suited to assignment to the regional manager to be utUlzed In
conjunction with their fleId inspections.
It was stated dUring the Interviews that the manager's position would serve In a part- time capacity
or liaison between the field Inspectors, District and Division levels.
The organization ofADA does not appear so complex that a liaison person or ombudsman should
be necessary In the communication chain. It appeared that all organization managers were well acquainted
and did not need someone to Intercede on their behalf.
An analysis of the duties and workload did not indicate a need for this position or the typist
position. Economies could be realized with the elimination of these two positions ( manager and typist) in
their office with the transfer of the typlst to another organization where she would be more productive.
ADA .. 28
8Icog1nwtW-.
We recommend that the following steps be taken:
• eliminate the position rA Special Projects Manager
• Transfer the Cotton Plow~ own Program to the Entomology OffIce
• AssIgn pest eradication as a cooperative effort between Entomology and the Regional
Director
• Assign the management of the mobIe unit to the Regional Director
• Transfer the typist position to the Entomology OffIce.
Implementation of the above recommendations should result In the following:
• The total function of field Inspection wli be placed under a single manager for more effective
operation
• A link In the communication chain wDl be removed Improving efficiency
• The typist wDl be more gainfully employed
• A direct savings In personnel cost of $ 48.505 ( Including ERE).
Implementation rA the above recommendations Is expected to take 60 days and require the
following steps be taken:
ADA · 29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Personnel action to eliminate the Special Projects Manager position and execute appropriate
reassignment or reduction In force procedures
• Personnel action to transfer the clerk typist position to EntomaIogy.
ADA - 30
EVA! ' l! lJON OF PROGRAM SPEaAUST - EASTERN REGION
ama..."
The position tilled Program Specialist has recently been assigned to the Eastern Regional
DIrector's OffIce.
The function d the Regions Is to perform inspections to Insure protection d agriCldturaJ and
hortIct. IturaI crops. This work Is done by the field Inspectors assigned to the various IntemaJ locations.
At. the time of the study no specific duties had been assigned to the person occupying this
position.
From Interviews conducted we were unable to establish any value added work effort expended
by ~ occupant of this position. No workload volume was avalable for assessment and none could be
foreseen that wcd: f contribute to the mission of Plant Services.
It was concluded that no negative Impact on the output of the Region would be evidenced If this
position were eliminated.
We recommend that the following steps be taken:
• Eliminate the position of Program Specialist In the OffIce of Eastern Regional Manager, Plant
ServIces.
ADA - 31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• The elimination d a position not considered to be productive or necessary In the operation
d the Eastern Region
• A savings d $ 36,504 per year should accrue ( salary & ERE).
Implementation requires action bythe Personnel DMsIon and should be completed within 60 days.
ADA - 32
IIDIIZ! IIQN OF MINE PlANT twIAAfI! Nt) STAFf
The NatIve Plant function Is organized as an office under the Associate DIrector, Plant Services
DIvIsIon. The current authorized staff Is the Manager, one I8I" Ilor Specialist, and one Administrative
Secretary.
The primary function Is to protect the native plants on the endangered species list, of which there
are appraximBtely 200. Further, their office works closely with the NatIve Plant AdvIsory Board on which
there are nine members, four from Academia and five from Industry. Tasks Include the salvage of protected
plants from highway rights- of- way, developments, land clearing operations, review court cases and reports
preparation.
The District Officer under the Regional Director enforces the Native Plant Law which became
effective under Senate BUI 1086 on July 1, 1990.
Athorough review was made of the mission and workload of this organization. Specific work data
from which to quantify work actMty of their office was not evident during the Interviews.
The field work of the office, Including Inspections, surveys, investigations, citations, permits, and
tags Issued, Is done by the Regional Inspectors. Policy and procedural guidance, evaJuatlon of data
submitted, and reporting are functions of the Native Plant Manager. However, the actual work performed
In the office does not appear to exceed the capabBltles of one person. Quantitative workload was not
available during the study.
We recommend that the following steps be taken: .
• Eliminate the positions of the Native Plant Specialist and the Administrative Secretary
ADA- 33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• A8sIgn the NatIve Plant Manager to represent the Plant Services dlvlslQn, working with the
NatIYe Plant AdvIsory Board, to issue policy guidance to the RegionIIlnspector.
"'....
Implementation of the recommendations wli result In the following:
• A ctear- cut division c: A staff and field operations
• A reduction In staff to effect economy of operation and stli perform those basic tasks
required for the management c: A this program.
• A savings In personnel costs of approximately $ 59,914 per year ( averaged salary of two
FTE's plus ERE).
ImpIenwHIon
Recommendations listed above could be Implemented within a period of three months and require
the following steps be taken:
• Initiate personnel action to abolish the two positions as recommended
• Initiate personnel action to reassign or reduce In force as appropriate.
ADA - 34
lRANSFER OF Iff') INSPECDON BJNCDON
At the present time the Seed Inspector Is assigned as a specialist In the office of the Western
RegIonal Director of Plant ServIces. ThIs position does not appear on the current organization chart. The
Seed SectIon Is shown on the chart as a separate entity. and Is not staffed at the present time ( see Exhibit 8.
Present Organization - Plant ServIces Division).
The function of the Seed Inspector Is to guarantee quality of seed sold on the Arizona market
through seed law enforcement.
The Arizona Seed law Is a " truth In labeling- statute to protect the consumer. Arizona produces
much of Its agronomic crop seed. but Imports all of Its vegetable seed. Almost all lots of seed offered for
tale In Arizona have been sampled or checked for compliance.
Arizona Department of Agriculture personnel work not only with the State Seed Law. but also In
concert with USDA, Plant Variety Protection Office. and the Arizona Crop Improvement Association. Most
problems arising from the approximately 850 licensed seed dealers are solved before reaching the
consumer.
Aclerk- typlst assigned to FNIt and Vegetable Standardization works about fIfty- percent of her time
keeping the ledgers for the Seed Inspector.
Inspection functions are also performed by Inspection personnel In other Sections within the
DIvIsIon. One person. however. Is needed to monitor the Seed Law program to ensure compliance to Its
requirements.
The placement of the Seed Inspector workload within the Seed SectIon Is more suited to the
Independent oversight and monItorshlp for the division. Rather than have two seed efforts In two different
organizations, the consolidation or merger wli be more effective.
ADA · 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The clerk- typlst who Is presently under- utllzed In Fruit and Vegetable Standardization should be
transferred to the recommended combination of seed, feed and hay functions as ahown ( see exhibit 9,
Proposed Organimtlon - Plant Services DIvIsIon).
We recommend the folloWIng steps be taken:
• Transfer the position of Seed Inspector from the Western Regional Director to , the new Seed,
Feed and Hay Section
• Transfer the position of C1erk- typist from Fruit and Vegetable Standardization to the newly­fonned
SectIon as above
.......
BenefIts to be obtained from the recommendation Include:
• The combination of Seed workload to more effectively administer and maintain the Seed Law
• Provision of clerical support to not only the Seed person but to other specialists within the
newly- fanned Seed. Feed and Hay SectIon without increasing personnel costs
• Full utllzatIon of presently under- utUlzed clerical support personnel
• No direct quantifiable cost savings wli accrue from the above recommendations. however,
efficiency should be Improved.
ADA - 36
The implementation of the above recommendations should require no more than two months
through the following steps:
• Position classification
• Personnel action to transfer positions and persons.
ADA · 37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
PRESENT ORGANIZATION CHART
PLANT SERVICES DIVISION
! XHI8fT1
~• M
ASSISTAIIT
DIRECTOll
I
r I I I I I I I
EASTERII "" TIll! IIlTEGRATED FRUIT I lI! GETABL! I'IELD SUD NAT I IIlSTERII
REGIOIl ' LAIITS NST IlAllAGEll! IlT STAIlDARDIZATIOIl ! IlTGIOLOGY SECTlOIl FEED REGIOIl
SECTlOIl SECTION SECTION SECTION IROIlERS
I
eliSA
~ 8lWlII! ~ I'IIll! IlII
ASSISTANT AllIlIIl.
S~ ERVISOll ASSISTANT
INSPECTIONS
~ TutSOIl
~ TOI'OCI
I- P'IlOEIlIX
~ _ LIS
I- ~
L- TUlIA
I- DOU8LAS
WIIlTP-I-
HAVEIl
~ WILCOI
.~ Y1IM
SAIl
I- SI_
L.- CAlll! ROIl - SAFFOllD
- SANDERS
AH020
1/ l4l1/ lVq,
~
~
OCI
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART
PLANT SERVICES DIVISION
EXHIBIT I
~•
I
ASSISTAltT
DIRECTOR
I I I I I
" IMY nTCIICllOllY IllTrRIOR """ IT & vnlTAlLf PHD SlID Mnw
SEcnClll SECTlOII IJlSI'ECT lOllS STAIIllMOIZAT1011
. _ NAY
PI. AIlTS
SEcnOll SECTlClIl SECTlOIt srCTlOIt
IIII
" IMY IIlT~ TD
I. ADYISOllY 0- rEST TUCSOIt ..... IX ~ _ Ill.
COUNCIL ~
.
,... PI. AIlT CAIA CIUMNITI. YWIA tMIIDl! I- ..... IX
,... EXOTIC PEST SUIWfY - WILCOX "- Y1IIA
DESIGN
SPECIAL .... IOUSLY RASTfIlI All)
I- rllOJECTS llESTEItII .81011
I'IELD
0- EIlTC* OLOIIY
'- 11I- - - - - - AHIl21 _ fIl""
~
ii
= i
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FRtIT AND VEGETABLE STANWDZADON STAFFING
Omnt .....
The ArIzona CItrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Program Is funded indirectly through a
nNOIvIng fund. this section has two major activities. one a quality control program and the other a licensing
program which covers all produce dealers, growers. shippers, contract packers. and citrus dealers.
this activity Is organized as a section under the Plant ServIces Division ( see Exhibit 8. Present
Organization - Plant ServIces Division). The efforts of this section are guided by the ArIzona CItrus, Fruit
and Vegetable Councl as provided In ArtIcles 2 and 4 01 AR. S. TItle 3, Chapter 3.
As Indicated In Recommendation entitled - rranster of Seed Inspection Function. · one of the clerk
typists assigned to this section works about fIfty- percent of her time for the Seed Inspector. making ledger
entries for the Inspector.
The Manager directs the activities of one Assistant Supervisor Onspeetor) and one Administrative
Assistant. The Assistant Supervisor Onspeetor) In tum supervises two subordinates who are In charge of
the Phoenix and Yuma offices. The Administrative AssIstant supervises three clerical Personnel. There Is
a vehicle assigned full time to the Supervisor with an estimated 24,000 mOes of travel each year.
There Is a limited supervisory span of control In this section having three levels of supervision
above the technician. In this Instance. the technician reports to an & reB supervisor who reports to the
Assistant Supervisor who reports to the SectIon Manager ( Supervisor). Amore realistic alignment would
be for the technician to report to the Area Supervisor who reports to the Section Manager.
The services of one of the clerk typists Is lost to this section by being assigned to the Seed
Inspection. and the balance of their time could not be quantified for utUlzatlon purposes. The transfer of this
position to another section was recommended In - rransfer of Seed Inspection Function. ·
The effectiveness of the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization efforts should not be adversely
lIffected by the elimination 01 the AssIstant Supervisor and one Cerk Typist.
ADA - 40
It Is recommended that the fallowing steps be laken:
• Abolish the positionsmthe Assistant Supervisor
• Transfer the positionmone Clerk Typist to the recommended Seed, Feed and Hay Section
Proposed In Recommendation - rransfermSeed Inspection Function-
• Acceptance of the organization structure shown In Exhibit 9, Proposed Organization - Plant
ServIces Division.
Implementation of the above recommendations should result In the fallowing:
• Reduction In the levels of supervision
• Assignment mclerical personnel to a position where better utlization wli be achieved
• Savings of the salary and ERE of one supervisor amounting to approximately $ 40,000 per
year
• Savings of one vehicle estimated to be approximately $ 8,400 ( 24, OOO mles per year X $. 35
per mle =$ 8,400)
• Total estimated savings of $ 48,400.
It Is estimated that Implementation of the above recommendations should be completed within 90
days, taking the following steps:
ADA - 41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Personnel action to eliminate the Assistant Supervisor position and reassignment of the
employee or reduction In force ( RIF) procedure instituted
• Personnel action to transfer the clerk typist to the recommended Feed, Seed and Hay
Section.
ADA- 42
MSICHENI OF INSPECDONfTIWNNG FUNCDONS
At the beginning d the study, the Office d InspectIonfTralnlng ( 001T) Included the functions of
Plant QL8r8nt1ne, ExotIc Pest Survey Design, Integrated Pest Management, and Apiary ( see exhibit 10,
Organization Dated J~ y 1, 1991).
This office was created to provide a technical resource base and an educational core for the
Department. One FTE Is assigned to each of the above functions.
Under the organization plan of 3/ 12/ 92 the Integrated Pest Management Section was transferred
to the Plant Services division Intact, ( see exhibit 11, Organization Dated March 12, 1992). Plant Quarantine
and exotic Pest Survey Design are also closely aligned with the activities In Plant Services DMslon and
specifically the Entomology SectIon. However, these remain In COlT.
The ApIary function, although not directly related to either the Animal Services DMslon or the Plant
ServIces Division, appears to be more closely associated with Plant ServIces since the plants are
complimentary to bees, and bees are complimentary to plants.
The Integrated Pest Management Section had already been moved to Plant Services. Since Plant
Quarantine and Exotic Pest Survey Design have the same relative association, It would appear logical to
move these two SectIons to Plant ServIces also. It does not appear logical from our organization review,
to establish one- person organizations, however. This move~ serve to Increase the span of control of
the Division Manager.
Integrated Pest Management aetJvltles are a series of techniques which Include cultural practices,
use of chemicals, prevention, etc., involving entomology, quarantine, and exotic pest management. All of
these would work together In concert In a cohesive program. Thus, Integrated Pest Management, Plant
QL8r8ntine, and exotic Pest Survey Design ~ d be combined with Field Entomology or units of a section
under Plant ServIces division. Further, a more descriptive title for this combined organization may be
Integrated Pest Management.
ADA - 43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The ApIary function has acloser relationship with Plant ServIces and would be more homogeneous
I assigned to that DIvIsIon.
The OffIce mInspection/ Tralning would have no further reason to 8XIst IInce all subordinate
f\ n: tIons would be transferred to Plant ServIces Division either In combination with 8XIstIng SectIons or as
an additi0nai organizati0nai segment. These transfers wli negate the requirement for an Assistant Director
and one secretary.
We recommend the following DpS be taken:
• Consolidate Integrated Pest Management, Plant Quarantine, and exotic Pest Survey Design
with FJeld Entomology as one Section and transfer all presently assigned personnel
accordingly
• Transfer the secretary position In the Assistant Director's office to the Field Entomology
SectIon to provide administrative support for the additi0nai functions to be assigned
• Eliminate the Assistant Director's position.
Implementation of the above recommendations wli have the following results:
• Elimination of one- person organizational elements
• AssIgnment of functions In a more logical and homogeneous arrangement
• Asavings of approximately $ 53,000.
All recommendations above should be Implemented within a Period meo days. Tasks required
are:
ADA- 44
• Preparation of a new organization chart
• Personnel action to eliminate the positions discussed
• Implementation of administrative process to nHlSSign personnel.
ADA- 45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I EXHIBIT 10
I
I JUy 1,1881 ..
Arizoaa Bee!
Council
Qemical
Section
Biological
Section
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
- 1...__ Ad_ YilD_ ry_ Co_ UD_ c_ I1 _~ -"- - -
Eas1em Region
Inspection Officc
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ADA - 46
tMI'ch 12, 1182
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
EXHIBIT 11 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADA · 47 I
3112J92
I FIfGe SofytmrDinOgrfon I
I AdYlsory CoUDdl ~---- Director KeithKel1y I
I DeJpouhtJylBDaJgnecDtor I
II CeDcnBaluAddSmai, Dloirsstratioll I
I I I
I Plant SerYices Division I EIl'riroDmel1w Semces DiY. I ADimal Services Division I Dan Rice. Assoc:. Di~ e: tor Bud PaulSOl1. Assoc:. Director Bill Allen. Assoc:. Dir=: tor . I
I- Eastem Region: I H Agriculaual I I./. ASD II Inspection Office Clemica1s .. - Advisory COl1Qcil
I- Westem Region: Insoection Office I H feed I- Aquac: ullD~
I- Field EZllomology I H Fertili= I- Daily Products
Control
I- Fruit" Vegelablel
· ISfl..& ndacrd. izFat" ioVn Lf Peslicides H EggCoPnrotrdoUlcts II ~ Office of I H- • Advisory COl1Qcil Wom: r Safety Investigations - 1 Native Plants I H Livestock
i Inspection
I l Native Plut U"' iJ
• TecII. Advisory Bd H Meat" POUltry
~ I ·
Inspection
Seed
HStste Veterillariao
HHay " Feed f Brokers ~ Arizona Beef
Y~: ementll° tr1c& oc~ arrl2UWlg I Council
IState Acricu1tural Laboratory I omce DC Commodities
Larry SlaI1foni. Asst. Dne: tor Dwight Harder. AsIL Dnctor D... elopmellt " Promotion
John Wake. Asst. Di~ e: tor
Plaat QaanmiDe ..- Qemica1 I- SeaiOll I- PCrooCtetoaIilORllcCaoeUu1clhClilli
10-
~ o& icPest .... Bioiopc: al
~ a.. mRaardII II Survey DesigD SeaiOll lPromocioD CoU1lCil
LJ .
Apiary ~~:~~ lt
:.. ~ Apiary H Iccbeq 1.&== I Advisory Council Resean: h Council
L. f 0UC0~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL SEJMCES DMSION ACTMDES
The EnvIronmental ServIces DIvIsion ( ESD) Is organized anier the DIr8ctor. ADA. ThIs DMslon
has undergone two reorganizations since the beginning of the SUM study of the Department. At the end
c: I J"' Y 1991 there were two subordinate sections; the Agrlewture Chemicals and OffIce of Worker Safety.
The AgricWtural ChemIcals Section had two subordinate Iris; Fertlizers and PestJcldes ( see Exhibit 10,
Organization Dated J"' Y 1. 1991). On March 12. 1992 the ESD added the Feed Unit under Agriculture
O1emicaJs ( see ExhIbIt 11. oiganlzatlon Dated March 12. 1992).
On March 19. 1992 the Division was reorganized along functional JInes rather than by commodity.
The newest organization shows two major sections; Compliance and UcensJng and a one person
Environmental Program SpecJallst and Agricultural Safety Section ( see exhibit 12, Organization Dated March
19. 1992). There are four positions authorized In the Agrlc~ ural Safety Section with two 61ed and two
vacant as of the end of March 1992.
The purpose of ESD Is to regulate the agricultural Industry to ensure the safe use of pesticides,
quality of feed. fertlizer and pesticides formlMtlons. and to cooperate with ather agencies having
environmental responsibIlties through Interagency agreements and memoranda of understanding.
In addition to the compliance tasks performed by ESD there Is a requirement to register and
license growers. sellers, fertllzers/ pestlclcJes applicators, equipment and agrlc~ uralpRots. These tasks are
performed by the UcensJng Section.
Worker safety as provided In the Federal Worker Protection Program Is Implemented by the
Agriculture Safety Section. These rules relate to the enforcement of safe work practices for the persons who
work with or are exposed to pesticide residues dUring or following application. Safety Issues In the field are
presently addressed by the Inspectors assigned to the Compliance Section. Quantitative data was not
avaIabIe from which to assess or establish finite staffing requirements for the Industrial Hygienists, the two
vacant positions In AgrlWture Safety.
ADA-~
SInce the inspection personnel are presently doing some safely inspections In the field It Is
believed that a cros&- trainIng effort on the more technical aspects c: I safely training woUd be sufficient to
meet any requirements I8vIed on ADA. It may be desirable to have a female on the staff who could relate
to specific female hygiene problems. It- is probable that some females woUd be reluctant to discuss such
problems with a male employee.
The supervisory chain c: I command Indicates a one- on- one relationship with the Compliance
8ectIon Manager. Accepted ~ gernent practices do not provide for this restrictive span of control. The
elimination c: lthe Control Inspection Supervisorwodd not change the supervisorjtechnlclan ratio and should
pose no hardships In the management c: I this function.
We recommended the following steps be taken:
• Hire a female, bI- IlnguaJ. Industrial Hygienist employee whose primary duty would be to
address female safety Issues
• Initiate a cross training program In the Compliance SectIon to enable all Inspectors to
address safety Issues
• Eliminate the position of the Pest Control Inspection Supervisor
• Eliminate the vacant Pest Control Inspector position.
BenefIts to be obtained from these recommendation Include:
• Broader based training for field Inspectors enabling them to address nUtlple Issues on a
single fteId trip
ADA - 49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• A female on the 8Iaff to 8ddress those I8sues with female workers on sensitive personal
hygiene matters, re& LftIng In coverage of the total 88f8ty concerns
• The t' 8ductlon of one supervisory position In the Compliance SectIon re& LftIng In a savings,
including ERE of approximately $ 36,500 per year
• The t' 8duetlon of one Pest Control Inspector I' 88UtIng In a cost avoidance approximating
$ 24,869 per year
• Atotal savings of $ 61,369 per year.
It Is estimated that full Implementation of the above recommendations shoUd be completed within
180 days through the following steps:
• HIring of a female employee ( bI- 1lnguaJ) Industrial Hygienist
• Reclassifying of one Industrial Hygienist position to stipulate female needs
• Eliminating the position of one Pest Control Inspector
• Eliminating the position of Pest Control Inspector Supervisor
• Preparing an orientation course and cross- training inspectors on safety Issues and Inspection
techniques.
ADA- SO
~
. e.. n.
.'
r
I' lIinch
1",, 1. " 0 Sp. o•• II ••
M1tOJZ. MI - ~••• ZD
r--
! C. IflIlker
,\ INII. A..•••
M1IOZaaAAII - Crodo n
'. 1•• 111II1
Seere'ar,
M11OS6DANI - ~.. II
l ....." r., IN.
tlnk hplsl III
M1tOZ9GAAII - ~. d. II
Dunne DeLeRe.
e ... · k hp••' III
MIt05eOANI - Cr. d. II
II. Ci .. D 5po.,.''''
MItOSUAAII - Cr. d. II
11l\ I11lOIKIIrM. 5IIIIIClS DIVISI..
lI... oh 19. 199Z
I ------) J. " ......... r. ul_
Ms. Ie'e Olrcell. ­M1IOJ6JMI
- ~.... Z4
5". 11. lo" 1lOR I ,\ INt. A.." III
M11OS4IMI - , ...... n
J
I II. SlInd.... A..•• al. - (.-., 11_.
MltOUSMI - Cn" ZZ
t. .1...... - ,\ INt. 5•• II
M1IOZ& IMII - Cr. d. n
1••_., Marti...
e" rk ', pl. l III
M1105J9AA11 - er.... II
' 0 r•••,
r••• e.... I... 1 In. p Sup...
M1Il1JZZMI - ~. d. II
-" ... ( 1II11nl I•• p II"
~.... 16
J. lurncr
M1I11ZUMI
D. Vllh
M1105& 5M1
I. Corcl. I MIIDS& 6M1
ro Ibl... I M1IOJUMII
-( I. AI....... I M1I11JI4M11
A. " Iv..
MIIDJl5ANI
'. i A. U~_ I M1IOZ9tMl:
J. Schl•• p
AAllOZtsMl:
EXHIBIT 12
1
r I. 1an1.1o....
Mo" II•• At ," I••,
MlIOJ& lfolt[ - ~," e zZ
L. rloll
tI... t ,,, 1•• II
M1IOJOJMII - er.....
I v.....
1........ 1.. ",. 1 II
MllllO. MI: • Cr 10
V.... t 1 L. I ......... 1.1 "" Ienl•• II
M1IlJUMI - Cr. de zo
i V••• nt I M1IOJ2ZMI: I A. Y'"." J I MIIUU.' A( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
OJ
= t ....
l\) -