Complaints and problems have plagued NOAA for over nine years, yet, which was identified by the Commerce Department's Inspector General to be very problematic. A federal agency such as NOAA, should not permit hundreds of complaints to stay on their "back burner," this allows the problems to continue and even grow worse. Thus, if a disaster such as the BP oil spill occurs, these problems will negatively impact the agency's ability to effectively and fairly handle the crisis. This reasoning supports Secretary Locke's decision to invoke his authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and appoint the Honorable Charles B. Smartwood III (Ret.) to serve as Special Master to review enforcement cases. These cases include the hundreds of complaints the Commerce Department Inspector General identified as highly problematic, many which date back to 2001. It is now 2010, and Secretary Locke has declared that reform is needed and reform will happen.
Moreover, Locke has targeted NOAA's use of the Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) as the prime target to restrict abuse by the agency officials and increase transparency. This restriction on AFF will be implemented immediately and will have a significant impact on NOAA's ability to utilize the penalty moneys received from individuals. Specifically, the new AFF policy will prohibit 50% of the Fund's historical uses, this includes the once maintained practice of allowing the agency to purchase vehicles and vessels, pay for travel this is not related to investigations, proceedings or trainings, or paying for training unrelated to an integral part of the employee's job. Looking at each of these factors piece by piece, one realizes that the agency was allowed (pre new FAA policy) to travel to various places not pertaining to work, all on the expense penalty money paid by fined individuals. That is akin to a police officer ticketing an individual for speeding and then taking the paid ticket money to travel somewhere else to sight see. This is not only questionable behavior, but is in all sense of the word, inappropriate. This is why Locke stated, " The problems identified by the Inspector General are unacceptable, were allowed to persist for too long and will end on my watch…We are taking the steps needed to make fisheries enforcement accountable and transparent." Further, additional measures have been created to protect individual's from the agencies potential abuse of power, measures which promote transparency and accountability.
NOAA has had the ability to utilize penalty money in such various ways, under the provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA, with the permission of this act, had the authority to retain proceeds from the civil penalties imposed and collected by the agency, as well as proceeds from the sale of seized fish and vessels, to pay for "expenses directly related to investigations and civil or criminal enforcement proceedings." However, much of the AFF was made up of proceeds from the Magnuson-Stevens enforcement actions, as well as proceeds from the Lacey Act and Endangered Species Act, which provide similar authorities. Breaking this down into what this essentially means, NOAA, was collecting money under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which prohibits use of the funds for other than expenses directly connected to investigations (whether civil or criminal), and were instead applying to AFF, which allows NOAA to utilize the money for expenses unrelated to investigations, or even related to their employment with NOAA. Obviously, this was a problem, one which is hopefully resolved by the recent reforms being implemented.
Read the complete blog from The Berniard Law Firm.