NOAA is sitting on a large pot of money which was taken from fishermen and other business people through what it’s hard to see as anything but strong-arm tactics. NOAA has also let another large pot of money from those same fishermen be improperly spent without adequate safeguards and/or supervision. But the NOAA leadership seems intent on fixing the corrupt enforcement system that it allowed to fester for so long with no concern for the victims of what was at best their inattention and at worst their active encouragement. Since this whole sordid affair started, how many dollars went to the salaries of NOAA administrators who were looking the other way when their responsibilities should have included oversight of these two renegade offices? How many of those administrators are still there (or are retired and collecting government pensions)? And more importantly, what were the total costs to the people and the businesses that were so wrongfully prosecuted - and persecuted - because of this pervasive blind spot that they conveniently developed?
Are Ms. Lubchenco and the rest of the NOAA/NMFS leadership proposing to ignore all of this? I really hope not, but if that’s the case, it’s up to all of us to make sure that Congress steps in post haste.
In a NY Times article following her appointment to head NOAA, Jane Lubchenco said “fishing communities, scientists, regulators and other stakeholders in the debate need to overcome a legacy of bitterness and distrust. ‘It really is pretty dysfunctional’” Unless and until she convincingly turns her agency’s enforcement efforts around, sees that agency personnel who committed or allowed to be committed the many infractions reported by the OIG and KPMG are appropriately punished, and willingly makes adequate restitution to the fishermen and others who were so unnecessarily and vindictively damaged by her agency’s actions, she’ll be doing nothing but adding to what has now become her very own legacy of bitterness and distrust, and the level of dysfunction is only going to increase. Some bureaucratic reshuffling isn’t going to do the job that needs to be done.
For the full piece, go to http://www.fishnet-usa.com/ and follow the "Current edition" link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
It would seem logical that since the monies generated by the enforcement side of the agency came from the industry, at least some, a substantial portion I would think, be returned to improve the science and research of the fisheries. Further, that the research funds be used in a cooperative research program to maximize the return on the investment for all parties. That would enhance one of the weak links in the process and should yield a larger payback for the industry by better defining the fishery and the required management. One would ultimately expect larger harvest levels, not to mention better understanding of the science and improved stakeholder buy in.
Post a Comment