The Star’s article about Larry Skelly and the many problems our local EMA has experienced over the last decade with the Army and FEMA was long overdue. I am glad Matt Creamer and Jason Landers looked into the murky world of CSEPP and the revolving door between the Pentagon, CSEPP contractors, military retirees, and contractors who get detailed back to the Pentagon. The Star can continue to perform an important public service to its readers by shedding additional light on this subject.If The Star is to succeed, however, there are several items in its story which need to to be corrected and a number of additional questions which The Star needs to get answered.
First, the article stated that the funds for the software upgrade would “not arrive ... until after a February workshop in Denver, where users at all CSEPP sites would lay out their expectations to the software whether the package was EMIS or its prime competitor, FEMIS.” What The Star failed to mention was that the Denver conference was being managed by Mr. Skelly and staffed by Battelle, the contractor which developed the FEMIS software system that the Army has refused to use. Battelle is the company for which Mr. Skelly continues to work, even while sitting in the Pentagon office which makes all major decisions about CSEPP, including software development and funding.
Second, The Star reported that “EMIS, the system Calhoun County uses, was the preferred software of all depot commanders where chemical weapons are stored.” In fact, several years ago all eight local Army stockpile commanders signed written memoranda saying they did not want to use FEMIS because it was significantly inferior to EMIS.
The national stockpile commander, Gen. Doesburg, sent a memorandum to Mr. Raymond Fatz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health (the very same person whom Mr. Skelly continues to advise) stating that none of the eight stockpile sites nationwide would ever use FEMIS and that all funding for FEMIS should be ended “no later than 1 December 2000.” To say that EMIS was simply “preferred” is a gross understatement.
Third, The Star claimed “since 1993 the Army had been laboring under a Congressional mandate for the military and civilian communities to use a single (software) system.” Actually the Appropriations Committee in report language that year told the Pentagon that Congress would not tolerate duplicative software systems.
As The Star continues its investigation into this important subject, I hope it will seek answers to these questions:
1) Who was the contracting officer and his technical representative in the Department of the Army in 1992 who accepted PNNL’s unsolicited proposal to fund the development of the FEMIS software system after the Army had already spent millions of taxpayer’s money to develop and implement the EMIS system?
2) Where did that contracting officer or that technical representative after go to work after they retired from the Army?
3) How did Skelly find his way back into the Pentagon
after going to work for PNNL?
Who requested that he be detailed as a special assistant to Mr. Denzel Fisher?
4) What role, if any, did Mr. Skelly play in Deputy Assistant Secretary Fatz’s successful effort to continue the funding for the FEMIS software system to stockpile communities after General Doesburg concluded that none of the eight stockpile sites would use FEMIS on-post, that all funding for FEMA should be eliminated, and that all off-post communities should use the same software system being used by the Army?
5) What was the position of the Army officials at SBCCOM, who conducted the tests of the EMIS and FEMIS systems which concluded that EMIS was superior and that FEMIS was not effective, about efforts in Deputy Assistant Secretary Fatz’s office to continue the funding for FEMIS to stockpile communities for the entire life of the program?
6) The Star reports that although “Mr. Skelly is a Battelle employee again, his current duties involve providing technical support to Raymond Fatz, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health.” What “technical support” is Mr. Skelly providing, and how does Mr. Skelly’s current “arrangement” clear up the questions The Star has raised?
I hope The Star can get each of these questions answered and bring some accountability to a program which remains out of control.
Michael A. Burney
Executive Director
Calhoun County EMA
