Officials pledge to fight for fort Legislators react to proposed closing of fort BY SUE M. MORGAN Staff Writer TINTON FALLS — Joan Hardy, a civilian electrical engineer at Fort Monmouth, insists that the technological expertise that she has drawn upon during her 20-year tenure at the local military base can never be duplicated elsewhere. Addressing a group of area legislators during Friday afternoon’s town hall meeting at Monmouth Regional High School’s auditorium, Hardy, of Marlboro, stressed that the Pentagon’s plan to shutter Fort Monmouth under its Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program would disrupt the ongoing “system of mentoring” where engineers teach each other how to produce state-of-the-art instruments to protect soldiers in the field. Hardy is just one of more than 5,000 area residents facing possible job relocation or even loss of long-term employment if Fort Monmouth does cease operations in New Jersey as recommended by the federal BRAC commission on Friday morning. Addressing more than 200 people inside the auditorium, U.S. Representatives Rush Holt (D-6) and Frank Pallone (D-12), co-hosts of the post-BRAC announcement forum, told an assortment of base employees, subcontractors and interested residents that the Pentagon simply “got it wrong.” The federal Department of Defense (DOD) has exercised “flawed logic that has led to a bad decision” to relocate the fort’s research and development functions, along with an expected 80 percent of civilian employees, to the smaller Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) in Aberdeen, Md., Holt said. Though still quite obviously reeling from the Pentagon’s release of the BRAC list earlier that morning, both Holt and Pallone expressed confidence that the decision to close Fort Monmouth could be reversed by Sept. 8, when a finalized list of targeted installations is sent to President George W. Bush for his approval or disapproval. How the DOD could consider closing or restructuring any bases with the war on terror raging in Iraq and Afghanistan is unfathomable, said Holt, who co-chairs the Save Our Fort Committee advocacy group with Pallone. “We will make sure that [the BRAC commission] understands that this is an odd time, a foolish time, to be redesigning the base structure in the United States,” he said. “I think we will end up with Fort Monmouth off the list ultimately,” Holt said to applause. “The Pentagon has made a very wrong and a patently absurd decision,” Pallone said. The Save Our Fort Committee, which is composed of several local elected officials as well, will meet throughout the summer to prepare its case before going to Washington, D.C., to present its arguments for keeping Fort Monmouth open, Pallone announced. “I believe we can win this battle but we need your help,” he said. “We will make the case to BRAC and we can win.” The Pentagon has argued that moving Fort Monmouth’s personnel and operations to the APG at a one-time cost of $822 million will save $143 million annually over six years, according to Pallone, who contends that the proposed relocation will cost the federal government more in the long run. “The Pentagon has completely ignored the military value of Fort Monmouth,” Pallone said. “You can’t say that, over the next five years, we’re going to transfer that to Aberdeen and think that is going to work.” United States Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, and retired Rear Vice Adm. Paul G. Gaffney II, now president of Monmouth University, pledged to aid the congressmen in their quest. The Pentagon’s idea that the communications and electronics technology could be replicated by private sector firms more efficiently and at a cost savings is unfounded, said Lautenberg, who served in the U.S. Army at Fort Monmouth over 60 years ago. Citing the state’s Motor Vehicle Commission as an example of the inefficiency that could result when the private sector takes over a government-run function, Lautenberg recalled the well-publicized breakdown of the inspection operation. Moreover, it is the American soldier who would suffer if the nine-member BRAC commission agrees with the Pentagon’s decision to relocate Fort Monmouth’s technology, Lautenberg said. “This is an S.O.S. — save our soldiers,” Lautenberg said. “We have a war where the enemy doesn’t care if they die, but we care if our guys die. The one way to keep them alive is through technology. “If we save 50 because we have the right equipment, it’s worth the fight,” he added. Corzine, who had actually visited Iraq just eight days prior to Friday’s announcement and who observed soldiers using the instruments produced at Fort Monmouth, criticized the federal government as a whole. “This is about as outrageous a decision as I’ve seen this government make,” said Corzine, a Democratic candidate for New Jersey governor. “This is a bad, bad decision,” he continued. “Not only for Monmouth County, not only for New Jersey, but for this nation. It will be turned back because it does not relate to what we want to do in national defense.” Drawing upon his own experience as a private businessman, Corzine expressed doubt that 75 to 80 percent of the fort’s more than 5,300 employees would actually relocate to Maryland or other selected bases, as has been suggested by the Pentagon. Though Pallone, in response to one questioner, dismissed any idea that the Pentagon’s choice of the 33 installations listed for closure throughout the nation reflected the country’s current political climate, Corzine promised to analyze “red states and blue states” for any patterns of favoritism by the Bush Administration. However, Freeholder William C. Barham, a Republican, addressed the legislators and urged them to see beyond party politics. The all-GOP county freeholder board will stand behind the legislator’s fight, Barham said. “We must do the right thing for over 600,000 Monmouth County residents,” Barham said on behalf of the board. “We stand ready to do whatever we need to do.” “I believe we can win this battle, but we need your help,” Pallone said. “We will make the case to the BRAC and we will win.” Gaffney, who also chairs a state commission designed to protect New Jersey’s seven military installations from federal closure, told those assembled that he is “buoyed by some of the decisions” rendered by the Pentagon. The designation of Lakehurst Naval Air Station, McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix, all contiguous to each other in Burlington and Ocean counties, as a joint predeployment mobilization site is particularly encouraging, Gaffney said. However, echoing Holt, Gaffney stressed that Fort Monmouth’s location in New Jersey provides it with access to “the highest concentration of scientists and engineers of any state in the nation.” Though the Pentagon has described Fort Monmouth as a base lacking capacity for weapons testing, those functions could be executed at Fort Dix and Lakehurst, Gaffney said. On a more localized level, Assemblyman Michael Panter noted that the municipalities that host and surround Fort Monmouth depend on it for mutual aid in the event of disasters. Recalling March’s explosion and building collapse at the Petco store in Eatontown, Panter recounted how rescue units from the fort “were among the first on the scene.” Mayors Ann Y. McNamara and Gerald Tarantolo, who lead the host communities of Tinton Falls and Eatontown, respectively, expressed confidence in the federal legislators to successfully press Fort Monmouth’s case. More than the local impact, McNamara, too, believes the fight is for the service personnel. “I frankly think this move will jeopardize our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Like Corzine and the others, McNamara disagreed that the fort’s civilian workforce would uproot themselves to Maryland and other places. About 650 Eatontown residents are employed at the fort, Tarantolo stated. “I feel confident that we will be able to present our case and get this reversed,” Tarantolo said. “I don’t think [closure] will happen. I think logic will prevail.” Final hearings to determine any additions or subtractions to the Pentagon’s list will take place in July, Pallone has said.