"CULTURE OF FEAR" at US Interior Department

Source: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Posted by: Public Employees for Envir. Responsibility - archive
Posted on: Monday, August 2, 2004 at 12:32 PM
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

Agency-wide Survey Shows Wide Expectation of Retaliation & Unfairness

Washington, DC - Workers within the U.S. Department of Interior live
in a "culture of fear" where "hatchet people" mete out punishment
based on office politics, according to an agency-wide survey and
investigative report quietly posted by the agency's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) late last week.

Survey results mirror reports from Interior staff received daily at
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) from
employees ranging from rank and file staff to park superintendents and
other top managers who feel that they cannot disclose problems without
facing retribution.

OIG sent its survey sent out to more than 25,000 employees, including
supervisors, human resource managers and lawyers in agencies such as
the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Fish &
Wildlife Service. Nearly 40% of those who received surveys responded,
with key results including-

· More than one quarter of staff fear retaliation for reporting
problems;

· A solid majority do not see the disciplinary system as being fairly
administered on a consistent basis; and

· Nearly half believe that discipline is taken on the basis of whom
the person knows rather than what they did.

The Department of Interior is engaged in several high-profile cases of
discipline against employees who have spoken out about problems, such
as U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers. Yet in his transmittal
letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Inspector General Earl
Devaney states without explanation "many, if not most, of our findings
in this report pre-dated your tenure as Secretary." Devaney reports
directly to Secretary Norton. Devaney recommends that steps be taken
to reduce "the fear of reprisal" and to improve the consistency of
disciplinary actions taken.

"The culture of fear in Interior starts at the top," stated PEER
Executive Director Jeff Ruch whose organization's attorneys will be
questioning Secretary Norton and other top Interior officials under
oath later this month in the Chambers case. "The Inspector General
only goes halfway with his report by finding a 'culture of fear' but
refusing to name who the employees fear."

4. And now MORE about the USDA…..

PDF of the full report at this link:
www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0723-02.htm FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 23, 2004 10:49 PM CONTACT: Organization for Competitive
Markets
Ben Lilliston (202) 223-3740
John Lockie (406) 698-3043
Mark Smith (617) 354-2922
Philip Mattera (202) 626-3780 ext. 32

USDA Hijacked by Agribusiness

OMAHA - July 23 - A new report released today finds that regulatory
policy at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been
"hijacked" by the agribusiness industry, which has seen to it that
many key policymaking positions at the agency are now held by
individuals who previously worked for the industry.

The report, titled USDA INC., was commissioned by the Agribusiness
Accountability Initiative (AAI), a network of family-farm and
public-interest groups concerned about the growing power of the big
agri-food corporations. It is being released today at a conference in
Omaha sponsored by the Organization for Competitive Markets. The
report can be found online after 9am Eastern Time at
www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1.

"In its early days, USDA was known as the People's Department," said
Fred Stokes of the Organization for Competitive Markets, which first
proposed the paper. "Today, it is, in effect, the Agribusiness
Industry's Department, since its policies on issues such as food
safety and fair market competition have been shaped to serve the
interests of the giant corporations that now dominate food production
and distribution."

"It is not surprising that USDA is slavishly following the agenda of
agribusiness when you consider who holds many of the top jobs at the
Department," said Philip Mattera, Director of the Corporate Research
Project of Good Jobs First and author of the report. "The upper ranks
of USDA are filled with industry veterans, while people formerly
associated with family-farm, consumer or public-interest groups are
just about nowhere to be found."

In addition to working directly for agribusiness companies such as
ConAgra and Campbell Soup, top USDA officials came to the Department
from industry trade associations (such as the Food Marketing
Institute) and producer groups (such as the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association and the National Pork Producers Council), which are
closely aligned with big processing companies and are partially funded
by them. Even Secretary Ann Veneman, who has spent most of her career
as a public official, has a past industry connection: she served on
the board of directors of Calgene Inc., a biotechnology company that
was later taken over by Monsanto.

"It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that agribusiness has packed
USDA with its people," said Peter O'Driscoll of the Center of Concern,
coordinator and co-sponsor of AAI.

The report illustrates the hijacking of USDA policymaking through five
case studies:

· USDA's refusal to adopt strict safety and testing measures for
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), despite the appearance of a
case in Washington State last year.

· USDA's refusal to vigorously enforce rules against anti-competitive
practices in the cattle industry, despite the growing tendency of the
big meatpacking companies to force independent ranchers into so-called
captive supply arrangements.

· USDA's promotion of weakened slaughterhouse inspection practices in
the face of a resurgence of health hazards such as E.coli bacteria and
listeria. The Department also continues to promote dubious "solutions"
such as irradiation.

· USDA's continuing boosterism for agricultural biotechnology, despite
a lack of consumer acceptance and the plunge in exports due to
international resistance to genetically modified crops.

· USDA's support for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
despite the growing evidence of serious public health effects of these
factory farms. The Department has also supported the misguided policy
of using conservation dollars to subsidize the futile attempts of
CAFOs solve their manure problems.

In each of these cases, the report notes the presence of industry
veterans among the chief officials responsible for adopting or
maintaining these questionable policies.

The report concludes with a set of recommendations on how to begin
loosening the grip of agribusiness on USDA's policies. These include:

· Reappraisal of ethics rules to prevent government officials from
overseeing policies that directly affect the interest of their former
employers;

· Enhancement of Congressional oversight over regulatory appointees;

· Evaluation of whether USDA can continue to serve both as a promoter
of U.S. agricultural products and a regulator of food safety; and

· Further research on revolving-door conflicts of interest at USDA.

Progress on these measures, the report argues, will begin to turn USDA
Inc. back into an arm of government that represents the public
interest.

The report was commissioned by a working group of the Agribusiness
Accountability Initiative. The following working group members helped
research and edit the paper:

Scotty Johnson, Defenders of Wildlife
Ben Lilliston, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Patty Lovera, Public Citizen
Larry Mitchell, American Corn Growers Association
Peter O'Driscoll, Center of Concern
Mark Smith, Farm Aid
Fred Stokes, Organization for Competitive Markets