Testicular fortitude versus gonadal atrophy
It is often said that envrionmentalists are too quick to criticize the bad and too slow to praise the good. This tendency apparently violates some fundamental rules of politics and undermines the political effectiveness of the environmental camp.
While not agreeing with it, with that criticism in mind, today we start a new award where we praise the good and slam the bad on equal footing.
Profiles in courage – testicular fortitude award
This award goes to DEP Commisioner Lisa Jackson who boldly and clearly spoke out in opposition to the controversial “Permit Extension Act” . That bill would exploit the current economic recession and collapse of the housing market to attack totally unrelated environmental protections (kind of like invading Iraq in retaliation for 9/11 – one event had nothing to do with the other):
“New Jersey’s top environmental official said she does not support the proposed state Permit Extension Act as written because it would “indis-criminately” extend permits even in environmentally sensitive areas.
“Obviously, it’s not something that I’m supportive of in its current form,” said Lisa P. Jackson, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection. “It’s overarching and is absolutely without consideration for the most environmentally sensitive areas of the state.”
DEP head not a fan of Permit Extension
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080607/NEWS/806070375
Fear and loathing – gonadal atrophy award
This award goes to DEP for failing to stand up and allowing a completely misleading and false statement to go unchallenged.
Yesterday, Senator Jeff Van Drew (D/Cape May) introduced his bill to weaken enforcement penalties in the recently enacted horshoe crab moratorium law. Van Drew stated that DEP had requested and implied DEP approved amendments to provide flexibility, not only in enforcement fines, but in the moratorium itself.
Environmentalists say this would create a huge loophole in the moratorium Governor Cozine just signed with much fanfare:
see: Horseshoe crab ban may have wiggle room
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806100423
Immediatel after his remarks, Van Drew invited DEP to testify.
DEP stood up but declined to testify. In doing so, they let the Van Drew remarks go unchallenged. Thus, it appeared that DEP not only supported the bill, but agreed with Van Drew’s statements that DEP itself had asked for the flexibility in the moratorium.
I am told that Van Drew mispoke, that DEP did not request those amendments, and that Van Drew basically spun to justify his bill.
So, why then did DEP allow that critical mistatement to go unchallenged?
Some environmental colleagues stress that the buck stops at the governor’s desk, and that I should back off criticism of DEP. While I agree that the ultimate accountability rests with Corzine, I disagree that criticism of DEP should be withheld.
DEP must have professional integrity, courage, and autonomy to defend the science and speak truth to the Governor, legislators, the press, and the public without fear of political retaliation.
DEP failed those tests here – failing to speak truth to power will earn DEP the first gonadal atrophy award.
We will make these awards a regular feature here.
Thoughts?
Why are you surprised that political appointees are not usually willing to step in front of the Governor’s speeding policy train? Agree that some department heads may on a “rare” occasion speak out for the public good but it is indeed rare. Lacking both political and administrative clout Jackson cant easily weasel out of these sticky situations with a mild protest of sorts but never never clashing head-on with the Guv and his minions who so faithfully enforce the rules. You see this essentially selling out in many Departments once the Guv’s people have worked out a deal with the industry, Commissioners and staff shut up and toe the line. The state employees may have civil service protection of sorts but it is trivial and totally inadequate to help give them the backing they need to confront the Guv on an issue. And the whistleblower law is so much fluff and hot air that distracts our attention from the seats of power in Trenton. We need a strong professional class of administrators who can tell the Guv or Industry enforcer No Deal! Fat chance especially in NJ.
ferdek – yiou misread me – I am not at all suprised ..
I was a political appointee and I have worked with political appointees at DEP for over 20 years. I know all about the political constraints
The mission of the organization I work for is to empower and protect the professions and to promote scientific integrity in a way to escape those constraints.
The last thing we recommend is that a person become a whistleblower – see our site for guidance in the arts of “annonymous activism”
http://www.peer.org
There are many ways to derail the train without getting killled in the process.
No one expects a DEP or State employee to sacrifice a career – many ways to skin this cat and blow the whistle – that’s what I am here for.
I was also a DEP legislative analyst and know how to openly stand up (with integrity) to a legislator who is mischaracterizing the DEP’s position without losing your job.
My disappointment is that in this case, none of this happened.
Ferdek says civil servants have protections. Unfortunately, at DEP, we are constantly told that complaints and arguments must go up the chain of command as if we are in the military. They reward little soldiers who don’t think for themselves and punish those that have a backbone.
Also, I am pretty sure Lisa Jackson doesn’t have testicles.