Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle. United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
(Mr. Odle continued reading memorandum) Mr. ROBERT ODLE. It says Confidential Eyes Only, Memorandum for Jeb Magruder, from Fred Malek, subject Co-coordinating Functions for the Campaign Organization, stated February ninth 1972. I have given further thought to our conversation of last night and to your February 7th memorandum to the Attorney General. Since I do not yet have an in depth knowledge of the campaign operation, it is difficult for my observation as to be precise. Never the less, I do have some reservations about the recommendations contained in that memorandum which can best be expressed in writing. Planning: My reservations on your recommendations pertain mainly to the suggested planning process, but also to the responsibility for implementation (sudden noise) Mr. Dash, you want me to read the entire memorandum here? You want me to read the substance and the entire memorandum, is that right? Mr. SAM DASH. Yes please, it's not that long. Mr. ODLE. Planning process, as you know the Attorney General has asked me to devise a management audit system by which he can track overall progress and identify major problem areas for corrective action. Naturally, an integral part of such a system is the establishment of bench marks by which progress is to be judged, or insured a plan. Based upon my preliminary thinking on this, I've tentatively concluded that the planning system should incorporate the following characteristics: The principal focal point of the planning should be the states, with the emphasis given to key states, rather than the functional areas such as voter block activities, telephone, direct mail, etc. Planning by state will help to highlight and direct management attention to progress on building voter support to carry individual states, the key to victory. Planning of the functional activities within a state should be based upon a clearly defined strategy for obtaining the needed votes for carrying that state. Spelling out for example, the needed vote margin by distinctive geographical areas, and the organizing and persuasion tactics which will be utilized. As is implicit in the above two points, the planning should provide a sound basis for tracking progress and identifying problem areas for a corrective action. The line officials who will be held accountable for results, principally the state chairman, should feel as though they have the lead in developing the plans effecting the areas of responsibility. Naturally, exercising quality control the national campaign organization must insure the plans, fit the overall re-election strategy and capitalize on polling information. From our conversation I would say you generally agree with this. However, from reading your memorandum, your position on these principals is not clear. I believe they should be clarified prior to proceeding with the development of a planning system. Responsibility for implementation, I believe there is a strong argument for having Bob Merick perform this function in view of his sound knowledge of the campaign operations and his access to research information. However, it is important for the controller to be intimately involved since these plans would provide the basis for tracking progress and identifying problems. To do this effectively, the controller must insure that the plans provide a sound basis for monitoring campaign effectiveness. Also, he must thoroughly, also he must be thoroughly familiar with their content. Perhaps we can meet the needs and capitalize on the strengths of both individuals by also giving the controller a definite part of this responsibility. Formal decision making progress, process. I really wonder whether the sort of staff secretariat operation which you suggest is necessary. Since a procedure has undoubtedly been helpful until now, since the attorney general is not yet present and his responsabilities have been shifting with the growth of this organization. However, with the attorney general coming on board full time soon, with him taking a more direct supervisory role over the field operations, and with the divisionary responsabilities between the principals being clarified, I question the need for a staff secretariat system. In fact, it may be counter productive. Such systems are inevitable cumbersome and therefore not conducive to the need for fast decisions as the campaign heats up. Also due to the sensitivity of the information and the need for speedy action, many of the decisions will undoubtedly be handled verbally. Particularly toward the end of the campaign. This would undermine the staff secretariats ability to coordinate effectively. I recognize the abuse which can be perpetrated without such a system. However, given the nature of the campaign management, the answer lies in appointing competent division managers, and making sure they have a clear understanding of the respective responsabilities rather than creating a cumbersome staff secretariat system. Of course the attorney general should and will decide this matter. I believe it would be a disservice however to try to persuade them to lead on a staff secretariat system, rather than bringing in the most competent managers possible. Clearly laying out the responsabilities and then holding them fully accountable for results. These are of course my initial reactions based on quite limited knowledge. Please note I am not now stating how it should be done, but merely laying out possible problems that need to be addressed before we get locked in. Because of the above reservations I recommend you either pull back the memorandum or ask the attorney general to delay acting on it pending a further coordination with me. An other option would be for me to inform the attorney general of my reservations and ask him to differ the decision. (WS courtroom) However I do not think this is desirable, and prefer that you and I work it out in the spirit of cooperation that must become our trademark. Frankly I was taken by surprise last night, after our discussion on Friday about the need for teamwork and at openly discussing my role, I was surprised that you unitarily submitted to the attorney general recommendations having a profound impact on my area of responsibility in my working relationships with him. This was the reason for my rather vigorous reaction. In any case, we covered that ground fairly thoroughly last night, and I'm confident that in the future we can work together on matters this sort and resolve or spell out any differences prior to submitting recommendations.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Mr. DASH. Alright, um I won't ask you any further questions on that memorandum Mr. Odle, it wasn't your memorandum, but it just put to you on the question of the memorandum did come to the white house and the format and would that memorandum be submitted and identified as an exhibit. (under his breath, says "I need someone to pick up the memorandum". Photographers seen taking pictures in courtroom.) Senator SAM ERVIN. Our Exhibitor can assign it a number. Mr. DASH. Yes, can you pick up the memorandum. And would the reporter assign the appropriate number to it. (clerk or reporter seen collecting memorandum paper from Mr. Odle) To the reporter, could you give it to the reporter please. Now, would you give this, I only have one further memorandum and question for you. Would you give that to the witness please. (Reporter hands Mr. Odle another memorandum.) Now Mr. Odle, you have before you a copy of a memorandum that has the word sample above it. Mr. ODLE. Yes. Mr. DASH. With the letterhead of Committee For the Re-Election of the President. Have you seen this sample memorandum prior to today? Mr. ODLE. Yes. This is a, we had at the committee a staff manual. And it told about everything from how to make coffee to how to write memos to how to use the telephones and watts lines and things like that. Mr. DASH. Now this being a sample and part of the staff manual, this was showing how, would be fair to say that this was part of the staff manual and a sample of directing a memorandum for Mr. Haldeman how one would direct that? Mr. ODLE. That's correct. This was just showing that is one at the committee were going to write a memorandum to Mr. Haldeman or someone else at the white house, that this would be the form that one would use. Mr. DASH. And does it show at the bottom that a copy would be also sent to Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. ODLE. Well it does, but only because, only as a sample. This whole memorandum is a sample. No, it wouldn't have been that all memorandums to Mr. Haldeman wouldn't .... Mr. DASH. But would it indicate that the memorandum from the committee for the re-election of the president to the white house at least went in sufficient number that you required a sample of a form to use so that you would have a routine method? Mr. ODLE. Yes, we did want to have a routine method, and because of all the new secretaries who were coming on board and all the various new people on the campaign staff, we did want to have some sort of standard memorandum format which everyone used. Mr. DASH. Alright. Now would you pick up the memorandum. That's all I have Mr. Odle. Mr. ODLE. ok.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Mr. FRED THOMPSON. I have just one or two questions. As I understand the significance of this first memorandum, the February nine memorandum. First of all, it's a memorandum which came from the white house to the committee. And secondly, it refers the fact that the attorney general asked Mr. Malek to devise a management audit system at a time when he was still Attorney General. On February the 9th, as I understand it he resigned on March the first as Attorney General, and it does reflect those two facts. Is that correct? Mr. ODLE. Yes sir. It would seem to be my impression that the Senate's interest in the memorandum was not in the substance of the memorandum, but rather the fact that .... Mr. THOMPSON. The fact that something was sent? Mr. ODLE. Went back and forth, which is a perfectly natural thing for, to happen. Mr. THOMPSON. That's all, that's all the questions I have Mr. Chairman. Senator HOWARD BAKER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman I have no further questions, but I can't resist the temptation to say to Mr. Odle that he's been a very good witness, he's been very forthcoming. He's testified at great length, and it was brought to my attention, a few minutes ago, that when his testimony was interrupted for us to go to lunch that one of the networks played "To Tell the Truth". Mr. ODLE. Well Senator, I appreciate that comment very much. I would say this, if I said I was happy to be here completely, I'd be committing perjury. (courtroom laughs)