Lawyer cites ethics issues with NOAA counsel funds

Fishing industry attorney Stephen Ouellette is seeking bar association and congressional inquiries into the ethics of enforcement and litigation lawyers who, according to a U.S. Inspector General's report, have covered virtually their entire operating expenses — almost $1 million a year — on inflated fines they levy against fishing boats and shoreside businesses.

Those who set the level of penalties should not benefit from those penalties, Ouellette has asserted in a lengthy letter to Lois Schiffer, chief counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Citing the ongoing, 13-month investigation into NOAA law enforcement practices by the Commerce Department Inspector General's office, Ouellette said the probe "now reveals for the first time that the NOAA Office of General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation not only sets the fines, but budgets for them as revenue, apparently drawing 99 percent of its non-salary operating expense from the Asset Forfeiture Fund."

He wrote to Schiffer on Sunday, informing her that he was "requesting an ethical opinion from our (Massachusetts) Board of Bar Overseers as to the propriety of agency counsel acting in the dual role of prosecutor and initial agency fact finder, including the setting of fines, while deriving economic benefit from the fines they assess and collect, as well as the practice of resisting disclosure of the basis for setting those fines."

From Gloucester Daily Times on July 13, 2010 - Lawyer cites ethics issues with NOAA counsel funds - By Richard Gaines, Staff Writer.

The rest of the article is here

The fisheries enforcement scandal in NOAA

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.