When Karen Budd Falen served on the Trump Transition Team on interior issues and was tapped for the top job at the Bureau of Land Management, she knew some concessions would have to be made. After the FBI background check was completed, she was asked to leave her post at the Cheyenne, Wyo., law firm she and her husband, Frank Falen, founded. It was something she was willing to do because she knew the importance of the position and how she would be able to help agriculture, especially in the West. She then agreed to withdraw from her current cases. Then she agreed to recuse herself from any cases involving the Department of the Interior. “Then they just kept adding conditions and conditions,” she said. Budd Falen then agreed to begin the process to change the name of the law firm. The next thing asked was for her husband not to accept any cases having to do with the Department of the Interior. Frank Falen’s specialty is representing private landowners entering into oil and gas contracts, while Budd Falen specialized in federal issues. “We said okay because this is really important and maybe we can help the livestock industry so we agreed to that condition,” she said. They then suggested that her husband not remain as a private attorney at all. Knowing the gravity of the position at stake, she and Falen agreed. “We agreed to all this stuff but then last March they came back and said there’s one more condition,” she said. “The condition is you have to sell your interest in your family ranch in Big Piney that we’ve had for five generations and your husband has to sell his interest in his family-owned ranch in Nevada.” That was when Budd Falen said she drew the line. A rancher first and foremost, selling her interest and her husband’s interest in their ranches wasn’t negotiable. Budd Falen’s family ranch — the land, the BLM permits — have all been the same and in the family for five generations. “There has never been an appeal or a problem with our grazing allotments ever,” she said...Budd Falen was then offered the position of deputy solicitor for wildlife and parks, which she accepted. She said she will work on issues relating to the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service, wildlife refuges and national monuments. But, she said, she will not sell the ranch...MORE
I recall Bob Burford had the same problem when he became BLM Director. See this article
When Burford was nominated for his job in 1981, he held BLM grazing permits tied to some 9,600 acres of land he owned in Mesa County, Colo. Federal law specifically prohibits any BLM employee from having any interests in land or resources administered by the agency. After conflict-of-interest questions were raised, Burford transferred the land to Little Parks Ranches Ltd., a partnership consisting of himself, his former wife and three adult sons. He holds a 25 percent share of the partnership. Little Parks Ranches leased the land for five years to Burford Industries, a partnership of Burford's ex-wife and three sons. The BLM director transferred his grazing permits to Burford Industries. But the arrangement didn't satisfy the Office of Government Ethics, which said it appeared to leave Burford "in retention of interests" prohibited by the BLM conflict-of-interest law. In April 1981, then Interior Secretary James Watt granted Burford a waiver from the law after Burford assured the ethics office that he would "recuse (excuse) himself from making any decisions which directly affect" the grazing permits.:
Here is what the reg's say:
(c) Prohibition as to Department-granted rights in Federal lands. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, employees and their spouses and their minor children are prohibited from acquiring or retaining any claim, permit, lease, small tract entries, or other rights that are granted by the Department in Federal lands.
Here is what the law says
The officers, clerks, and employees in the Bureau of Land Management are prohibited from directly or indirectly purchasing or becoming interested in the purchase of any of the public land; and any person who violates this section shall forthwith be removed from his office.
1 comment:
if all this is true shouldn't bob abbey be in jail
Post a Comment