August 1, 1994 - Part 2
August 1, 1994 - Part 2
(12:25:55) Mr ROELLE. I think I also said we were allowed to make internal decisions on our own in my deposition. I am not trying in- to be argu- mentative. I think that there was a dichotomy in the agency. It 36 was many of our decisions in terms of policy were-there were several people from Treasury that would be involved in policy decisions. Senator BRYAN. Although, Ms. Kulka, you, did not comment, from the reading of the record, the very fact that you get this phone call from Ms. Hanson asking you to brief David Kendall, which you declined to do, and I think appropriately-I think there's an indication of the relationships, or at least the perceptions, that may have existed, and I find that very troubling. Ms. KULKA. May I comment on that? Senator BRYAN, You certainly may. Ms. KULKA. I did not have a relationship where Ms. Hanson, in her own right as an official at Treasury, asked me to do anything, She performed the service of liaison in terms of explaining to me what had been happening, from a legal perspective, and what at Mr. Altman's interests were and how things happened. I had no circumstance I can point to where she ever asked or instructed me to do anything other than to be a liaison function. Senator BRYAN. Did you understand that request from Ms. Hanson-first of all, let me ask you: Did, in fact, Ms. Hanson call you and ask you to brief Mr. Kendall? Ms, KuLKA. She conveyed the message that I described, that I call Mr. Kendall and explain something about the tolling potential and the statute of limitations time period. Senator BRYAN. Was it your understanding she was being requested to do so by others? Ms. KuLKA. She clearly told me that someone had asked her. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Altman? Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator BRYAN. My question is-Mr. Ryan, let me start with you. What do we need to structurally change, either by regulation or by statute, to protect that independent relationship that, clearly, those of us who had some experience in working on this sought to accomplish? Obviously, there is confusion in lines of communication and the line of authority here, but what do we need to do in your judgment? Mr. RYAN. I think, first and foremost, Senator, you need to appoint a permanent CEO. I think everybody here would agree with that. That's probably what should have been done instead of asking Mr. Altman to serve in a dual capacity. I think he served in that capacity ostensibly during a time when consideration was being given to providing funding to finish the RTC's job of the S&L cleanup. There was a lot of concern in this Committee and other parts of the Congress about the way the RTC was being operated, There were lots of improvements in the management structure that were required by the Completion Act and that Mr. Altman began to put in place. In that respect, he did a very good job in terms of trying to clean up some of the problems and deal with some of the issues that the Congress bad raised in connection with their consideration of the funding, but I think it probably is a bad idea to let someone serve in that dual capacity. I think if we learned anything from this, it's that we shouldn't repeat that mistake. 37 Senator BRYAN. I happen to share that view, but my question is, without retrospectively analyzing Mr. Altman's conduct-there'll be a chance for us to ask him some questions about that - in your view, is the permanent appointment of the CEO, is that a we need to do to protect that independent relationship ? Mr. RYAN. I think so, Senator. As you know, the RTC is scheduled to go out of business by statute at the end of 1995. That's only 17 months from now so there's a lot of work that has to be done in terms of winding up the affairs of the RTC, transitioning back, with appropriate safeguards and control, any work that remains undone to our sister agency at the FDIC. That's what we've been busily doing these past few months, and it's an enormous project, as you might well be aware. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Katsanos, do you agree?