Parks, Politics, and the People
NPS Arrowhead logo

Chapter 13:
Some Observations from Retirement

Over the last twenty years there have been increased violations of the purpose and intent of the civil service system. Most of them have introduced patronage by changing methods of operation and disregarding the basic principle of a career service embodied in the Civil Service Act. In July, 1975, the comptroller general submitted to Congress a report that criticized actions of the Civil Service Commission and referred to some of the violations of the act.

THE CIVIL SERVICE AND "SCHEDULE C"

Some time in the late forties and early fifties, word came out that some civil service positions of high grade were to be placed in a "Schedule C" classification and that the people in those grades could be reassigned to other positions in the government. This concept has some real merit, provided such changes are based on sound administrative judgment; however, it is easily abused and that abuse has for all intents and purposes grown to the extent that it is destroying the main reason for the establishment of civil service.

Shortly after the beginning of the Eisenhower administration, word came down from Interior Secretary McKay of a proposal to place the positions of director of the National Park Service and some seven top personnel on his staff, together with their secretaries, in "Schedule C." I strongly objected, not only because such a step would forfeit the long years of special training and experience required to develop capable people in the specialities needed to plan, develop, and administer the national park system, but also because it disturbed the general morale of people in the organization who felt that they were going to be traded around like professional ball players. Any one of us could be moved to any other agency, and goodness knows who might be sent in to fill our positions. The National Park Service is a professional career service, and its effectiveness lies in that fact. By the time a person gets into the upper grades of the civil service in the National Park Service, he becomes very valuable to the service. On the average, he will have had about twenty years of administrative experience with national parks and be in his upper forties or early fifties, and it would be rather late for him to start a new career.

After several meetings the secretary approved the placing of only the director's position and that of his secretary under the new schedule. But as years went by more positions were gradually placed in the "Schedule C" category until at the present time, I understand, all or most of the so-called supergrades—16, 17, and 18—are classified in the "Schedule C" designation. An "executive" classification has also been established in which the top supergrade positions have been placed by executive order of the president. At the present time any person who accepts an appointment classified as executive grade must give up his civil service rating and agree to serve at the pleasure of the secretary.

By the last year of the first Nixon term, the National Park Service began to get requests from the White House to give certain people jobs. Many of these applications were returned with the explanation that the individuals were not qualified. Word came back to the Park Service from the White House to put them on because refusal to do so would interfere with the president's program. About that time the director of the National Park Service, a long-term career man in his fifties, was requested to submit his resignation, and it is my understanding that other bureau chiefs of the departments were asked to do the same. Director George Hartzog submitted his resignation under protest. He had to resign because he was in the executive classification. It was accepted, and in 1973 a White House staff man with no experience in the parks was appointed director of the National Park Service. After the new director took over, it wasn't long before some twenty or so additional people were brought into the service with qualifications unrelated to the positions they filled. The new director, Ron Walker, was a nice enough fellow and tried hard, but he was politically motivated and it was this that caused him to do some things that were very detrimental to the national park system. Many of us tried to help him, but it was like putting up a brick building with putty in place of mortar.

By the end of 1974, Walker resigned and Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton made an in-depth study, both inside and outside the service, to find a well qualified person to be the new director. He ended up appointing a career Park Service man, Gary Everhardt. Here again, Everhardt had to give up his civil service rights because the position is still in the executive classification.

Walker Everhardt
Ron Walker, director of the National Park Service from January 1, 1973, to January 3, 1975. Gary Everhardt, director of the National Park Service from January 13, 1975, to May 27, 1977.

I feel sure that Secretary Morton had nothing to do with the selection of Ron Walker. And I do not wish to imply that the secretary would not have made a good selection of a new director of the Park Service to succeed Walker. But I must say that Gary Everhardt was on a list of five suggested candidates that was drawn up by Park Service retirees ("alumni") at their reunion in Yosemite National Park in the early fall of 1974. Following is the letter to Secretary Morton that the alumni committee asked me to sign on their behalf along with Morton's reply. I wrote a similar letter to the White House and got a reply a long time later; both of these letters are also reproduced below, as is my second letter to the White House.

October 7, 1974

Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240

Dear Mr. Secretary:

At the meeting of the Old Timers in Yosemite National Park, Sunday, September 29 through October 1, there were over 120 Park Service Retirees present, and the Chairman of the Employees and Alumni Association called a meeting of a special committee to discuss what action or steps, if any, should be taken by the Alumni of the National Park Service in connection with returning the Service to Career Civil Service status. Attached to this letter is a list of those who attended that meeting; and an additional number of the Alumni who had been contacted expressed their support of the committee's deliberations.

One of the decisions reached was that I should address a letter to the President of the United States on the general subject of Civil Service, especially as it relates to the National Park Service, and a letter to you suggesting individuals presently in the service whom we feel you should consider in selecting the new Director of the National Park Service. In other words, Mr. Secretary, we want to be helpful. Further we can't help but feel deeply concerned about the agency that we spent a lifetime working in, and we're proud of the National Park System and Service. We know full well that the responsibility for the appointment is yours and not ours, but we also believe that we know the career people and how they fit into an organization and whether they would be accepted as the Director by their associates. We feel that these factors of selection can be best communicated to you by those who have been closely associated with the growth and history of the Service. What we're trying to convey to you, Mr. Secretary, is our deep interest and most profound desire to help the National Park Service meet its administrative and assigned responsibility with full adherence to its purpose so ably expressed in the basic legislation. We know this objective is also yours, but I guess what we are trying to say is, "This is a family matter and we think Grandpas are part of the family also."

We are listing five people we feel should be given careful consideration, and we are willing to meet and discuss their qualifications in detail if you so desire. [Identification of the individuals recommended to the secretary is deleted out of consideration for them; obviously, Gary Everhardt was one of them.]

I'm sure the background of each of these individuals is fully exposed in the personnel files of the Department. We feel that the appointment of any one of them would be well received by the field. They have all had a certain amount of administrative work in a central office either in Washington or in the regions.

I would like to say personally a word about Ron Walker, and I think the others on the committee would endorse my statement regarding him. Ron is a likeable person who tried hard. There were several things which some of us objected to or felt were unnecessary, although one very fine thing he did was to move considerable authority to the field. However, we feel that he lacked the qualifications and experience to head up a bureau like the National Park Service, and that's not really his fault. There are quite a few of us, however, who would like to have had a greater opportunity to help more than we did.

We beg of you, Mr. Secretary, to give our suggestions careful consideration. If for any reason these suggestions are not acceptable and you wish to discuss with us other people you have in mind, I'm sure that any individual among us or a group of members of the Alumni Committee will be glad to be consulted.

Sincerely yours,

Conrad L. Wirth
For the Alumni Committee

United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

Oct. 25, 1974

Dear Connie:

I appreciate your October 7 letter regarding the appointment of a new Director of the National Park Service when that position becomes vacant. Would you please also relay my gratitude to the other members of your special committee of the Alumni? I hope that all of you already know I value your counsel.

As you might well imagine, we have received a number of recommendations, not to overlook first person applicants. The qualifications of the five persons of your Alumni Committee selected for specific mention are, of course, well known. The five certainly have every right to be proud of being singled out by such a distinguished group, whose combined public service must total more than three centuries.

When the time comes to make the appointment from among the many names before us, it will be a serious responsibility, hardly to be treated lightly, and I regard your recommendations with gravity.

I know the high standards you and your fellow alumni have in mind. And, surely you understand we will insist upon a selection with the professional skills and managerial talent equal to the position. You have my assurance your recommendations will be given the most thorough consideration.

With best wishes.

Sincerely yours,
(Sgd) Rog
Secretary of the Interior


Mr. Conrad L. Wirth
9633 East Bexhill Drive
Rock Creek Hills
Kensington, Maryland 20795

CONRAD L. WIRTH
9633 EAST BEXHILL DRIVE
ROCK CREEK HILLS
KENSINGTON, MARYLAND 20795

October 7, 1974

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

On Saturday, September 28, while I was in San Francisco on my way to Yosemite National Park, I heard on T.V. your statement on inflation and the economy, and I thought it was a very good one. . . . When I arrived at Yosemite I found I was not the only one that heard your talk, and that it had instilled in people the feeling that a sound plan of attack on inflation would soon be made public. We will all pitch in and help in every way we can.

The meeting I attended in Yosemite was a gathering of some 125 Old Timers—retired Park Service employees—to celebrate the 84th anniversary of the establishment of Yosemite and to do honor to John Emmert and James Lloyd who were the first two rangers in Yosemite when the National Park Service was established as a career organization in 1916....

Mr. President, the Alumni and employees of the National Park Service want most sincerely to have the Service restored to the status of a career service. It had always been a career service until 1973 when, for the first time, the President requested the Director to submit his resignation and then appointed a person who knew nothing about parks. Director Ron Walker did the best he could, worked hard, and is a friendly person; however, he resigned as of January 1, 1975, and the professional park people most sincerely request that the Service be returned to career Civil Service status.

Mr. President, there were distributed copies of the article by Carol Kilpatrick in the Washington Post of September 21 and we like very much what you said about the Civil Service. We must report that the National Park Service has suffered from the strong assault on the federal career system. We have been informed that in the last several years over 50 career positions in the Service have been taken over by non-Civil Service people whose qualifications are questionable. Well qualified and trained career people, whether in government or private enterprise, can produce the best job, and the best job is the best politics in the long run. We urge most strongly that the present Administration return the National Park Service to its career Civil Service status. We also strongly believe that the national policy must be determined and defined by the Administration and the Congress, and that the professional career personnel are subservient to the Secretary in carrying out the policies of the Government.

The National Park Service down through the years starting with the Mather-Albright period has been a well trained, hard working, progressive organization always willing to work with and carry out the policies of the Government. The "C" classification imposed on the three highest grades of Civil Service has been destructive of the intended Civil Service as originally established. It has weakened the Civil Service structure and lowered the morale of many agencies of government. Under these conditions highly trained professional employees have left their jobs at the first opportunity.

Mr. President, we urge that as part of your anti-inflation effort you return to a sound quality employment program. We feel that such a move will produce better work, at less cost.

This letter and a letter to Secretary Morton have been written under instructions and on behalf of a Committee of Alumni appointed by the Chairman of the Employees and Alumni Association of the National Park Service. Attached is a list of the Committee. The active employees who are members of the Association have had no part in the actions taken by the Committee, and as far as I know have no knowledge that this letter and the letter to the Secretary are being written. We retirees want to be helpful, and in as much as this switch over to political appointment of a Director took place during a Republican Administration we are hopeful that "an in house" correction can be made. We are of a definite feeling that Ron Walker's appointment came out of the White House, hence this letter to you. A copy of this letter is being sent to Secretary Morton so that he will be fully advised of our feelings.

We join with you and all Americans in our prayers for the First Lady.

Sincerely yours,

Conrad L. Wirth
For the Alumni Committee


THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

November 8, 1974

Dear Mr. Wirth:

On behalf of the President, thank you for your October 7 letter with its generous compliments on his remarks at the closing of the summit conference on the economy, and your pledge to pitch in to do your part to help whip inflation. Your support of his September 20 memorandum on the Civil Service is also appreciated very much. It was most kind of you to add your good wishes for the First Lady's rapid recovery.

We note with interest your request that the National Park Service "be returned to career Civil Service status". It has remained in the career Civil Service without interruption, and shall continue. An agency's Civil Service status is in no way destroyed by requiring the agency's uppermost officials to be directly and personally responsible to those who in turn supervise them.

We regret that we cannot agree with your assessment that the Civil Service structure has been weakened by non-career classifications placed upon some positions in the three highest Civil Service grades.

You may be aware that legislation has been introduced which would make a number of additional agency positions subject to Senate confirmation. Indeed, the Congress recently wrote into law a requirement that the Director of the Park Service's sister agency in the environmental field, the Fish and Wildlife Service, be a Presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation.

If Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers are to have adequate direction over the bureaus they are charged with supervising, then they must have control over the appointment of the top bureau administrators. It seems abundantly clear that, regardless of which Administration holds office, the Legislative Branch agrees with the Executive Branch on that point.

In this same regard, I understand that 26 members of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs have signed a letter to Secretary Morton stressing that his search for a new Director should not be limited to present or former employees of the National Park Service. Unquestionably, there are men and women without prior Park Service affiliation whose qualifications ought to be considered.

We appreciate your continuing support of the National Park Service, and can assure you of the President's commitment to the selection of qualified personnel.

Sincerely,

Norman E. Ross, Jr.
Assistant Director
Domestic Council

Mr. Conrad L. Wirth
9633 East Bexhill Drive
Rock Creek Hills
Kensington, Maryland 20795


CONRAD L. WIRTH
9633 EAST BEXHILL DRIVE
KENSINGTON, MARYLAND 20795

November 18, 1974

Mr. Norman E. Ross, Jr.
Assistant Director
Domestic Council
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Ross:

I must answer your letter of November 8th. It is hard for me to believe that such a letter as yours could come out of the White House. Further, it is my firm belief that it doesn't exemplify the present administration.

Your attitude, as expressed in the second paragraph, is destructive of the Civil Service. The National Park Service, like many of the other Bureaus, is composed of professional people, and when you put a political staff of some twenty-five people or more in the top jobs you destroy the agency's character and morale. The Administration's policies and major administrative control rest in the hands of the Secretary and his Assistant Secretariate staff. The present Director is a nice enough fellow, but when he was sent over from the White House he was not equipped by training or experience to be Director. The NPS has, down through the years, done a good job, in my opinion, and supported the Administrative policies. It is hard for me to see why the change was made in January 1973. I am inclined to believe that it was a White House, rather than a Department decision.

As to your third paragraph, you do not seem qualified to make such a statement. Enclosed are some newspaper articles on the subject.

Regarding your fourth paragraph, yes, I know of this, but it never would have happened except for the things that have been taking place in the last six years, especially since January 1973. However, if the C classifications are going to provide the requirement of confirmation by the Senate of future Directors, this is the only sure means left to guarantee the appointment of qualified people. Such appointments will call for public hearings.

I agree with the statement in your fifth paragraph, the Director of the NPS has always been appointed by the Secretary. However, six of the first seven Directors and their staffs were career people, and the other one was an excellent conservationist and well qualified. It was at the beginning of the second Nixon administration that not only the Park Service but other Bureaus as well found non-qualified political personnel taking over.

As to your sixth paragraph, I agree it is quality that is needed, if you are going to do a good job. Further, when you pick quality for a Civil Service job you strengthen the Career Service. On the other hand, there are a lot of well qualified and loyal people in the National Park Service that could help the Administration in office. Remember, it has been proven, time and again, during the two hundred years of our Republic, that the good job is the best politics, and that can't be done without qualified people. We have left the old ward-heeling type of politics far behind.

I have answered your letter at length, because it needed an answer. I get the feeling from your letter that whoever prepared it had neglected his research.

I assume you know I am a retired government employee with 35 years of Federal service. I started during the Hoover administration and retired in the early part of the Johnson administration. The last twelve years I was Director of the National Park Service, including eight years of the Eisenhower administration. It was President Eisenhower's approval of the National Park Service, Mission 66 program at a Cabinet meeting presentation arranged by Max Rabb that pre-dated the national upsurge in the park and recreation programs. The President shortly thereafter established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission which resulted in the establishment of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and their nationwide programs. I am an independent, and voted for President Nixon in 1972. I like President Ford, and like very much his selection for Vice President.

I'm telling you this because I want you to know I am not a nut. I want to be constructive and I dislike seeing a lecture-type letter such as you signed come out of the White House, especially while President Ford is there. It is very poor politics.

Sincerely,
Conrad L. Wirth

Ross never replied to this letter, nor did anyone else.

The June, 1973, issue of the National Park Courier, the newspaper published by the Employees and Alumni Association of the National Park Service, printed an editorial I had written on this subject. I sent a copy of it to several senators. Senator Jacob K. Javits, of New York, thereupon wrote a letter to the Civil Service Commission referring to my published views and requesting a statement of the commission's position on the issues I had raised. Following are the commission's reply to Senator Javits, a letter which I addressed to the commission in 1975 raising new questions, and the commission's response to me.

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BUREAU OF EXECUTIVE MANPOWER
WASHINGTON D.C. 20415

4 Sep. 1973

Honorable Jacob K. Javits
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Javits:

This is in response to your letter of August 9, 1973, asking our views on the allegation regarding politicizing of civil service positions in the National Park Service, as stated by Mr. Conrad S. Wirth in an editorial in the June issue of the National Park Courier. Mr. Wirth expresses his feeling that the position of Director and other top-level positions in the National Park Service have become political positions and the filling of these positions by nonprofessional appointees has a deleterious effect on the morale of career employees.

The position of Director, National Park Service, was placed in Executive Level V of the Executive Schedule by Executive Order 11189, effective August 15, 1964, and upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior it was excepted from the competitive service. The position of Deputy Director, National Park Service, was abolished July 9, 1971 and has not been reestablished. Prior to that date it was filled by noncareer executive assignment since it was first established in January 1967. Noncareer executive assignments are authorized by the Civil Service Commission when the incumbent will be deeply involved in the advocacy of Administration programs and support of their controversial aspects; participate significantly in the determination of major political policies of the Administration; or serve principally as a confidential assistant to a Presidential appointee.

Since it was established in 1967 until it was abolished in 1971, the position of Deputy Director was filled by long-term career employees of the National Park Service, serving under noncareer executive assignments. Since the position is noncareer, the incumbents have had to voluntarily relinquish their career tenure to accept the Deputy Director assignment. The position of Director, National Park Service, has been filled historically by career employees, who likewise voluntarily relinquished career status.

The vast majority of supergrade positions are filled on a career basis by career employees. Each request from an agency for excepting a position from the competitive service and placing it in the excepted service receives a most careful scrutiny prior to approval by the Civil Service Commission and every effort is made to keep the number of such positions to an absolute minimum. In fact, the number of noncareer supergrade positions declined from 579 on June 30, 1972, to 536 on June 30, 1973. We can assure you that there has been no wholesale movement of career jobs into the excepted service.

The qualifications of all appointees to supergrade positions, career and noncareer, is by law within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and each appointment must have the prior approval of the Commission. This enables us to effectively monitor the qualifications of all individuals moving into supergrade positions.

We are not aware of any impropriety in appointments to various supergrade positions in the National Park Service. Neither do we find anything in Mr. Wirth's editorial or letter that requires any action by the Civil Service Commission at this time. We see no threat to the normal goals and aspirations of the career professionals of the National Park Service.

In addition, we are not in receipt of any complaints from employees of the National Park Service reflecting a deteriorating morale of the work force. Complaints, if received, would be referred, as a matter of course, to our Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation for exploration during their visits to evaluate personnel management practices. A copy of your inquiry and a copy of Mr. Wirth's editorial has been forwarded to the Director, Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation, for appropriate consideration.

We hope this information has been responsive to your request. Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph U. Damico
Director


CONRAD L. WIRTH
9633 EAST BEXHILL DRIVE
ROCK CREEK HILLS
KENSINGTON, MARYLAND 20795

September 16, 1975

Director Joseph U. Damico
Bureau of Executive Manpower
U.S. Civil Service Commission
Washington, D.C. 20415

Dear Mr. Damico:

I have a copy of your letter of September 4, 1973 to Senator Jacob K. Javits in answer to his letter to you dated August 9, 1973 in which he transmitted to you an editorial I wrote that appeared in the National Park Courier. I did not bother writing further on the subject because your letter made it quite clear that you were not going to do anything about it and it was clear that other steps were necessary.

Now that the matter has been at least temporarily straightened out I would like to ask you a question and to point out where the information contained in your letter of September 4, 1973 to the Senator is not correct.

1. Did the Civil Service clear Ronald Walker as being qualified to be Director of the National Park Service?

2. Do you honestly think that an employee in a career appointment is going to go to the Civil Service Commission and file a complaint about its selection of an unqualified political appointment to head up a major bureau of the Federal Government?

3. You sent the Senator's letter and my editorial to your Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation; that was a complaint. Did they do anything about it and if so what?

4. For your information the position of Deputy Director was not abolished in 1971. There is now and there has been a Deputy Director ever since 1967.

5. You state that "The position of Director, National Park Service, has been filled historically by career employees, who likewise voluntarily relinquished career status." I can only speak for myself when I tell you that I am a retired National Park Service career employee with 36 years of service of which 33 years have been with the Park Service and with better than 12 years as its Director. During my term as Director I served under four secretaries, two of whom were Republicans and two were Democrats and I had just one appointment and I never gave up my Civil Service status and I never was asked to resign as was Director Hartzog.

Mr. Damico, I am not trying to be mean, but there is a large group of retired career service people as well as employees who believe in training and improving oneself to do the best job possible for our government and our country and this can't be done if we and Civil Service don't do our thing. Certainly you must admit that asking Hartzog to resign, which I understand he did under protest, and appointing Ronald Walker, with no knowledge or training in park administration, is not the right way to get the best results and the most out of the tax dollar.

I assume that Executive Order 11189 is still in effect. Would it be possible for you to send me a copy? I would appreciate it very much.

Sincerely yours,
Conrad L. Wirth


UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BUREAU OF EXECUTIVE MANPOWER
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415

Oct. 06, 1975

Mr. Conrad L. Wirth
9633 East Bexhill Drive
Rock Creek Hills
Kensington, Maryland 20795

Dear Mr. Wirth:

This is in reply to your letter of September 16, 1975, in which you posed questions concerning the top management of the National Park Service.

The position of Director, National Park Service was established in 1964 at Level V of the Executive Schedule and excepted from the competitive service under Schedule C. The Civil Service Commission was not involved in the selection or approval of Mr. Ronald Walker for that position because we are not involved in the selection and approval of the qualifications of candidates for positions in the Executive Schedule. In case you are not aware of it, Mr. Walker resigned as Director of the Park Service in January 1975 and was succeeded by a former career employee of the National Park Service, Mr. Gary E. Everhardt.

Procedures exist for Federal employees to complain to the Civil Service Commission about all types of personnel actions, including political appointments, which they view as improper. The Civil Service Commission Complaint Office here at our 1900 E Street address handles written, telephone, and walk-in complaints.Em ployees contacting that office may complain anonymously or request that their complaint be maintained confidential. The system, thereby, allows employees to point out seeming irregularities when they otherwise would not for fear of reprisal.

The Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation follows up on complaints with a prompt inquiry to the agency concerned and/or by flagging the complaint for investigation during a general evaluation of personnel management in the agency. Your complaint, which was referred to them as a result of your previous letter, was flagged for future investigation and should be considered in the evaluation of top managerial positions currently underway in the Department of the Interior.

Our records indicate that the position of Deputy Director, National Park Service was established in grade GS-17 on January 30, 1967, upgraded to grade GS-18 on January 14, 1971, and canceled on July 9, 1971. In August 1972 the Department of the Interior requested our approval of their proposal to reestablish the position of Deputy Director, National Park Service in grade GS-18 and requested concurrent approval of the qualifications of the proposed appointee. These requests, however, were not approved and the position was not established and filled again at the supergrade level until October 12, 1973. At the time of our response to your letter to Senator Javits in September 1973 the position of Deputy Director, National Park Service had not existed at the supergrade level for more than two years.

The position of Director, National Park Service was in the career service when you were appointed to it in December 1951. However, it was converted to be excepted service under Schedule C in August 1953 and continued under Schedule C when it was upgraded to grade GS-18 in November 1957. Since you were a career employee when you entered the position you retained your career status when the position was converted to Schedule C. If the position had been excepted under Schedule C prior to your appointment to it, you would have relinquished your career status in accepting it and would have served at the pleasure of the Secretary of Interior as did Mr. Hartzog.

Executive Order 11189 is still in effect and a copy is enclosed per your request. I appreciate your concern for the well-being of career employees and the career service and hope this letter has amply responded to your questions.

Sincerely yours,
Joseph U. Damico
Director



<<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>>


Parks, Politics, and the People
©1980, University of Oklahama Press
wirth2/chap13.htm — 21-Sep-2004

Copyright © 1980 University of Oklahoma Press, returned to the author in 1984. Offset rights University of Oklahoma Press. Material from this edition may not be reproduced in any manner without the written consent of the heir(s) of the Conrad L. Wirth estate and the University of Oklahoma Press.