Perhaps he didn’t read the same IG report I did. Perhaps he made the comments before the IG report was released. But as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Samuel Rauch should have had a better grip on the issues involving the agency he purports to oversee
Perhaps he didn’t read the same Inspector General report I did. Perhaps he made the comments before the report was released. But as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Samuel Rauch should have had a better grip on the issues involving the agency he oversees — especially those so serious as to evoke an investigation from the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General — regardless of what particular aspect of that agency he may directly manage. I do not work for NMFS. But I have read the report.
According to a Feb 24, 2010 “status” and “issues” briefing on the Inspector General’s report into law enforcement (read the transcript here). Mr. Rauch made statements that contradict the intent of the investigation and its findings. First of all, Mr. Rauch attempted to downplay the significance of the Northeast fishing fleet in the report. He used phrases like “some pressure in the northeast”, and “comprehensive nationwide review of policies”, “nationwide review of all the policies that were going on” and emphasized not looking at the northeast “in isolation”. This glosses over the fact that the report itself- spawned by complaints of unfair law enforcement in the Northeast and requested by the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, later joined by the North Carolina delegation – states in its opening that it is responding to concerns “particularly in the Northeast Region”. (See the report at: http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2010/OIG-19887.pdf). While it is true that the Office of Inspector General spoke with individuals from across the nation, a good portion of the report focuses on the Northeast, and with good reason. When NOAA is levying fines in New England and the Northeast twice as often and with penalties up to 500% higher than elsewhere in the country, NOAA has a problem.
Mr. Rauch apparently does not see this. His interpretation of the situation is as follows: "There had been some pressure in the northeast, particularly some defendants have claimed that they had been unfairly singled out, which is actually quite common with any law enforcement effort where potential defendants try to in order to defray the focus on them, try to make public announcements. But they were particularly successful given all the things that are going in the northeast….”
Instead of being concerned with the abuse of power uncovered by the report — and all one needs to do is read the report to read accounts of this abuse — Mr. Rauch attributes widespread corruption across his agency to a few upset fishermen attempting to throw a smokescreen over their cases. He contends this was only successful due to the hype surrounding industry outrage over sector management. I did not read about sectors in the IG report. But I did read accounts of highly dysfunctional law enforcement, not just in a few cases, but many. Terms used by the report to describe the scenario were “systemic” issues, and “particularly in the Northeast”.
He said that “you will see from the results most of the things that the industry raised, the IG did not find it meritorious to address". I did not see that from the results of the investigation. Actually, I read in the report that “[m]ost of the complaints…received from fishing industry parties, particularly in NOAA’s Northeast region, fell into…three categories”. Those three categories just happened to be the three investigative topics of this first IG report. Not to mention that two additional areas of inquiry- excessive fines and abuse of authority/discriminatory treatment by NOAA enforcement personnel- that were continually mentioned by dozens of fishermen interviewed in the process of compiling the first report led to a second, follow up, report. Why? In order to address these exact matters.
Further, Mr. Rauch made this assessment “the IG went and interviewed a lot of various people they called the complainants. They did not make an effort to verify the individual complaints." I may not be able to personally verify every one of the various complainants whose cases were described by the IG. But I know for a fact that two have been verified and widely documented, one being the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction, which is actually mentioned by name in the report. Correspondingly, if complainants were merely making personal excuses intended to “defray the focus” their own cases, or inventing bogus stories, the final findings of the report would not be what they are. Nor would there have been a second report as equally justifying to fishermen as the first.
It is a widely used adage that, “The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.” If top NOAA employees such as Mr. Rauch do not acknowledge the severe failures within their agency and make a true effort to rectify them, true change will not come any time soon.
Meghan Lapp is employed as a net-maker at Reidar's Manufacturing in Fairhaven, Massachusetts.