A tip of the hat to Steve Solow for sending this to me.
2. EPA: 2 top officials leave enforcement office after harsh review (10/21/2010)
Emily Yehle, E&E reporter
Two top officials are leaving U.S. EPA's criminal enforcement office in the wake of an internal review that cited "arrogant and harsh" disciplinary treatment and poor communication.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement Cynthia Giles announced today the retirement of Fred Burnside, the director of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT), and the reassignment of Becky Barnes, the director of the office's Criminal Investigation Division (CID).
In a memo to staff entitled "OCEFT in Transition," Giles also outlined the results of an independent review of the office's personnel practices and a survey conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. The findings of the review are harsh, pointing to an unwelcoming work environment that has alienated employees.
"The results of both of these efforts, and the independent review in particular, indicate that significant issues exist that warrant the attention of senior management" in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and OCEFT, Giles wrote. "One of the purposes of this memo is to inform you of the actions we are taking both to improve communication and management processes within CID, and to ensure that during this transition we maintain our focus on bringing environmental criminals to justice."
Former EPA senior executives Tom Voltaggio and Bill Finister conducted the independent review, and they applauded EPA's desire to make the office more accountable. But they also found that supervisors often went too far, causing employees to fear retribution for the slightest of violations. In short, they wrote, the policy has fostered paranoia.
"[T]his good policy of demanding accountability appears to have been implemented in a way that, for many, has created a significant number of personnel abuses, including a workplace of fear, divisiveness, low morale and may have resulted in a significant loss of talented staff," Voltaggio and Finister wrote.
Though Giles commissioned the review, she wrote in her memo that she disagreed with some of the review's "sweeping conclusions." She pointed to the OPM survey, which was much more positive, finding that 75 percent of CID employees have a favorable opinion of their work environment.
Furthermore, Voltaggio and Finister talked to more than 60 employees who spoke with them voluntarily, and were not given their employment history.
The reviewers "did not have any information about the basis for agency action in individual cases, so were not in a position to assess whether the conduct of the employee merited the action taken, and whether appropriate standards were used to make decisions, or the reasons for managers' decisions on personnel matters," Giles wrote. "Some of the statements in the review are inaccurate, go well beyond what the evidence supports, and do not appropriately reflect these acknowledged limits."
Giles also points to an apparent "misunderstanding" of the office's weapons policy. Voltaggio and Finister wrote that they were "puzzled" by the fact that CID agents in many regional offices carry loaded firearms — a policy, they said, that could lead to workplace violence. But Giles wrote that EPA's policy allows special agents to carry weapons and enforces strict requirements to ensure employee safety.
Despite such disagreements, Giles is "committed" to making some of the recommendations, "some right away and others that the program can implement moving forward," according to an EPA statement.
Survey finds unhappy investigators
Giles' memo coincided with the release of another survey that reported that dozens of U.S. EPA's criminal investigators think the agency lacks the resources and leadership to effectively enforce environmental laws.
The survey — conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — asked investigators questions about the management of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division. The advocacy group sent surveys to 154 CID agents; 48 returned them.
A majority of respondents — almost 80 percent — disagreed or strongly disagreed that the division has adequate resources. And about 65 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that CID headquarters management is "generally experienced in field investigations on environmental crimes."
"Polluters go free if these investigators cannot do their jobs," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch in a statement. "Complex corporate criminal cases require support from managers who understand what it takes to make charges stick."
PEER has criticized CID repeatedly in recent months, claiming EPA has neglected to beef up the number of criminal investigators and is pursuing fewer cases. Agency officials, however, say that the division is fully staffed and that investigators are pursuing "high-impact cases," focusing on quality rather than quantity.
In an interview today, Ruch applauded Giles' memo and her willingness to go "cubicle to cubicle" to find out the problems within the criminal enforcement division. But he added that the independent review did not address the state of prosecutions within the office.
"EPA has stopped hitting itself in the head in the hammer," Ruch said, "but that doesn't mean they're healthy."
The agency has referred fewer cases to the Justice Department in the last few years, according to a DOJ document provided by PEER. Investigators referred 339 cases in 2009, compared to an all-time high of 592 cases in 1998.
But an EPA spokesperson said the agency expects to charge almost 290 defendants for allegedly committing environmental crimes in 2010 — 45 percent more than were charged in 2009. As of Sept. 30, CID had 206 agents; in June, PEER officials said they were only able to confirm 160.
"The next step is to provide investigators with the tools and support they need to do their jobs," Ruch said in a statement on Giles' memo. "The ultimate measure of success will be whether EPA can win more convictions in bigger cases so that pollution fines are no longer a tolerable cost of doing business."
Indeed, PEER's survey casts the investigators as an unhappy bunch. In a comments section, CID agents complained of inexperienced management, unnecessary bureaucracy and a lack of support.
One investigator claimed that even the "high-impact cases" get little backup from management. Agents are provided with "absolutely zero litigation support," and forensic computer support is "too backlogged to be effective," one wrote. Only 12.5 percent of respondents agreed that CID was stronger today that it was during the George W. Bush administration.
"I am sick and tired of the lack of infrastructure and technical support being developed or made available to CID," wrote another, according to PEER documents. "All agents with no support doesn't work."
A majority of respondents also disagreed that promotions were based on merit and that management evaluations correctly measured their performance as environmental crimes investigators. Almost 73 percent agreed that "micromanagement at CID has gotten out of hand."
But a few investigators apparently thought some of their peers complained too heartily.
"The few agents that are unhappy need to stop complaining to anyone who will listen," one wrote. "The agents that are producing good cases are not the agents complaining about management. HQ is finally addressing the conduct and performance issues within CID that has caused the numbers to drop."
Click here to read Giles' memo.
Click here to read PEER's survey.
Click here to read the criminal investigators' comments.
More later.
As always, feel free to contact me via e-mail at walter.james@jamespllc.com.
WDJiii