With reference to sugs7estions received at a recent meeting, 
I can only submit my personal views ar, I have nct hnd an opuortunity 
to consult my co-workers, 
 
     1. The suggestion we assign a forester and ýrame man or biologist

to each crew is heartily Pupnorted by me as a logicel move. 
 
     2. 1 am somewhat arnrehensive about hnving a Pame man and 
forester jointly exercise the functions of chief of party. I be- 
lieve, one boss will be more satisfactory. All experience in 
administrative management noints that way. In making the crews 
responsible to two bosses we should be violating one of the 
orinciples of organization, the principle of "Unity of Command".

Such an arrangement may work occasionally. As a ruleitshould be 
aivoid e . 
 
     For reasons cited above (under 4), the chief of narty should 
be a forester. 
 
     3. In order to prevent onesidedness and to give all aspects 
of the rroblem proper consideration, the tralninF of the crews should 
be carried on Jointly by the chief of party and a Poecially assigned 
biologist, each explaininp those features of the survey work which 
particularly fall within his realm. 
 
     4. There is no reason why men qualified to do so, should not 
make such observations as were mentioned at last Friday's meeting, 
but they should not be made part and parcel of the mechanical survey. 
They should be tabulated separately. If we had one competent 
man on each crew, it would be simple to carry out such a plan. 
 
 
                                       H. T. J. Cramer 
HTJC:mh 
 
CO)PIED 
10-15-46 
jeh