However, State land-grant colleges and universities may obtain property under the statute cited above and make it available for use in educational programs conducted by any department or employee of the college or university. Since the Extension Service is an integral part of the college or university, and State and county Extension workers are college employees and are engaged in the conduct of off-campus educational programs of such institutions, the college or university may obtain Federal surplus property under the provisions cited above and make it available to State and county Extension workers for use in conducting approved cooperative Extension educational programs. Our understanding of this matter has been concurred in by representatives of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Application to obtain Federal surplus property should be made only through your college or university procurement officer in accordance with established institutional procurement procedures. If your procurement officer encounters any misunderstanding with regard to authority to make property donated to the college available for use in cooperative extension educational programs, we should appreciate your informing this office. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will send copies of this letter to DHEW regional property coordinators. Sincerely yours, J. W. FERGUSON, Administrator. DHEW, REGION 5, Chicago, Ill., July 15, 1957. To: W. L. Musser, regional property coordinator. Subject: Eligibility-Donation of surplus property for extension service activities sponsored by State universities. The attached memorandum regarding above referenced subject is submitted for your information and guidance. Inasmuch as the cooperative Extension Service educational programs are sponsored by State universities and State colleges, the sponsoring college or university may acquire in its own name and furnish equipment for carrying out Extension programs through surplus property sources. At all times title to property so donated will be vested and remain in the State college or university responsible for carrying out the agricultural Extension program in the State. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE and Home ECONOMICS, Mr. WALTER G. RHOTEN, State Agency for Property Utilization, Columbus, Ohio, August 8, 1957. DEAR MR. RHOTEN: We regret the delay that has occurred since receiving your letter of July 17, 1957. You are aware, I am sure, how schedules can get involved and how easily we can get scheduled out of the office. We noted C. M. Ferguson's reference to the Federal surplus property program in his release dated May 29, 1957. He knew of our developments in Ohio but, of course, in his operation he has to report on the national level and made his release accordingly. We are extremely happy over the progress made in this State. I am attaching a copy of a report on the surplus property situation as of this date. We are also enclosing an excerpt from our "green" letter under date of August 28, 1956, a copy of which was forwarded to the Federal office at that time. In accordance with your suggestions I will follow through again with further information. Very truly yours, W. B. WOOD, Director. Report of Federal surplus personal property transferred to agricultural extension service, College of Agriculture, Ohio State University, from Oct. 10, 1956, through June 30, 1957 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS, Mr. WALTER G. RHOTEN, State Agency for Property Utilization, Columbus, Ohio. DEAR MR. RHOTEN: You wrote me some time ago concerning our Federal surplus property program as it is operated through agricultural extension here at the university. We appreciate fully the progress that has been made. The list which you attached is evidence that our staff is receiving a large amount of valuable equipment. This will add materially to the total extension program. We appreciate this report and will look forward to later ones, which I understand you plan to submit. Mr. Amsbaugh tells me that a schedule is being continued for agents to visit the depot. Please accept our appreciation for the excellent manner in which you are handling this program. Very truly yours, W. B. WOOD, Director. Report of Federal surplus personal property transferred to agricultural extension service, College of Agriculture, Ohio State University, from July 1, 1957, through June 30, 1958 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS, STATE OF OHIO, Mr. WALTER G. RHOTEN, Chief, State Department of Education, DEAR MR. RHOTEN: Thank you for your letter of July 25 and the enclosed report on our transactions with surplus commodity during the past 6 months. We note also the grand totals showing the transactions from July 1956 through June 30, 1958. Although our operation has not been so extensive as we had anticipated, we want you to know we feel the program has made a real contribution to our extension program. It would be my recommendation that we continue operating on a basis similar to the one already set up for at least a time longer to determine the future trends a little more definitely. Very truly yours, W. B. WOOD, Director. Report of Federal surplus personal property transferred to agricultural extension service, College of Agriculture, Ohio State University, from July 1, 1958, through Dec. 31, 1958 Director, Agricultural Extension Service, JULY 2, 1959. DEAR MR. WOOD: In our letter, dated August 23, 1957, we advised you that every 6 months the State agency for property utilization of the department of education, would transmit to you a report in the form of a financial summary showing the dollar value of Federal surplus personal property transferred to county agricultural extension agents through the Agricultural Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Ohio State University. Enclosed is the fifth semiannual report for the period of January 1, 1959 through June 30, 1959. You may wish to include this information in the next issue of the extension service's "green" letter. You will note that from the first transfer, dated October 10, 1956, through June 30, 1959, that the State agency for property utilization of the department has transferred property to county agricultural extension agents valued at $53,499 at a transfer charge of $3,372.50 or 6.3 percent of its acquisition cost. Very truly yours, WALTER G. RHOTEN, Chief. Report of Federal surplus personal property transferred to agricultural extension service, College of Agriculture, Ohio State University, from Jan. 1, 1959, through June 30, 1959 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Senator ERNEST GRUENING, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Donable Property, Senate Committee on Government Operations, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR GRUENING: Reference the department of education's letter, dated July 6, 1959, pertaining to the transfer of Federal surplus personal property through Ohio State University, College of Agriculture, cooperative extension work, for use by county agricultural and home economic extension agents. In our letter of above date we endeavored to point out to your Special Subcommittee on Donable Property that there is no need to enact Senate bill 1018 because property is already being made available to cooperative agricultural extension services in this as well as other States. Under date of July 2, 1959, we asked Director W. B. Wood, of the cooperative extension service of Ohio State University to reply to certain questions. For the subcommittee's information these questions and answers follow: 1. Question. How many of the 88 counties in Ohio have been assigned dates to select property in the State agency warehouse? Answer. Fifty-nine counties have been assigned dates to select property in the State agency warehouse. All counties have been advised of the availability of Federal surplus property and given instructions about requesting selection dates. 2. Question. How many of the counties that have been assigned dates have actually visited the warehouse and selected property? Answer: Forty-seven counties have visited and selected property. Twelve additional counties visited the warehouse, but made no selections. 3. Question. List the counties that have participated and indicate, dollarwise, the service charges they have paid for the property received. Indicate the number of single items of property received by each county. Answer. This information is shown on a separate map. 4. Question. Have any letters been received from county agricultural extension agents in which they comment on the value of the program? Answer. We do not have available any letters from county extension agents commenting on the value of the program. From comments we have heard the range is from "of no value to me" to "very worthwhile." Some agents have visited the warehouse looking for a specific item or two. Not finding it that particular assigned date, they are disappointed and do not return. We recognize the value of the equipment transferred and believe it most worthwhile. All who have recently visited the warehouse are in agreement that the new arrangement of items in the warehouse, the use of bins, and the grouping of similar items are a decided improvement. A few agents do not feel that they can justify a full day from a heavy county schedule to visit the warehouse. In a brief analysis we made, other interesting facts were uncovered that may be of significance. They are: (a) The average service charge per county to date is $68.94. The range is from $1 to $272.14. Only the 47 that actually made selections were considered. (b) The average number of items selected to date is 142. The range is from 1 to 604. (c) The average service charge per visit is as follows: 18 counties making 1 trip only, $22.85; 8 counties making 2 trips only, $25.87; 12 counties making three trips only, $26.89; 9 counties making 4 or more trips, $39.03. 5. Question. Would the cooperative extension service of Ohio State University care to make any recommendations that might improve the program? Answer. We are of the opinion that the program is worthwhile from our point of view and hope that we may continue to participate. It might be that a limitation of four to six scheduled dates per year would now meet our needs adequately. Our agents are interested in obtaining office equipment and supplies. We would be most appreciative if a method could be devised, without showing partiality to us, whereby more office machines, files, cabinets and the like could be available on days agents are scheduled in. By the answers given to the questions, you can see that the cooperative extension service, College of Agriculture, Ohio State University, is definitely interested in continuing to obtain Federal surplus personal property. We respectfully suggest that when Senate bill 1018 is heard that the map and the enclosed material be made a part of the record. |