close X

Search Results for: IRS

Statement from Drakes Bay Oyster Company in Response to Denial of Preliminary Injunction

February 4, 2013 by

Drakes Bay Oyster Company and Legal Team Respond to Federal Court Decision to Deny Request for Preliminary Injunction

 

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (COA), a government accountability group working on behalf of Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) and owner Kevin Lunny, responded to Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s decision to deny an injunction for Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which would have allowed the company to remain open for the duration of the trial, Drakes Bay Oyster Company v. Salazar, et al. Following a November 2012 decision by Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar which will shut down the oyster farm on February 28, DBOC filed a lawsuit against Salazar, the National Park Service, and the Department of the Interior for violating the law and not adhering to sound science.

 

Amber Abbasi, Cause of Action’s Chief Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, offered this response on behalf of the legal team representing DBOC, which includes pro-bono attorney services from Stoel Rives, LLP; SSL Law Firm, LLP; and Briscoe Ivester & Bazel, LLP:

 

“We are disappointed in the judge’s decision to deny our request for a preliminary injunction. Without this injunction, not only will a small business close, but families will be forced out of their homes, and the community will lose a sustainable farming resource.  The Lunnys are weighing their options for next steps and will make their decision known in the coming days.”

The judge’s decision can be found here.

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

 

###

 

Filed Under: Press Release Tagged With: ,

Monday, February 4, 2013 Morning News

February 4, 2013 by

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has announced his resignation, joining the ranks of other members of the president’s cabinet to step down after his first term in office. The Daily Caller has the latest:

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced on Friday that he would leave the Obama administration sometime after February and planned to return to academic life in California after serving four years and coming under harsh criticism from Republicans.

The Republican Oversight Committee has been seeking documents related to potential contract-rigging at USAID. More from the Washington Post:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened to subpoena the nation’s foreign aid agency if it doesn’t hand over documents and information relating to alleged wrongdoing by top agency officials…The oversight committee is examining an inspector general’s investigation into possible contract-rigging by the agency’s general counsel and allegations that USAID’s second-ranking executive interfered with the probe.

Retired monkeys living it up on federal tab in Louisiana ‘Chimp Haven’

Filed Under: News

COA Challenges DOE’s Proposed Settlement in Energy Efficiency Standards Case

February 1, 2013 by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                 CONTACT:        Mary Beth Hutchins, 202-400-2721

FEBRUARY 1, 2013

Jamie Morris, 202-499-2425

Cause of Action Challenges DOE’s Proposed Settlement in Energy Efficiency Standards Case

HARDI moves to substitute in the case that would affect numerous American businesses

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, recently  filed a Motion to Substitute as Petitioner on behalf of the Heating, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), following the Department of Energy’s proposed settlement with the American Public Gas Association (APGA)  of a court challenge to the agency’s rogue move to impose unreasonable energy efficiency standards on distributors, installers, and users of residential heating and cooling products in the United States.

On May 29, 2012, CoA filed a brief on behalf of HARDI in a lawsuit against the DOE following the agency’s unprecedented move to issue new energy efficiency standards without heeding input from industry members and others in the public. Agency practice typically dictates that even if one adverse public comment is received, the agency will withdraw a proposed direct final rule and use the notice-and-comment process. The DOE ignored more than 30 adverse comments concerning the direct final rule at issue here.

“The proposed settlement between the APGA and the DOE leaves two-thirds of the energy-conservation standards at issue in the lawsuit intact,” said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action. “If HARDI is not granted permission to substitute as a Petitioner in this case HARDI and other small business members will be denied the opportunity to fight DOE’s abuse of its limited direct final rulemaking authority.”

“HARDI does not believe that the APGA/DOE settlement addresses all of our concerns, therefore we are asking the Court to allow us to substitute in for APGA and continue our concerns as they relate to abuses of the Direct Final Rule Process and central air conditioners,” Jon Melchi, Director of Government Affairs at HARDI, said in a press release from the organization.

The proposed settlement is limited to standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces and fails to address or resolve HARDI’s remaining claims.

Continued Epstein, “Only judicial review can effectively curb DOE’s abuse of the direct final rulemaking process.”

About HARDI:

Heating, Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) represents more than 460 wholesale companies and 300 manufacturing associates as well as nearly 125 manufacturer representatives. HARDI members represent an estimated 85 percent of the dollar value of the HVACR products sold through distribution.

 

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action a nonprofit, nonpartisan government accountability organization that investigates, exposes, and fights job-killing federal government regulations, waste, fraud, and cronyism.  Cause of Action, uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how transparency and accountability protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

 

For more information or to speak with Dan Epstein, Executive Director of Cause of Action, contactMary Beth Hutchins, mary.beth@causeofaction.org or Jamie Morris, jamie.morris@causeofaction.org, 202-499-4232

###

Filed Under: Press Release Tagged With:

Washington Free Beacon: Hoping for Relief – Embattled oyster company heads to court hoping for stay on government’s decision to kill it

January 30, 2013 by

Read the full story here. The Washington Free Beacon

The Drakes Bay Oyster Company produces about 40 percent of California’s oysters, said Amber Abbasi, chief counsel of Regulatory Affairs for Cause of Action.

Cause of Action, a government watchdog group, is representing Drakes Bay Oyster Company in the lawsuit. Abbasi also noted that the company is the last oyster cannery left in California, which means that the employees who lose their jobs would have difficulty finding employment due to their specialized skill set. The company has provided housing for many employees who would lose not only their jobs but also their homes if the government succeeds in shutting down the business.

“If the judge doesn’t grant this injunction, the business will be lost,” regardless of the outcome, said Abbasi….

Filed Under: News Tagged With: ,

What’s a CEO to do?

January 29, 2013 by

Imagine you are a CEO of a major corporation. You hire an external consulting group to draft a report for you about the overall health of your organization. Confident in the future of your organization, you begin reading the report, which includes the following phrases:

  1. “Long-term fiscal path remains unsustainable.”
  2. “Ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.”
  3. “Widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations.”

You stop reading because your corporation appears to be in shambles and it’s obvious that drastic changes need to be made.

Sadly, this hypothetical situation isn’t very farfetched. Recently, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on the past two years of federal government spending that included those same phrases—word for word. Gene L. Dodaro, comptroller general of the United States and head of the GAO, stated that “our federal government’s long-term fiscal path remains unsustainable without further policy changes.”

In fact, the GAO found that some agencies couldn’t even be audited because of “widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations.”  In essence, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, agencies that collectively represent nearly one quarter of all federal budget spending, could not be fully audited due to “serious financial management problems.”

GAO also cited difficulty in accounting for “intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies” along with the “federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements”—jargon for massive failures in tracking and reporting spending.

Sadly, the fact that the federal government isn’t effectively tracking its own spending is no surprise to us. Last year, one of our investigations found government agencies giving employees GPS systems, Nook readers, and iPods. That same investigation revealed agencies that spent large amounts of money on flash drives shaped like police cars, and hamburger yo-yos. All of these lavish expenses were paid for with taxpayer dollars with seemingly little (or no) oversight.

During his first inaugural address, President Obama said that “those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.” We just want to know exactly how the president is planning on accomplishing that accountability since a large portion of federal spending remains unchecked.

For now, we only hope that the President will respond to this GAO report in much the same way any responsible CEO would: with major changes.

Filed Under: Blog

Dispelling the Myths about the Drakes Bay Oyster Company conflict

January 23, 2013 by

The decision last November by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar not to renew The Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s lease was based on a number of inaccurate and misleading claims. Here are five myths that the Secretary, his supporters, and the National Park Service use to justify the oyster farm’s eviction from Drakes Estero:

 

Myth #1:

The Secretary’s decision was based on sound science.

National Park Service researchers claimed that oyster farming operations in Drakes Estero damaged eelgrass beds and upset seal breeding patterns.  Yet other NPS reports contradicted these claims, and the National Academy of Sciences stated that the Park Service had “exaggerated the negative and overlooked the potentially beneficial aspects of the oyster culture operation.” Marine biologist Corey Goodman, who independently studied the farm’s impact on the region’s ecology, called the Park Service research “a stunning misuse of science by our federal government.”  Secretary Salazar ultimately decided that the Park Service’s inaccurate Environmental Impact Study was “not material” to his final decision, ignoring federal law that requires such a study be taken into account.

Myth #2:

Renewing the lease would set a precedent.

Some people were concerned that allowing the oyster company to remain in Drakes Estero would create a model of privatization that other leaseholders in national parks could follow.  However, the 2009 law granting Salazar the right to extend the lease another ten years expressly states that the provision would not be viewed as precedent.  In fact, Salazar’s removal of the oyster company is likely to set a standard in the opposite direction, with more working farms and orchards expelled from national park lands.

Myth #3:

Removing the oyster farm would improve the region’s environmental health.

When owner Kevin Lunny first bought The Drakes Bay Oyster Company in 2004, he took out a $300,000 loan to clean and restore the farm.  Because his family’s livelihood depended on the productivity of Drakes Estero, he was careful to keep the waters clean and productive by clearing the bay of debris and trash left by hikers and kayakers.  The oysters themselves actually improved the bay’s water quality by filtering out algae that inhibits eelgrass growth.

Myth #4:

The disagreement is between environmentalists and the agriculture industry.

As a committed environmentalist, Kevin Lunny turned The Drakes Bay Oyster Company into a model of sustainable agriculture.  “It’s extremely healthy for the environment,” Mr. Lunny said. “There are no feeds, no fertilizers, no chemicals.”  Biologist Corey Goodman called Mr. Lunny “one of the pioneers for organic and sustainable agriculture that also protects the environment.” Advocates for the consumption of locally-produced food to reduce its environmental footprint have long supported the oyster farm, which sells nearly all its product to tourists and local restaurants. With Drakes Bay accounting for 40 percent of the state’s oyster production, California restaurants will have to fly oysters in from the Pacific Northwest or East Coast, increasing greenhouse gases and other harmful emissions.

Myth #5:

The Drakes Bay fight is only about politics: It’s Democrats versus Republicans

Some contend that the fight over Drakes Bay is politically split along ideological fault lines. This too is untrue. First, there has been an outpouring of support from a community where most bi-partisan races were easily won in 75/25 percent split (Democrats/Republicans). Further, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has been a staunch defender of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, as well as a fierce critic of the National Park Service and Department of the Interior. In addition to crafting legislation, Feinstein has been outspoken in her support, even writing a letter to Secretary Salazar last March that called on him to renew the lease. With demonstrated partisan support, this issue isn’t split along party lines.

 

As of May 24, 2013, Cause of Action no longer represents Drakes Bay Oyster Company, the Lunny family, or Dr. Corey Goodman and will be withdrawing as counsel from the litigation.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With:

The future may not hold the “sunshine” we government accountability advocates long to see.

January 21, 2013 by

In November we asked why the President continues to ignore laws that have been put in place to protect the integrity of the election system. What we continue to find is that there is a pressing need for increased accountability, not just over election law, but in holding administration officials accountable.

In April 2012 when the Federal Election Commission approved an audit by a vote of 6-0 finding that the Obama for America campaign “did not file required 48-hour notices for 1,312 contributions totaling $1,972,266 that were received prior to the general election,” the Obama for America Campaign agreed to pay the FEC a $375,000 fine, the largest fine ever given to a presidential campaign. Obama campaign spokeswoman Katie Hogan downplayed the FEC investigation, but this audit demonstrated that the FEC will take violations and enforcement of the law seriously.

Will this commitment from the FEC serve as a catalyst in an Administration for greater transparency and oversight? If the best predictor of future success is past behavior, the future may not hold the “sunshine” we government accountability advocates long to see.

Take the following examples into consideration:

When Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act she lamented that the ruling was “somewhat unfair” and her actions were “technical and minor.” Regardless, she still broke the law and is the highest Administration official to ever be found guilty of a Hatch Act violation, yet she received no formal punishment for her actions.

National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon was not prosecuted for violating conflict of interest laws, but instead was excused by the Board’s Office of Inspector General by a claim of “extenuating and mitigating circumstances.” According to a sworn affidavit by a former ethics officer at the NLRB, Solomon should not have been excused.

These are just two examples of a culture of abuse of power that seems to be carried out by the President and his Administration: First from his campaign, then through his first term. What will happen in his second term? The American people deserve public officials that are held accountable for their actions, and we will continue to call the President and his officials on the carpet in our demands for accountability and transparency.

Filed Under: Blog