By Sam Hananel
The Associated Press
Washington – A plan to move the U.S. Geological Survey office out of Rolla, Mo., is drawing fire from Missouri lawmakers who question the wisdom of closing one of the city’s largest employers.
This month, the federal agency announced it would consolidate operations from Rolla and two other cities into the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center in Denver.
Offices in Rolla, Menlo Park, Calif., and Reston, Va., all would close within a year.
Most of the 187 Rolla employees would lose their jobs.
But U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., said the decision does not make economic sense and ignores the recommendation of an internal committee that found Rolla was the best choice for consolidation based on wages and operating costs.
“Based on the criteria that they use, Rolla wins out hands above anybody else,” Emerson said Monday. “There’s no justification for it.”
Emerson said she and Republican Sens. Kit Bond and Jim Talent will demand a formal probe by the U.S. Department of Interior’s inspector general.
Barbara Wainman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, said operating costs were only 20 percent of all factors considered.
Wainman said Denver came out ahead when other criteria were considered, such as the ability to attract the best workforce, access to universities and technology, proximity to other federal agencies and overall cost effectiveness.
“The operational costs of the Rolla facility are the cheapest, but the decision was not made on cost alone,” Wainman said.
Still, Emerson said she suspects ulterior motives. She said the agency ultimately plans to outsource its mapping functions to the private sector and moving the offices to more expensive offices in Denver would justify private contracting.
Wainman said the relocation has nothing to do with long- standing plans for competitive sourcing, which allows private contractors to compete with government employees for federally funded work.
Emerson, Bond and Talent wrote a strongly worded letter last week to the Geological Survey’s acting director demanding more information.
“The hodgepodge of site selection criteria listed on your website does not list any of these conclusions, nor does it explain the specific reasons why Denver was selected,” the letter said.
“The lack of information provided by your agency on this matter is unacceptable.”
The agency has not officially responded, but Wainman said Monday that there is no plan to reconsider the decision.
