MacDonald resigned as deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks in May, not long after an inspector general report seemed to confirm that she misused her position to browbeat subordinates into altering agency science to advance political aims. As well, the IG confirmed that she provided internal agency documents to outside parties. No laws were broken, according to the IG, but her actions were questionable and created the appearance that politics unduly influenced ESA-related decisions.

Because the report was leaked to the media minus any rebuttal (which Macdonald says was never solicited by the IG), this simplistic, one-sided version of events became accepted “truth” among those who have their own political reasons for discrediting MacDonald and the Bush administration. And the repercussions didn’t end with MacDonald’s resignation.

The IG’s report, along with politicized congressional probes of “politicized” science inside federal agencies, have been seized upon by administration foes and knee-jerk ESA defenders to raise doubts about the the integrity of every ESA-related decision in which MacDonald took part. The media now routinely report these allegations as fact. H. Dale Hall, the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has ordered reviews of eight or nine major ESA decisions, including the Preble’s mouse, in response to the furor. The IG’s report is serving as a basis for new legal challenges of agency decisions.

But it appears to us, now that we’ve read the IG’s report and acquired a copy of MacDonald’s response — which has never before been reported on, as far as we know — that she’s been railroaded. So many partisans and interest groups have a vested interest in her continued vilification, however, and in the claim of politicized science inside the administration, that the record may be impossible to set straight.

But let us at least try, by taking a closer look at a few points of contention. The 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. She also notes that her alteration of the bird’s range was approved by the agency’s supposed experts, including Hall. If Hall believed the science was unsound, why didn’t he object?

The IG suggested that MacDonald took an inordinate interest in ESA rulings involving California out of self-interest, because she’s from there. MacDonald counters that she was responsible for signing off on all ESA decisions as part of her job. “Most ESA listing and critical habitat designations are in California,” she points out. And these are often among the most contentious, high-profile cases.

The IG claimed MacDonald attempted to alter river flow requirements for the Kootenai sturgeon. She says all she was trying to do was bring clarity to “confusing and internally inconsistent language in the rule,” in the interest of preventing a flawed ruling and future legal problems. She includes e-mail exchanges that seem to support her explanation.

The IG report suggested MacDonald made unreasonable demands for supporting documents from staff. She says she was authorized to make such requests and that they were “not unusual.” The IG seemed to confirm allegations that she rejected the scientific findings of agency biologists. 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.” That’s a serious allegation. We wonder why the IG isn’t looking into the selective or self-serving use of science by agency insiders.

Much has been made, by the IG and others, of the fact that MacDonald is not a biologist. “She has no formal educational background in natural sciences, such as biology,” noted the IG. But this criticism “implies that the absence of a degree in biology makes one unfit to review and comment on FWS rulemakings,” wrote McDonald. “That perspective, if applied to virtually any supervisory position, would result in many executives being found unfit.” All she attempted to do — and was encouraged to do by her boss — was ensure that statements contained in rules were supported by data. “It requires no specialized knowledge,” according to MacDonald — just a willingness to question what gets passed up the chain of command.

Much of the rest of the allegations boil down to matters of personal style. Some underlings and field personnel apparently felt intimidated by MacDonald, or chafed at her persistent questions. They evidently were used to rubber stamps from political appointees. Some feelings and egos were bruised in the process. And these people served as the primary sources for the IG’s obviously half-baked, one-sided report.

None of this made it into the IG report — which MacDonald says she never even saw before it was leaked to the media. None of this has been factored into the simplistic story line and morality play presented by the rest of the media. Readers wanting to read the IG’s report and MacDonald’s rebuttal can find links in today’s opinion section at Gazette.com. Fair and open-minded folks may come away — as we did — doubting the widely-accepted version of events.

We’re reminded of the question former Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan asked, after he was similarly dragged through the mud. Where does Julie MacDonald go to get her reputation back?

Two Sides To Every Story
Former Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald Responds to Allegations

By DAN KEPPEN                         Family Farm Alliance Executive Director

September 20, 2007

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 to family farmers and ranchers, especially when onesided media coverage is seen as influencing environmental policy that has very real ramifications for agriculture.

THE RECENT EXAMPLE of “trial by media” concerns the tragic and unfair public pillorying of Julie MacDonald, the former deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks at the U.S. Department of the Interior. All year long, environmental groups and their allies in Congress have kept the pressure on senior officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior over alleged heavy-handed management of Endangered Species Act (ESA) administrative issues. Ms. MacDonald was subjected to particularly withering fire for allegedly altering scientific field reports to minimize protections for imperiled species and disclosing confidential information to private groups seeking to affect policy decisions.

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; that she had conducted herself outside the chain of command by interacting directly with field personnel; and, in doing so, she had been heavy-handed with staff. Having reviewed the ESA decisions in which MacDonald involved herself, Interior has determined that eight additional decisions – most in states along the Pacific Coast – must now be reviewed, and perhaps, reversed or modified.

URBAN NEWSPAPERS from around the country essentially broadcast the claims made by environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, 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 entitled "Crisis of Confidence:The Political Influence of the Bush Administration on Agency Science and Decision-Making." The IG’s report on MacDonald was a key topic of discussion at the hearing, which also provided a forum to debate allegations that Vice President Dick Cheney somehow exerted political influence to help farmers at the expense of fish in the Klamath River watershed.

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 in media coverage (which the report was “leaked” to, without a response from Ms. MacDonald), and now are routinely 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 IGinvestigations were grilled on the MacDonald matter. Mary Kendall, Deputy Inspector General 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, REP. CATHY McMORRIS Rodgers (R-W
ASHINGTON) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-U
TAH) 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 Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. “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 public discovered that Ms. 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 Ms. 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 her response to the IG and even includes a link to the IG report and her very thorough response:

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:  <unknown.gif>      Ms. Macdonald says was never solicited by the IG for an opportunity to rebut its report.  <unknown.gif>      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 Ms. MacDonald’s property — which is not a sprawling “ranch,” but 80 acres of row crops — is nearly 300 miles from flycatcher habitat. <unknown.gif>      Ms. MacDonald said the law requires that the best available science be used, but she found the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “did not always consider all the data and often ‘cherry picked’ for sources and reviewers which supported their position.”

Sadly, the Gazette observes 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?