From The Oregonian, Jan. 5, 2003, p A1

Firefighters spend with a blank check, auditors say
Purchasing rules were ignored, and exorbitant rates sometimes paid, in
the heat of the costliest fire season in U.S. history

By MICHAEL MILSTEIN, The Oregonian
A digital camera, a $10 pen, a tent from L.L. Bean - and carpet for
the campsite.
Essential tools of firefighting?
Federal teams combating blazes in what would become the most
expensive fire season ever sometimes "totally ignored" spending rules,
forking over money for such "less than prudent expenditures" as if
they had a blank check, an internal U.S. Forest Service review has
found.
"The perception that (fire) suppression funds are unlimited is widely
held," says a summary of the findings.
The review, obtained by The Oregonian, has not been publicly
released, and Forest Service officials say they don't know whether it
will be. It examines just 5 percent of last year's $1.7 billion
wildfire outlay, which covered big-ticket items such as helicopter
rental. But interviews with agency officials, coupled with the draft
review's findings, reveal questionable costs:
- Crews at the 25,000-acre Monument Fire in Eastern Oregon bought
thousands of dollars worth of carpeting for their outdoor fire camp
and bypassed normal channels to buy beef jerky and avocados for close
to 2,000 people.
- Firefighters awaiting assignment in Phoenix, Albuquerque and
elsewhere earned overtime pay while sightseeing and shopping.
- Confusion about contracts with private fire crews and suppliers
meant some got paid for services others provided for free, weaving a
web of erroneous bills and payments still being untangled.
- Rental cars sat unused or ended up damaged, running up $18 million
in charges over the fire season.
- Crews spent firefighting money on pricey pens and pencils costing
up to $10 each, digital cameras and upscale tents and clothing from
L.L. Bean and REI, with "little to no" justification.
Some of the spending proved reasonsable, officials said. The carpet
at the Monument Fire kept down dust that might otherwise damage
computers in the field, and the jerky buoyed the spirits of tired
crews, said Rich Wands, head of a fire training center in Arizona and
a member of the review team.
But the team found larger, continuing problems, such as inexperienced
staff overseeing rental agreements and contracts that had taxpayers
paying exorbitant rates for private equipment and fire crews. It also
found escalating examples of "fire-chasing", in which contract crews
race to new blazes and often get hired at higher pay because they are
within easy reach.
Cost controls were "disjointed," leaving harried field staff to shop
for deals during the heat of fire season. Sometimes they ended up
paying more to rent equipment than it would have cost to buy it.
Erin O'Connor, a Forest Service spokeswoman, conceded that much of
the spending appears extravagant.
"One of the goals is to say t people in the field, 'You folks need to
be mindful of how we're spending money,'" she said.
Some fire bosses appeared to direct business to distant contractors
instead of cheaper local ones. One case involves a possible criminal
conflict of interest in hiring a private firm. It's been handed over
to investigators.
Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense warned
that the widespread misappropriation of fire money also violates the
intent of Congress - and the law.
"For years we have heard this was happening, but this report is the
first to really document it," he said. "Some fire managers are
spending money like drunken sailors, but the question now is, 'What's
going to be done about it?' How are they going to show taxpayers
they're putting a stop to it?"
The findings are likely to sarpen scrutiny of a ballooning federal
firefighting program that spent $1.7 billion last year, topping the
2000 total by approximately $300 million. It leads some, including
Bush administration budget bosses, to see the program as a bottomless
pit for cash.
The problem starts in flammable Western forests. But that demanding
reality is quickly compounded by a complex budgeting system that
funnels ever more money at the flames.
"Oversight and accountability needs to be improved at al levels," the
review concluded. "The problems have all been state before, but little
has been done to correct the problems sufficiently."
The findings come from an "Incident Accountability Team" formed in
August by U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth to look into
allegations of improper spending during the 2002 fire season. The team
did not sutdy firefighting strategy - such as how many crews or
aircraft were used - but instead whether fire bosses spent taxpayer
money effectively.
Officials estimated they examined roughly 5 percent of all fire
spending last year. So the precise allocations of money remain
unknown.
Rarely have such stark conclusions come from the nation's biggest
wildfire agency.
"There is a strong business case for change, as these financial
problems can undermine the good works of the agenycy and create
problems between those involved in fire suppression and support," the
team of Forest Service officials reported.
The Forest Service and other land agencies are struggling with record
costs of firefighting last summer, totaling $1.3 billion for the
ofrest Service and about $400 million for Interior Department agencies
such as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The totals include more
than $150 million spent on the Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon, the
most expensive in state history.
Agencies borrowed from other programs to cover the costs.

End to full reimbursement
Congress and the president have traditionally replenished
firefighting expenses with few questions asked.
But not this time. The Bush administration wants to repay
firefighting agencies only two-thirds of last year's fire debt,
leaving them to make up the rest by slicing spending elsewhere.
It sends a not-so-subtle message that firefighting, once backed by
almost limitless cash, now has a bottom line.
"The one good thing we might see from this is the Forest Service
realizing that they have to be accountable for the money they spend,"
said Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League, a longtime
watchdog of firefighting budgets. "They have basically had no
incentive to control costs."
The Forest Service review found fire agencies had little experience
handling contracts with private firefighting outfits and had no
consistent standards and rates.
"Fiscal policies are not clearly understood, inconsistently
interpreted or totally ignored in some cases," the review says.
"Standard operating procedures do not exist from team to team and from
region to region, which further adds to the confusion and
inconsistencies."

Team purchases
One of three teams handling Oregon's Biscuit fire installed 100
telephone lines to its rural command post; they went largely unused.
Some crews got money to replace worn tools, then used it to outfit
themselves with tents, packs and clothing from L.L. Bean, REI and
Cabela's.
"These purchases give the appearance that crews are stockpilingtools
and equipment for caches on their home units, rather than just
replensihing what was used on particular incidents," the review said.
It recommends tighter controls to make sure crews buy only the
replacements they need.
Some firefighting teams were "pre-positioned" in hotels in
Albuquerque, Phoenix and ther Western cities for faster response
should fires break out. Rules say staff on standby must be fully
outfitted and ready to go to work. They cannot receive overtime pay.
But these crews were paid for 12 hours per day and allowed to go
shopping and sightseeing.
The review team recommended an inquiry into possible "improper
payments," but O'Connor said she did not know if such an inquriy was
under way. In a case unrelated to the review, some of the highest-paid
fire crew leaders have been told to return wages that exceeded a
federal cap on overtime pay.
Fire bosses also spent "well over" $5 million - $6 to $12 per
firefighter a day - for "supplemental" fare such as beef jerky,
pushing food costs per firefighter beyond $50 a day, the review said.
When particular items such as avodados were not available locally,
they were sometimes imported at top prices.
"Evidence does exist that less than prudent judgment was used on some
purchases," sometimes violating local and national purchasing
policies, the review found.
It also identified "a widely held perception that purchases of
extravagant or specialized products are regularly made using fire
suppression funds." Items bouht included digital cameras, pricey
clothing and tents, detailing of vehicles and fancy pens and elaborate
pencils costing from $6 to $10 each.
But Wants, of the review team, said only a few such purchases were
made, usually by officials who were making decisions on the fly while
supervising thousands of firefighters.
"It wasn't widespread. It wasn't super-extravagant. It wasn't
super-common," he said. "They had a need for items, and they went out
and purchased them."
He said the Forest Service does not necessarily need new policies but
must make sure current policies are followed.
"We're going to have to work to clean up some areas," he said.

Comment by poster: This is only about 2/3thirds of the entire article,
but it covered most of the salient points. Sorry about the typos.

I find it humorous in a way: when fire is rushing toward your home at
40 mph, you probably are not thinking about the cost of fighting it. I
wonder whether the same criteria would be equably applied to something
like, say, the Bushism War on Terrorism. Of course they are not the
same. The 2001 fire season cost $1.7 billion for the entire season,
which began about April and lasted through December. The War on
Terrorism cost $60 billion for the first year.

There's something else that the War on Terrorism and firefighting have
in common: they appear to be growth industries.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

snip But Wants, of the review team, said only a few such purchases were
made, usually by officials who were making decisions on the fly while
supervising thousands of firefighters.
"It wasn't widespread. It wasn't super-extravagant. It wasn't
super-common," he said. "They had a need for items, and they went out
and purchased them."
He said the Forest Service does not necessarily need new policies but
must make sure current policies are followed.
"We're going to have to work to clean up some areas," he said.

Comment by poster: This is only about 2/3thirds of the entire article,
but it covered most of the salient points. Sorry about the typos.

I find it humorous in a way: when fire is rushing toward your home at
40 mph, you probably are not thinking about the cost of fighting it. I
wonder whether the same criteria would be equably applied to something
like, say, the Bushism War on Terrorism. Of course they are not the
same. The 2001 fire season cost $1.7 billion for the entire season,
which began about April and lasted through December. The War on
Terrorism cost $60 billion for the first year.

There's something else that the War on Terrorism and firefighting have
in common: they appear to be growth industries.

And after only getting repaid 2/3s of their invoices, I'm sure the major
players (choppers, heavy equipment rentals, food services) will be as
quick to show up at a blaze as they ever were. Not.
The Feds have already said many of their heavy lift helicopters will be
unavailable next summer due to a forecasted war. Ditto for the Guard.
The load will be on private industry and a cut back FS.

mike hagen wrote in message ...
snip But Wants, of the review team, said only a few such purchases were
made, usually by officials who were making decisions on the fly while
supervising thousands of firefighters.
"It wasn't widespread. It wasn't super-extravagant. It wasn't
super-common," he said. "They had a need for items, and they went out
and purchased them."
He said the Forest Service does not necessarily need new policies but
must make sure current policies are followed.
"We're going to have to work to clean up some areas," he said.

Comment by poster: This is only about 2/3thirds of the entire article,
but it covered most of the salient points. Sorry about the typos.

I find it humorous in a way: when fire is rushing toward your home at
40 mph, you probably are not thinking about the cost of fighting it. I
wonder whether the same criteria would be equably applied to something
like, say, the Bushism War on Terrorism. Of course they are not the
same. The 2001 fire season cost $1.7 billion for the entire season,
which began about April and lasted through December. The War on
Terrorism cost $60 billion for the first year.

There's something else that the War on Terrorism and firefighting have
in common: they appear to be growth industries.

And after only getting repaid 2/3s of their invoices, I'm sure the major
players (choppers, heavy equipment rentals, food services) will be as
quick to show up at a blaze as they ever were. Not.
The Feds have already said many of their heavy lift helicopters will be
unavailable next summer due to a forecasted war. Ditto for the Guard.
The load will be on private industry and a cut back FS.
You gotta kinda wonder though how quick to fight the armed services
might be if they knew Shrub was going to limit their combat
pay..._after_ the war was over. Seems kind of, nit-picky to me. But
I've always thought Shrub made a better cheerleader than a statesman.

You gotta admit one thing, though: he's still the best president money
has already bought. (Or maybe that was Chaney.)

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com