We are indebted to our friends at PEER for bringing to public attention a recent and disturbing email from a senior EPA official, Robbi Farrell, to 11 managers in her division, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, or OECA.
It's one thing for an agency official to order all staff to deal with the press through appropriate channels. As a former reporter, I don't particularly like that, but I grudgingly recognize the need, as agency chiefs often put it, of "speaking with one voice."
But when employees are told not to respond to questions from the Inspector General or the GAO, then we become concerned. Those watchdogs are the only entities entrusted with genuine oversight of agency programs and operations, and they must have ready and open access to all agency information. Further, when employees are ordered not to "respond to questions or make any statements" to IG or GAO investigators, they are receiving a strong signal not only about "one voice," but also about who's good and who's not, and an implicit warning about what happens if you don't fall in line. As PEER executive director Jeff Ruch said in a statement, "The clear intention behind this move is to chill the cubicles by suppressing any uncontrolled information."
EPA public affairs hustled up an "explanation" for the email, but betrayed its real purpose by referring to it as a "gag order." While blandly assuring that the email was establishing "standard operating procedures" to respond to requests more efficiently, the statement writer's nose started growing with the claims that (1) the procedure was developed in response to a year-old OIG report; and (2) "the IG reviewed OECA's procedures and signed off on them."
First of all, the May 2007 IG report was about EPA procedures to follow up on IG audit reports and recommendations. The report recommended better ways for agency offices to "monitor the audit follow-up process and ensure that timely and appropriate corrective actions are taking place." The report had nothing whatsoever to say about how OECA employees should interact with or respond to questions from the IG or the GAO.
Second, the Office of the IG absolutely denies that it had either "reviewed" or "signed off" on the new procedures. The IG statement provided to POGO says:
"The OIG did not approve this specific language. We only agreed to those corrective actions OECA said it would take in response to the recommendations in our May 2007 report. All EPA officials and employees are required to cooperate with the OIG. This cooperation includes providing the OIG full and unrestricted access to EPA documents, records, and personnel. We are currently engaged in discussions with OECA to assure that OIG and OECA interpretations are consistent in this matter."
The EPA has of course been much in the news in recent months...or years...and perhaps there's a certain sensitivity to bad publicity on the part of senior officials. Perhaps somebody actually thought the best way to deal with bad news is to hide it. But we at POGO and our friends at PEER can assure all federal employees that rotten fish cannot remain hidden for long. The situation is a far cry from the days of EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who promised that the agency would operate as an open "fishbowl" for all to see its every activity.
-- Beverley Lumpkin
Comments