Flagrant misconduct by
prosecutors, Congress to investigate and questions about the DOI reorganization
With Prejudice
Federal Judge Gloria Navarro has dismissed all charges
against the Bundys, citing “outrageous” abuses and “flagrant misconduct” by the
prosecutors. Judge Navarro was most concerned about the following pieces of
evidence withheld from the defense:
° Records about surveillance at the Bundy ranch
° Records about the presence of government snipers
° FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days leading
up to the standoff
° Law enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the
Bundys posed no threat
° And internal affairs reports about misconduct by BLM
agents
Judge Navarro declared “a universal sense of justice has
been violated” and dismissed all charges against the Bundys “with prejudice”, meaning those charges cannot be
brought again.
Congressional
investigation
This case raises many questions, and I'm
pleased to see that Congressmen Bishop and Westerman have initiated an
inquiry, with the Committees staffs to be briefed by the BLM. Perhaps this is
just a first step, but I'm not convinced asking BLM to assess its own actions,
identify problems and propose solutions, will provide the public or Congress
with sufficient information to fully analyze what happened and why. Until we
have a complete picture of who did what and when, any proposed changes in
policy or procedure would suffer. Here are some things Congress should be
pursuing.
° There should be an inventory of BLM
law enforcement assets. First of course, would be the number and type of
personnel, and an examination of their authority, including the statutory
authority for their classification. Also, an inventory of the number and type
of weapons, the number and type of vehicles, the number of aircraft, including
drones (owned or leased), the amount and types of ammo, the number of attack
dogs or other tools and equipment in BLM's possession. At some point, this type
of inventory should be made of all the land management agencies in the Interior
Dept. and the Forest Service
° A complete list of the personnel and
their agency which were involved in the Bundy ranch operations (to include NPS,
FBI and all federal agencies).
° A complete list of assets that were
deployed for the Bundy operation by all agencies.
° A thorough review of all memos,
emails, phone logs, notes, etc. to determine what factors and alternatives were
considered prior to undertaking the operation
° A thorough review of all memos,
emails, phone logs, notes, etc. to determine who made the final decision to
undertake the operation as a law enforcement effort and who made the decision
to continue the operation by bringing in the FBI after the Clark County Sheriff
withdrew his officers
° A thorough review of all memos, emails,
phone logs, notes, etc. to determine who, and on what basis, made the decision
to stand down.
° A thorough review of all
post-operation memos, emails, phone logs, notes, etc. to determine who was
responsible for providing agency documents to the U.S. Attorney's office, and
any issues related to the prosecution of the case.
° A complete explanation of the
authority and role played by BLM management and line officers and the same for
the DOI Office of Law Enforcement and Security (OLES), and how those dynamics
played out prior to and during the operation.
° An explanation and analysis of why BLM
refuses to comply with state law on trespass the way other landowners do, so
that the confiscation and disposal of trespassing livestock is accomplished by
state officials, based on state law and procedures.
Again, for the public to have meaningful
input, we must first have a complete understanding of all that occurred during
the operation. Only then could we make reasonable recommendations for change.
Zinke reorganization
Secretary Of Interior Zinke has proposed a massive
reorganization of the department. He says
Interior
will no longer draw its boundaries based on state and regional lines, but will
draw them based on "ecosystems, watersheds and science." The plan includes
dividing management of millions of federal acres into 13 multistate regions,
and would in many cases split states in to multiple sections.
At first blush this looks suspiciously similar to the
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) launched by the Obama
administration. Some will say the Obama LCCs were the first step,
and now Zinke proposes to implement the same management scheme in a fashion not
even dared by the Obama administration. Indeed,
Marcia McNutt, who served
as former President Obama's first USGS director, said the idea was floated
during her tenure to better align regional bureaus. "It's not a new idea,
and it's not a bad idea," she said.
We will be evaluating all this as more
information becomes available. One should not, however, limit their evaluation
through the lens of "what is the most scientific way to manage
resources." That has to be overlaid with our form of government. Will this
proposed reorganization increase or diminish the role of states in resource
management? Will it increase or diminish the role of the feds in resource
management? How will this affect the role of Congress in authorizing, oversight
and appropriations?
Surely there is a more "scientific" way to pass a budget than what we are currently witnessing, but it is a small price to pay to maintain our representative republic. Our Founding Fathers designed a multitiered system to protect our liberty by restraining government. Their efforts had nothing to do with "scientific" management or efficiency. That is the lens through which we should evaluate this and other proposals.
Surely there is a more "scientific" way to pass a budget than what we are currently witnessing, but it is a small price to pay to maintain our representative republic. Our Founding Fathers designed a multitiered system to protect our liberty by restraining government. Their efforts had nothing to do with "scientific" management or efficiency. That is the lens through which we should evaluate this and other proposals.
Until next time, be a nuisance to the
devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.
Frank
DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of
a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois
Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation
2 comments:
The Dept of Interior regions will cut across state lines, cut across county lines, cut across allotment boundaries, and ignore the fact that property rights laws are different in each state which means that property held in equity within BLM allotments or withdrawal areas a.k.a. existing rights protected in FLPMA are not part of the plan. However moving the national offices to a location in central Utah has some possible benefits from exposing the Dept of Interior employees to conservative people and that would be good. There are also some excellent locations in central Nevada where there are no cell phone signals and no internet connections that would interfere with completing the deep thinking and important work of the federal employees.
Then comes the interesting but not at all believable statement about boundaries "based on "ecosystems, watersheds and science." If science means statements that are based on rigorously honest scientific investigation that includes statistical analysis of data then we are out of luck. Several years ago the Office of Management and Budget wrote the federal standards for "peer review" (OMB; December 16, 2004; M-05-03; “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review”). In about 2007, I was told by the USFWS biologists that they (Dept. of Interior) have their own standards for peer review and the biologist refused to look at the OMB publication. Their adherence to Peer Review standards is about the same as their adherence to Federal Employee Ethics standards. Those Dept. of Interior biologists also would not provide a written statement of how they identify peer review. Most often the publications they cite as science indicate that objective facts are not as important as political statements in biology. Even the most casual observer can figure out that the Dept. of Interior agencies do not have a reputation for truthful and factual statements as indicated by Judge Navarro in this same article. Please ask Secretary Zinke to provide a definition of his terms, especially the use of the word science.
Floyd raises an interesting issue, which leads to some others.
Not only to property rights law differ by state, but so do fish and game laws, water law, state law enforcement jurisdiction and I'm sure other things that can be added to the list. One can easily see how this might complicate regional mgt. plans, rather than simplify.
Post a Comment