

Two
Sides to Every Story:
Former
Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary Responds to Allegations
By Dan Keppen
Executive Director
Family Farm
Alliance
September 14, 2007
Published in the Yreka Siskiyou Daily News
There
are many interests in Washington and the national media that are
dedicated to laying blame on the Bush Administration and, by
association, Western farmers and water users, no matter what the facts
say. The mainstream media’s apparent ready acceptance of arguments
generated by environmental activists is a growing concern, especially
when one-sided media coverage is seen as influencing environmental
policy that has very real ramifications for rural communities.
The
recent example of “trial by media” concerns the tragic and unfair
public pillorying of Julie MacDonald, a former deputy assistant
secretary at the U.S. Department of the Interior. All year long,
environmental groups and their allies in Congress have kept the pressure
on senior Interior officials over alleged heavy-handed management of
Endangered Species Act (ESA) administrative issues. MacDonald was
subjected to particularly withering fire for allegedly altering
scientific field reports to minimize protections for imperiled species.
She resigned from the Department in May after an Inspector General’s (IG)
report appeared to support allegations made by environmental activists.
Those allegations included charges that she had unreasonably interfered
with scientific findings relative to ESA issues and that she had
conducted herself outside the chain of command by interacting directly
with field personnel. Having
reviewed the ESA decisions in which MacDonald involved herself, Interior
has determined that eight additional decisions –many in
California
- must now be reviewed, and
perhaps, reversed or modified.
California
urban newspapers
essentially broadcast the claims made by environmental groups, painting
an unflattering portrait of MacDonald. Politicians – critics of the
Bush Administration – joined the fray, and on July 31, the House
Natural Resources Committee (“Committee”) conducted an oversight
hearing, where the IG’s report on MacDonald was a key topic of
discussion. Recall that this was the same hearing scheduled by the
Democrat leadership to debate allegations that Vice President Cheney
somehow exerted political influence to help farmers at the expense of
Klamath River
fish.
Through
all of this, Julie MacDonald has remained silent, which has allowed the
charges levied by her critics to go unchallenged. As a result, those
charges are now routinely repeated by the media (who were “leaked”
the report, without a response from MacDonald), and now reported as
facts. But recently, we are beginning to see others tell the other side
of Julie MacDonald’s story.
At
the July 31 congressional oversight hearing, government witnesses
involved with the IG investigations were grilled on the MacDonald
matter. Mary Kendall, Deputy IG for Interior, testified that the
Interior investigation determined that MacDonald did inject herself
personally in a number of ESA issues, particularly those that had the
potential to impact her home state,
California
, such as the splittail
minnow.
“Overall,
the impact of Ms. MacDonald’s conduct on the Department of the
Interior has been considerable,” said
Kendall
. “It has cast a vast
cloud over the Department’s scientific integrity.”
However,
U.S. Rep. McMorris (R-WASHINGTON)
and Rep. Cannon (R-UTAH)
provided initial suggestions that, perhaps, the entire MacDonald story
had not yet been heard on this matter.
“The
American people deserve to know more about this situation,” said Ms.
McMorris. “I’m sure the public doesn’t know that this grandmother
never had a chance to refute the allegations levied against her and that
there could be many sides of the story.
She has been unfairly called a future “convict” by a senior
member of this Committee already, but there’s no basis for such
irresponsible talk - especially when the Inspector General found that
she did nothing illegal.”
For
the first time, the broader public discovered that MacDonald had
submitted a written response to the Interior Department allegations.
After the hearing, it became apparent that questions lingered in the
minds of some regarding MacDonald’s ability to address the charges
made against her, and how her input was factored into the IG report. And
finally, five weeks later, at least one newspaper stepped forward to
tell the rest of the story.
The
Colorado Springs
Gazette
on September 6 presented an editorial that summarizes MacDonald’s
response to the IG and even includes a link to the IG report and her
very thorough response: (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/macdonald_26957___article.html/report_esa.html.
The
Gazette piece is balanced and
complete. It is relevant to the paper’s readers because many of them
could be impacted by the proposed de-listing of the Preble’s meadow
jumping mouse, protected under the ESA, which falls under Interior
Department purview.
In
a nutshell, the Gazette concludes “she’s been railroaded”.
The
Gazette editorial is an
eye-opener, and introduces some key facts that previous reporters
apparently missed:
Macdonald
says was never solicited by the IG for an opportunity to rebut its
report;
IG’s
report insinuated that MacDonald altered range estimates for a protected
bird, the southwest willow flycatcher, because a critical habitat
designation might impact her “ranch” in California. But
MacDonald’s property — which is not a sprawling “ranch,” but 80
acres of row crops — is nearly 300 miles from flycatcher habitat;
MacDonald
said the law requires that the best available science be used, but she
found that “FWS did not always consider all the data and often
‘cherry picked’ for sources and reviewers which supported their
position.”
The Gazette
editors sadly observe that the record may be impossible to set straight.
And it asks a question that everyone who jumped on the “bash Julie
MacDonald” bandwagon should be pondering:
Where does Julie MacDonald go to get her
reputation back?
(Permission to post.)
|