J e f f r e y A.

S o n n e n f e h l

Public Affairs
Execs: Orators
Or Commumcators.
9 9

In response to a steady increase in societal pressures on corporate institutional policies,

there has been a substantial rise in the mmtber of corporate officials with tmblic affairs
responsibilities. This empirical study of 10 such types of officers in the forest products ,
industry suggests some major differences in the ways these officials learn about the public
affairs enoiromnent.
In this article, Jeffrey A. Somzenfeld gives the reader insights into the importance of the
listening and fact-finding phases of public relations work.
Dr. Sonnenfeld is an assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass.

I ncreasing numbers of corporate officials are becoming involved in man-

.aging their company's public interface. Such officials may include senior
management, company lawyers, public relations officers, government lob-
byists, compliance officers, planning experts, human resource managers,
and environmental engineers, among others. Recent surveys of this cross-
department gravitation toward public affairs issues have sugggested the
existence of a great deal of confusion and overlapping responsibilities as a
result of this pattern? A very different stream of literature--that of orga-
nization adaptation--suggests that such multiple readings will lead to biased,
inconsistent readings of the environment. In particular, it has been sug-
gested that departmental membership 2 and hierarchical executive rank 3
both have a biasing effect, in that such roles determine the window which
a company official has for looking out at the business environment.
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the possible sources of
these executive role biases in a field setting. This study examined the impact
of such roles on public affairs management by investigating some differ-
ences in public affairs information gathering by various types of company
officials.

3
Public Relations Review
These activities include: 1) the amount of time spent in public affairs inter-
actions with recognized stakeholder groups, 2) the range of breadth of such
stakeholder interactions, 3) the appreciation of such outside stakeholders as
information sources, 4) the general level of attention to public afffairs which
company offficials see as part of their job, and finally, 5) the emphasis given
to listenership as opposed to espousal in their interactions with stakeholders.
These five dimensions can be conceived as basic components of executive
receptivity to external information. ~This receptivity then refers more to ho~v
an organization learns about its environment rather than how it may project itself
to external constituencies.
To focus on this variation in the activities of company officials, industry
was held constant. The forest products industry was selected for study
because of its long, painful history of public affairs exposure. Critical mill
openings and mill closings have become very troublesome events. The
logging, sawing, and lumber and paper production processes are very
hazardous. Labor relations are notoriously poor, as evidenced by a seven-
month strike in West Coast paper mills in 1977. Companies in this industry
frequently control most of the lives and well-being of those who live in the
towns around its mills.
Serious environmental controversies surround the intense struggles over
increased cutting on public forest lands, air pollution from pulp mills, water
pollution from mills, aerial spray of dangerous herbicides and pesticides,
and solid waste issues (bottles, recycled paper). Many'of these environ-
mental concerns as well as land taxation issues and labor issues have both
local and national aspects. Antitrust prosecutions also have cost the indus-
try several hundred millions of dollars in penalties, plus the costs of exec-
utive jail sentences, moral losses, and recruitment problems incurred in
price-fixing in folding cartons, fire papers, corrugated containers, and ply-
wood.
Methods
Thirty executives from each of six of the largest firms were contacted.
The executives included the top officers in the legal, finance, planning,
general management, government affairs, line operations, public relations,
environmental engineering and human relations areas. Responses were
mailed directly back to the researcher; 141 of the original 180 questionnaires
(78%) were returned. Each company returned 15 to 28 of the 30 question-
naires mailed to them.
Overall, 89% of the respondents were based at the corporate headquar-
ters. Half the sample had the title of vice president or above, and half the
sample were directors or managers. The representation by department is
broken out in Table 1, but overall, 45% were in public affairs-type depart-
ments (legal, public relations, government affairs) and 65% were in non-
public affairs departments (finance, planning, general management, human
resources, environmental engineering).
The measures of receptivity discussed earlier were based on three items
from the questionnaire. First, the measures of time spent in external interaction

4
 Public ~falrs Execs

0
:a . . . . . . . ~ . ~

~v

~ ~ 0 ~ ~ V

~ ~ ~ ~ V

~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ o ~ ~ ~ -
~ ~.~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~V

~ ~ ' ~

.=

- ~

~o ~ ~o~ ~
~ ~ ~ 8 ~<
~ ' ~ ~ ~~

5
Public Relations Review
and the breadth (or number) of stakeholder contacts were both derived from a
question which asked executives to rate h o w much they spent with each of
75 prominent stakeholder groups which were listed (e.g., specific govern-
ment agencies, environmental groups, civic associations, trade groups,
professional groups, etc.). The next measure of receptivity, the appreciation
of the information value of outside sources, was based on a ratio of the total
value of these sources to the actual time spent in outside contact. Finally,
the measures of attention to public affairs issues in their jobs and the importance of
listenership activities were derived from a question which asked executives
to assess the importance of six public affairs boundary-spanning activities
as derived from Miles? These six were, "representing," "'protecting,"
"monitoring," "scanning," "transmitting," and "transacting. ''~ The total of
these public affairs boundary-spanning self-ratings comprised the estimate
of "attention." The scores for the total of two of the dimensions "scanning"
and "monitoring" were the estimate of listenership.

Results

Interaction Time. While the actual reported time involvement with stake-
holder groups was substantial in every department, Table 1 indicates that
there were very significant differences between the departments. For exam-
ple, while general management executives reported that stakeholder inter-
actions accounted for as much as roughly one quarter of the average work
week (12 hours), government affairs executives claimed that such activities
account for more than three-quarters of the average work week (34 hours).
Glancing down the second column (Stakeholder Interaction Time) of Table
1, it is clear that the other public affairs departments (such as public relations
and legal) also spent more time in stakeholder interaction than the other
departments. More insight on this sharp difference between the use of time
in public affairs versus non-public affairs departments is presented in Table
2.
While it would be expected that public affairs executives would spend
more time in public affairs activities than non-public affairs executives, this
more detailed breakdown by stakeholder group tells us a good deal more.
Most outstanding in this breakdown is the sharpness of the differentiation
between public affairs executives and non-public affairs executives with
regard to the first several stakeholder groups. The five stakeholder g r o u p s - -
industry associations, state legislators, Congress, environmentalists, and
the press--are significantlymore prominent in public affairs executives'
schedules than in non-public affairs executives' schedules. Primary respon-
sibility for interactions with regulatory bodies and the investment com-
munity, is far more blurred and the involvement with advisors and labor
unions may even be greater for non-public affairs executives. It is quite
possible that the first five stakeholder groups involve activities in which
the company is more involved in an effort to maintain the face or image of
the company as well as to respond to more general external challenges. The

6
 Public Affairs Execs

TABLE 2

Stakeholder Interaction Time

Public Affairs vs. Non-Public Affairs Departments

Stakeholder Group Public Affairs 1 Non-Public Affairs 2 Significance*

(Rank ordered by
Public Affairs (Hours/
Interaction Time) Week) (! tours,q,Veek) (F value)
Industry Associations 6.18 2.95. 10.60'*'*
State Legislators 4.95 .62 40.00 . . . .
U.S. C o n g r e s s 3.45 .63 21.00'***
Environmentalists 2.68 1.15 11.90 . . . .
Press 2.33 .49 12.70"*'*
Other (local, civic, etc.) 2.07 1.23 NS
Federal Regula|ors 1.98 1.26 NS
Investment Community 1.57 1.41 NS
State Regulators 1.12 .56 NS
Advisors (consultants, institutes) 1.02 1.62 5.05**
Professional Associations .62 .22 6.53**
Labor .13 1.09 NS

TOTAL 28.07 12.67 30.80****

N =60 N = 81

*Degrees of #eMom (1,139)

**p < .05
"*p < .01
. . . . p < .001

1 = legal, public relations, government affairs, public affairs

2 = general management, line operations, finance, planning, engineering, human resources

other activities, however, may represent more specialized, technical inter-

actions where functional expertise becomes vital. Thus non-public affairs
departments would tend to get more involved in those stakeholder inter-
actions which have a more specific agenda.
This possibility is supported in Figure 1 and 2. First, in Figure 1 we see
that stakeholder interactions with each individual public affairs department
tapers off dramatically in the more "issue-specific" stakeholder groups
(e.g., engineering executives and regulators, human resource executives
and labor unions, finance executives and the investment community).
Two final observations on these stakeholder interaction profiles are com-
ments about both the departments and the stakeholder groups. First, whether
a department has overt, broad public affairs responsibilities or not, stake-
holder interactions represent a major time commitment. Executives from
each department acknowledge important outside constituents. Second, it
is interesting to note the relative lack of attention to state regulators and
labor unions. Perhaps either the industry feels that the interests of these

7
 Public Relations Res~lew

FIGURE 1

Stakeholder Interaction Time*

7 ~7"~ Public Affairs Departments

I I Non-Public Affairs Departments

5.
'Z
4-
7,
Z
g 3-
..,., ~;:
F~
F~
F~
F~
Z
i1

1 ....
:; Z
ix
0
Industry State U.S. Environ-, Press Other Federal Investors State Professional Labor
Associa- Legis- Congress raentalists Regulators Regulators Associations
tions lators Ad',isors
STAKEtIOLDER GROUPS

"See Table for comparative s t a t i s t i c s 1 - legal, public relations,

government affaLrs, p u b l i c
affa~s.

groups are easy to understand or else that the power of these groups is far
less pronounced than that of other stakeholder groups.
In closing this section, it is important to note that there is no reason to
believe that the amounts of time spent in stakeholder interactions are an
index to the quality of information reception. Various stakeholders may be
overlooked while others are overemphasized. Furthermore, this time spent
in stakeholder interaction may serve as having a buffering rather than an
information-seeking purpose. The pattern of time involvement presented
in this section is helpful to understand the bias structured into executive
roles. Because the types of stakeholder contact are so different among the
various groups, the internal perspectives on public affairs interchanges,
while others are oriented toward the political and communications levels
of involvement. Whether such differences are vital inputs from diverse
receptors or unobservant restatements of a departmental bias is dependent
on the unit receptivity.

Interaction Breadth. The first of these receptivity dimensions, breadth,

refers to the distribution of potential sources (as measured by averaging
the number of different outside contact sources with which a particular

$
 Public Affairs Execs

FIGURE 2A

S t a k e h o l d e r Interaction Profiles for

P u b l i c A f f a i r s Departments

- - --~ Public Affairs

8- "- " G o v ' t Relations
9 - - - . . o Public Relations
7- o-. . . . . -~ Legal
=

6- \
4
i'l
I' '1
I" '1
,v4-
~
I' '1 .o

i
~,, ~,"

".(- * o. ~ I p,
11"

9 s'"

Industry U.S. Press Federal State Prof.

Associa- Congress Regulators Regulators Asso-
tions ciations
State Environ: Other Invest- Advisors Labor
Legis- mentalists ment
lators Community

executive spent at least an hour a week in contact). A further inspection of

the stakeholder interaction profiles of each department (Figure 2) suggests
that some departments have a wide array of channels to the outside while
others are highly reliant on few channels. In actually counting the number
of stakeholder channels for each department (interaction of I hour/week or
greater), these differences between departments turn out to be quite sig-
nificant. The scores for each department appear in Table 1. These data show
the public affairs departments as having far more channels to the outside.
As with the amount of stakeholder interaction time, however, the scores of
the non-public affairs departments are far from negligible.

9
Public Relations Review

FIGURE 2B
Stakeholder Interaction Profiles for
Non-Public Affairs Departments
~- -- --~ Engineering
-- -" General Management

6j 9 9 - - 9 tluman Resources
9...... 9 Finance
5

4
I\ ~ / ',/ ". ."
.ro ., ,/ ',.._ .,
2
. '.~
",~\ ..'.. ,"' I~
I"~ / ; ~~ ~".~ " - /"7Jk
''~ ''

Industry U.S. Press Federal State Professional

Asso- Congress Regulators Regulators Associations
ciations
State Environ- Other Invest- Advisors Labor
Leg-is- mentalists ment
lators Community

A p p r e c i a t i o n . Thus far we have seen that public affairs executives s p e n d

m o r e time with outside stakeholders and interact with a w i d e r variety of
stakeholders. It w o u l d be erroneous, h o w e v e r , to conclude that these
d e p a r t m e n t s are necessarily receiving m o r e information from the outside
as a c o n s e q u e n c e of these interactions. In fact, an examination of the use
of stakeholder interaction time as an information source suggests just the
o p p o s i t e conclusion.
T h u s , again referring to Table 1, the m e a s u r e s of total reliance on outside
stakeholders as information sources is lower for public affairs d e p a r t m e n t s
than for non-public affairs d e p a r t m e n t s . T h e s e d e p a r t m e n t s were c o m p a r e d
by a score for the " a p p r e c i a t i o n " of the information potential of time in
public affairs interaction. This is calculated by dividing the aggregated
r e p o r t e d value of various outside sources (listed on the questionnaire) by
the time s p e n t in interactions with such sources. The non-public affairs
d e p a r t m e n t s clearly s u r p a s s e d the public affairs d e p a r t m e n t s o n their will-
ingness to appreciate the information value of time spent with outside

10
 Public Affairs Execs
stakeholders. It is not surprising to find department scores in "receptor
breadth" and in appreciation to be negatively correlated. Therefore, although
executives in general management, human resources, engineering, and
finance spend less time dealing with outsiders, they tend to use what time
they do spend on information-gathering endeavors.
As an important aside to this discussion of information sources, it should
be pointed out that these sources could be classified either by stakeholder
group or by closeness of stakeholder contact. The departments did not
differ significantly by either of these two splits, but they support the dis-
tinction of each of these sources. Thus, in the first classification, the sources
were positively related by stakeholder area. Examples of such groupings
are between trade associations and the trade press, between environmental
publications and direct contact with environmentalists, or between direct
contact with government officials and government publications. The second
classification suggested that executives regardless of their department tended
to prefer impersonal information media over direct sources. Two rough
source clusters seemed evident in that several popular and professional
press sources, such as Tile Nezo York Times, the Harvard Business Review,
trade publications and the broadcast media, were inversely related to sources
such as the use of trade associations, trade contacts, internal sources and
environmentalist contacts. Within each of these clusters we found positive
relationships for primary and secondary sources. Table 3 shows this ranking
of preferred sources. The values on this list are widely distributed and a
comparison of the values of the top third of the list to the bottom third
suggest that the general order is significant.
Attention. The next two receptor dimensions were constructed from an
analysis of department descriptions of the purpose of their boundary-span-
ning activity. It is clear from the data in Table 1 that the total amount of
public affairs boundary-spanning activity was more highly rated by gov-
ernment relations, and general management executives. Thus, these
departments gave greater attention to public affairs issues.
Further insight can be gained through the more detailed breakdown in
Table 4. First, we see that the lawyers tended to lag behind the other public
affairs departments in the intensity in which they engaged in each of these
boundary-spanning categories. The lawyers seemed less inclined to span
the company boundary on their own initiative. Second, the non-public
affairs departments only excel in their performance of transacting activity
for market-relevant resources. This distinctly different set of findings for
"transacting" versus the other boundary-spanning activities is consistent,
then, with the findings of the boundary-spanning role correlation matrix.
This matrix showed a moderate correlation with pairs of the first five public
affairs boundary-spanning dimensions, but a lack of significant relations to
"transacting."
Listenership. The general outw,'trd focus manifested by the attention scores
of public affairs departments can be further analyzed by examining the
information flow from the outside to the inside. While executives may

11
Public Relations Review

TABLE 3
Rank Order of Value of Information Sources

Average Rating
Rank Order Information Sources (1 = low, 5 = high)

1. Within the Company 4.021

2. Trade Associations 3.246
3. Wall Street Journal 3.207
4. Trade Contacts 2.761
5. Business Week 2.619
6. Professional Press 2.556
7. Broadcasting 2.546
8. Government Contacts 2.526
9. Popular Press 2.481
10. Business Research Organizations 2.478
ll. Books 2.256
12. Fortune 2.234
13. Government Publications 2.328
14. Trade Press 2.321
15. Forbes 2.210
16. Consultants 2.197
17. New York Times 2.09
18. Duns 2.007
19. Public Interest Groups 1.985
20. Environmentalist Publications 1.978
21. Harvard Business Review 1.884
22. Investor Community 1.733
23. Environmental Contacts 1.706
24. Labor Contacts 1.453
25. Labor Publications 1.380

TABLE 4

Boundary-Spanning by Department

Boundary-Spanning Activities
Department Representing Protecting Monitoring Scanning Transmitting Transacting

Legal 2.90 3.50 3.80 3.70 3.90 2.60

Finance 3.92 3.00 3.08 3.33 3.00 2.73
Planning 4.00 2.00 3.50 4.56 3.00 2.56
General Management 3.35 3.42 3.86 3.57 3.46 4.06
Government Relations 4.27 4.42 4.64 4.42 4.50 1.73
Line 2.80 2.80 3.00 3.20 2.00 2.80
Public Relations 4.61 3.72 3.83 4.00 3.88 1.89
H u m a n Resources 2.95 3.15 3.45 3.75 3.40 1.75
Technical 3.14 3.71 3.06 3.64 3.50 2.36
Public Affairs 4.13 3.86 4.29 4.14 4.14 2.29

F value 5.81 3.14 5.49 2.31 4.18 6.86

Degrees of freedom 9,130 1,130 9,136 9,130 9,129 9,129
Significance p<.001 p = .002 p<.001 p = .019 p < .O01 p < .O01

12
 Public ,~ffairs Execs
devote a good deal of their attention toward public affairs activities, their
attention could be directed toward information receiving (listening) or toward
information sending (projection). The relative magnitude of these listenership
activities can be ascertained by comparing listenership activity to projection
activity. Thus a ratio of information-receiving-to information-projecting
activities can serve as a helpful index; a lower figure would indicate that
the unit in question functioned more as a corporate orator than as a listener.
The scores on this variable, as presented in Table 1, suggested that public
affairs executives (with the exception of lawyers) tended to be worse listen-
ers than non-public affairs executives. Thus, those charged with under-
standing public constituencies may have a more distant comprehension of
data.

Discussion
Several interesting departmental differences in stakeholder contact and
information sources were suggested. Departments were compared by 1)
the time spent in contact with outsiders, 2) the breadth of contact with
different outsiders, 3) the appreciation of outsiders as information sources
and 4) two quantities of departments' boundary-spanning efforts--the over-
all conscious attention to the outside and readiness to listen to outside signals.
Great time was put into trade association legislator contact by most depart-
ments, while state regulators, unions, and professional associations were
given relatively little time. We further saw a likely preference for impersonal
outside sources among the executives. This report should not, however,
obscure the observation that public affairs activities were far from incidental
to any type of executive. No department alloted less than 25 percent of the
average work week to stakeholder interactions. Each department main-
tained contact with at least seven stakeholder groups. Finally, every depart-
ment reported that it recognized more than a fair amount of responsibility
for public affairs boundary-spanning activities.
On the other hand, some of the sharpest differences, appeared between
public affairs departments (government affairs, public affairs, legal and
public relations), and non-public relations departments (general manage-
ment, h u m a n resources, engineering, and finance). Public affairs executives
tended to spend far more time in interactions with outside stakeholder
groups and maintained contact with many more outside constituents. Fur-
thermore, public affairs executives recognized a greater responsibility for
public affairs boundary-spanning activities. Non-public affairs executives
were more "issue specific" in their stakeholder interactions. They also
tended to be more likely to acquire information from their efforts, for two
reasons. First, non-public affairs executives attributed a higher source value
to their interaction time. Second, non-public affairs executives tended to
see their public affairs role more as that of a listener than as a disseminator.
Such different behaviors may be a result of intentional role distinction or
the result of professional socialization.

13
 P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s Red-Jew

FIGURE 3

Receptor Breadth By Department'

167
15-
14J
m 13'
"~ 12'
O
~11'
9~ 10-
O
~9
~ 8
"~ 7
..~ 6 -
E
~ 5-
z

O"
Government Public Public Legal Engineering Human General Finance
Relations Affairs Relations Resources Management '"
Department

~From Table 7-1, F = 3.64, df = 9,138, p < .001.

It appears that this differentiation brings company executives into contact

with public affairs issues for different reasons and in different ways. Public
affairs executives, as protectors of the institutional interface, may have a
more general interest in stakeholder challenges. Non-public affairs execu-
tives, however, have different functional concerns (e.g., marketing, oper-
ations, engineering, etc.), and hence may be more interested in the reso-
lution of only the particular issues which interfere with these concerns. A
company should desire strong performance in both of these types of recep-
tor orientations. Qualities such as a broad view of the public affairs envi-
ronment as well as the ability to listen carefully to specialized challenges
should not be mutually exclusive qualities, even if company departments
are not generally equally strong in these areas. In this industry, effective
management of public affairs cannot be anchored strictly in ties with the

14
 Public Affairs Execs

FIGURE 4

Information Appreciation by DepartmentI

E
.o 13-
12-
t" 11-
10-
9-
8-
U3 7-
6-
5,
0
4"
3-

0
21-

0
I I
Government Public Public Legal Engineering Human General Finance
Relations Affairs Relations Resources Management

Department
XBasedon Table 7-1, F = 2.57, df = 9,113, p <: .05.

trade associations a n d the general press at the expense of attention to

regulators, unions, and o t h e r interest groups.
Thus, w e h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d that various c o m p a n y d e p a r t m e n t s , like
specialized s e n s o r y receptors, act to detect different signals from the envi-
r o n m e n t . Such biased readings of the e n v i r o n m e n t are u n d e r s t a n d a b l e ,
given the differences in executive training, stakeholder exposure, a n d orga-
nizational responsibilities b e t w e e n these d e p a r t m e n t s . This sort of differ-
entiation m a y capitalize o n internal expertise, but if this information w e r e
to r e m a i n in these receptor units, c o m p a n y - w i d e perceptions of the outside
w o u l d be f r a g m e n t a r y a n d distorted. As with a living sensory system, this
information must eventually be centrally coordinated. Future research should
s t u d y h o w c o m p a n y differences in external social performance differences
relate to differences in internal c o m p a n y organization.

References
q~4cGrath, P.S., "Managing Corporate External Relations," Report No. 679, 1976; "Action
Plans for Public Affairs," Report No. 733, 1977;and "Redefining Corporate Federal Relations,"

15
Public Relations Review
Report No. 757, 1979. All published by The Conference Board, New York. Also, J.K. Brown,
The Business of Issues, The Conference Board, 1979; and S.L. Holmes, "Adopting Corporate
Structure for Social Responsiveness," California Management Review XXI, No. 1 (1978), pp. 42-
54.
2Dearb0rn, D.C. and H.A. Simon, "Selective Perception: A Note on the Departmental
Identification of Executives," Sociometry 21 (1958), p. 153; Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch,
Organization and Environment. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1967; and Cyert, R.M. and J.G. Marsh,
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
3Sonnenfeld, J., "Executive Apologies for Price-Fixing: Role-Biased Perceptions of Causal-
ity," The Academy of Management Journal 24 (1981), pp. 192-198.
4Sonnenfeld, J., CorporateViews of the Public Interest: Perceptionsof the ForestProducts Ind,~stry.
Boston, Mass.: Auburn House, 1981.
SMiles, R.H., Macro Organizational Behauior. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1980.

Informing The People:

A Public Affairs Handbook
Edited by Lewis M. Helm. Ray E/don Hiebert, Michael R. Naver and Kenneth Rabin
The First Volume in the New Longrnan Series "
in Public Communication
Longman "~

Informing is a handbook that

bringspubllc infor-
public information9
9 Who is the clientof government public
The ma,on practice
up-to-date for the
information?
The authors--government loadors, lousi-

rup,'e--'e material on theory

and general prac-
ness executives, jouma!ists, and academics--
offer tho~htful insightsintotheirvarious aroas
of expertise. This broad porsl:~.-~ct~makes
lice, specific techniques and actual cases, and Inlo~nlf1~ The PeOl~ a comprehensive
legal parameters. resource for all students and practitioners
The immediatery useful discussions will be involved with the public communication
valuable in the day-to-day work o! government process.
information personnel, line managers, and
program speciallsts. The book is apprppr~ate 1981 359 p,~es I'~rdcov~
for both executive and legislative olticials. $27.95 ISBN 58"2-28~04
and is applicable to federal, state and local
levels of government.
In addition to being a practitloner's guide-
book, Intormlng The People addresses
important professional issues:
9 Which branch of government sho~Jld make
information policy?.
Longmcn
College and Prolesslonal Boc~ [ ~ - ~
9 Is commercial advertising of government
programs appropriate? I g West 44~ Street. Hew YorK. H y 1003~,
9 Shoutd there be a centralized bureau for (212) 764 3950

I6