|
I've no idea whether the argument is valid..my lawyering is limited to latrine discussions. If it is, it negates a whole bunch of what BRAC is attempting to do.
Old Chief
State Resists Move Of Jets
Rell Could Stop Bradley Guard's Shift, Officials Say
June 15, 2005
By JESSE LEAVENWORTH, Courant Staff Writer
State leaders say the federal government has no right to remove the Connecticut Air National Guard's warplanes without the governor's consent - and the governor is not consenting.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wrote to Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Monday that "any closure, reorganization or relocation of the Bradley Air Guard Unit would likely be unlawful, because you have neither approved nor consented to such action."
Pentagon analysts have recommended that the A-10 Thunderbolt squadron at Bradley be sent to the nearby Massachusetts Air National Guard base in Westfield, Mass., which also hosts an A-10 squadron. Combining the units "creates an optimum-sized and more effective squadron," according to U.S. Air Force recommendations to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
But Blumenthal cited federal law that says National Guard units "may not be relocated or withdrawn" without a governor's approval. In a letter dated Tuesday, Rell told Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that she formally objected to the proposed transfer of the Bradley squadron.
"I do not consent to this recommended realignment," Rell wrote. "The Department of Defense did not coordinate this recommendation with the State of Connecticut. No federal official contacted my office or my Adjutant General to discuss any federal proposals concerning Air National Guard units or assets located in Connecticut.
"This lack of consultation compromises the integrity of the process used to develop the BRAC recommendations," she wrote, "disregarding the role of the Governor in relation to Connecticut's Air National Guard units."
The governor's letter, Blumenthal said Tuesday, "puts DOD on notice that we will insist on our legal rights."
"The responsibility for the National Guard units are shared by federal and state authorities," Blumenthal said. "Both provide critical support and both have to approve fundamental changes in structure and command as well as location."
Leaders in other states have vowed to wage similar battles over proposed removals of their National Guard units. The Illinois governor and attorney general have been at the point of the fight, promising even before the Pentagon's recommendations were made public that they would sue the federal government over the possible loss of Guard units.
"This we cannot accept," Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said after the Air Force recommended transferring an Illinois Air National Guard fighter wing to Indiana. "As the commander in chief of the Illinois National Guard, I will not consent to this."
"It is an issue that needs to be resolved one way or the other," BRAC commission Chairman Anthony Principi has been quoted as saying. The commission, Principi has said, would ask the Pentagon's general counsel to issue a finding on the matter.
Department of Defense officials could not be reached Tuesday for comment, but at a BRAC hearing last month, an analyst with the Congressional Research Service said the federal law that Illinois officials had cited - the same one Blumenthal cited - did not apply to the BRAC process, according to a transcript of the hearing.
Also, Michael W. Wynne, the acting Pentagon undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, has written: "For BRAC to be a truly comprehensive process and to achieve our objective in support of the war-fighter, the process must involve all of our installations, including those used by the reserve component."
Asked whether the issue will be prominent at the regional BRAC hearing slated for next month, Blumenthal said he did not know "because we're still strategizing and deciding on how to present our case most effectively."
In any case, the Bradley Air National Guard Base is not due to close.
If the BRAC commission adopts all the Air Force recommendations, the base would have a bigger role in the maintenance and repair of A-10 engines and would gain an air sovereignty alert system now housed at an air base in Otis, Mass., that is marked for closure.
But Connecticut officials are fighting the proposed removal of the "Warthog" squadron, which they say is based on flawed calculations and would cut jobs and harm the Connecticut Guard's recruiting efforts.
In other action related to the Pentagon's BRAC recommendations, Blumenthal has pushed for release of documents related to radiological contamination at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton.
State officials already have said that the Pentagon has most likely grossly underestimated clean-up costs at the Groton base. Now Blumenthal says the Department of Defense "erroneously and intentionally" tallied long-term savings that would come from closing the sub base by excluding costs related to radioactive waste clean-up.
He wrote on Friday to U.S. Sen. Susan M. Collins, chairwoman of the Senate committee on homeland security and governmental affairs, and U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a committee member, asking them to subpoena the Pentagon for an update to a 1994 assessment of radioactive contamination at the base.
Blumenthal cited Navy officials' admission that the 1994 assessment was only cursory and that further testing would be necessary before the base was converted to any other use.
A thorough review of the updated assessment and other documents "is critical so that BRAC can make its determination based on complete and accurate information," Blumenthal wrote.
He said Tuesday that Lieberman's staff has added the assessment update to a list of documents being sought as part of the BRAC process.
The BRAC commission is slated to hold a regional hearing in Boston on July 6.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
