This posts is my attempt to pass on some information about the on-going investigation of the USFWS for misappropriation of funds.
I'm not anit-USFWS. Not at all. But I am critical (and leary) of them. But the USFWS is not singled out when it comes to my scrutiny. When is comes to charitites, conservation organizations and government agencies, I demand that a certain level of accountability be maintained. I would be hot as hell if Ducks Unlimited had "lost" millions of dollars too.
I don't pretend to know the "truth" by reading a couple of articles in a popular outdoor magazine, but at a minimum, I think we can say the the USFWS isn't be responsible with all the money we are entrusting them. Director Clark admits that she can't account for $7 million???
What follows is a synopsis of two articles found in the "Compass" section of "Outdoor Life" magazine. They were written by Frank Miniter in the January and Feburary issues.
How much money is "missing"? Early in the investigation, $45 million was the amount being bantered around. Investigators have traced millions of dollars to accounts no one in the agency admits setting up. Exotic trips have been taken, claims have arisen that sensitive financial records have "vanished" and a USFWS employee has testified that he was fired for not allocating money to anti-hunting groups. This was the subject and findings of the first two sessions of the House Resources Committee hearings chaired by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) - the second hearing was held in late Sept.
Specifically, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Resources Committee are accusing the USFWS of diverting money raised by the Dingell-Johnson Act (D-J) and the Pittman-Robertson Act (P-R). D-J levies a 10% tax on sportfishing equipment, motor-boat fuel and some boat imports. P-R levies an 11% tax on sporting arms, ammunition and other equipment and a 10% tax on handguns. Both acts mandate that the money generated by these taxes be reapportioned back to the states in the form of grants for programs that benefit fish and wildlife. But there are some built-in loop-holes. The USFWS is permitted to use up to 8% of the total revenue generated by P-R and up to 6% of the total revenue from D-J for administrative purposes. It is also allowed to take money out for what is termed "General Administrative Services" or GAS. 18% from P-R and D-J goes into this category. It is these funds, which annually amount to more than $30 million, that have allegedly been raided.
Apparently the biggest problem is the USFWS woefully inadequate accounting system. The GAO and the Resources Committee investigators found a welter of conflicting, missing, not-filed and ambiguous records. Barry Hill, associate director of the GAO, testified that the USFWS's Federal Aid Program "is one of the worst-run programs that we've ever encountered. They have failed to keep even a basic paper trail on millions of dollars." USFWS director Clark admitted, "I'm not going to deny that there are problems. Record keeping has been less than appropriate." But continues on, "The GAO is guilty of creatively interpreting financial records."
Some concrete numbers have surfaced however, and they have prompted Committee Chairman Young to call two USFWS programs "slush funds". One is called the Director's Conservation Fund which annually took $500,000 out of both P-R and D-J and enables the director of the USFWS to parcel out grants without the committee recommendation or official recommendations that are normally required for grants. The other is called the National Administrative Grant Program which annually took $2 million from each act and awarded money to an array of organizations - some of which are (according to the article) "are of debatable value to wildlife - to put the kindest light on it." Both of these programs were created in the early 1990's but no one at the USFWS has been able to answer who authorized them - or even on precisely what date they were started.
The crux is that the P-R and D-J acts specifically mandate that excess money not needed for administrative purposes is supposed to go to the states. This money is not supposed to be used for a slush fund or pet projects. Also, both of these programs were terminated this past spring *after* the GAO audit began. Clark maintains that they were terminated because of budget constraints. Chairman Clark called these programs "slush funds" because there were no set rules mandating where the money could go *or not go*. It was entirely up to the director!
Here is a partial list of project that received money from the GAS.
Note that some of projects are simple labeled "projects" because the USFWS
could not put a more precise label on them (accountability???).
|
|
|
|
Spotted Owl
Seattle Sea Lions Mexican Wolf Wolf Monitoring Wolf Reintroduction Grizzly Bears Black-Footed Ferret Atlantic Salmon Marine Mammals Projects Projects Projects Projects RAMSAR Convention NAFTA |
$385,089
$207,433 $69,173 $159,835 $34,898 $149,987 $116,971 $429,816 $791,174 $175,000 $50,000 $62,816 $572,937 $145,000 $37,050 |
In addition to these two unsupervised funds, the GAO's report to Congress says, "Basic procedures for managing travel funds were not followed." The GAO found excessive travel expenditures, including trips to Japan and South America, and the purchase of alcoholic beverages. But even more serious is a supposed land buy brought to light by Audrey Hudson of the "Washington Times". The USFWS considered using P-R funds and Duck Stamp proceeds "to buy an island (Palmyra) south of Hawaii where there are only 10 ducks and no hunting." The USFWS has since dropped the island from its list of lands being considered for wildlife refuges.
And it doesn't stop there...
Jim Beers was a wildlife biologist in the Federal Aid Washington office.
It was his job to review and make recommendation as to what national grants
should be funded with money from the P-R Act. But in 1997, Beers says he
was ordered to sign a grant that would have given money to The Fund for
Aminals to print anti-hunting literature. He refused. Shortly thereafter,
"a letter was slipped under my door. It said that if I didn't retire by
Friday, I'd be fired and lose my pension after 31 years of service." He
was fired, the very next day and he spent the next 1.5 years fighting the
USFWS in court. He won.
Bonnie Kline, a computer specialist with the USFWS, testified that during the Beers investigation, she was pressured to keep quite. She testified, "Senior officials at the [USFWS] escorted me onto a nonpublic balcony and threatened me with the loss of my job and the destruction of my career if I cooperated with the Office of Special Council investigation the Jim Beers case..."
The next hearing was in late October and was attended by Clark and her boss, Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior Donald J. Barry. The article states that the pair started off "apologeitically" but turned much less cooperative as the questioning became heated... "[I]t quickly became evident to all in attendance that answers from the duo would be in short supply."
When asked if anyone had been fired, Clark answered "no". When asked who authorized several exotic trips (to Japan, South America and elsewhere), Clark said, "I'm not prepared to answer that." When asked why there weren't any financial records, Barry answered, "I'm hard-pressed to answer that." When asked what measures had been taken to protect Bonnie Kline, Clark said that she became aware of Kline's situation only after September's hearing. This answer in particular angered some congressmen who were aware that Chairman Young had sent a letter to Clark in March 1999 demanding that Kline be given a safe working environment. Clark said she never received the letter.
The hearing then focused on some specifics. One of which was diverting $1,968,991 from conservation funds to shore up other areas of the USFWS. Resource committee investigators testified that two sportsmen's funds were billed about $30,000 per employee for the division of the USFWS that oversees these funds, whereas other parts of the service were billed only about $7000 per employee. A couple of bombshells were also dropped, the biggest being an e-mail that was allegedly sent between two employees (W. Brooks and D. Lyon) at the USFWS's Denver Financial Center. In it, one line reads, "[I] can cover it from my slush fund." Clark has maintained during these hearings that there are no slush funds at the USFWS.
Clark admitted that $7 million has yet to be accounted for, but maintained
that the large sums of money reported missing are inaccurate. The problem
is that important financial records are *MISSING*. This allows both sides
to pick a number with no way to be proven wrong. Be that as it may, $7
million is $7 million too many.
Final note: The allegations are flying left and right in this case. Some (or even most) can be explained away by the director. But I have two things to say here. Things become increasingly harder to "explain away" the more you have to do it. And secondly, it is patently clear to me that the accounting practices of the USFWS are bordering on criminal.