For a few days last June, the website of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council carried, under the rubric of news releases, a notice that it was seeking \u201cprivate legal counsel and\/or other relevant outside services\u201d to assist the council in responding to an audit that determined the council had inappropriately spent more than $1.2 million from its Sustainable Fisheries Fund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It took nearly a year for Environment Hawai\u02bbi<\/em> to learn the identity of the party awarded the contract and the amount he would be paid. But finally, on May 19, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration responded to the Freedom of Information Act requests we filed to learn details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And the winner is \u2014 drum roll, please:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jim Lynch, an attorney but also chair of the council\u2019s Scientific and Statistical Committee. Lynch was to be paid $25,000 for his work relating to the audit appeal. This would be in addition to the payment he receives from the council for his work as chair of the SSC. (Currently, as an SSC member, he receives $500 per day for his attendance at SSC meetings as well as his attending council meetings, where he presents the committee\u2019s recommendations to the full council membership.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The audit, conducted by the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, had been released in November 2021. The council responded to the audit the following month, contesting its findings. In February, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\u2019s Acquisition and Grants Office, Grants Management Division (GMD) reviewed the audit and the claims against it, upholding the OIG findings and rejecting the council\u2019s excuses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And so the council appealed once more. While the February letter stated that the appeal needed to be filed within 30 days, NOAA eventually set the deadline to August 30. In the meantime, the council sought permission from NOAA to obtain outside counsel, which normally the council would not be allowed to do under federal regulations. Permission was granted on June 13, setting the stage for the council\u2019s request for proposals that briefly appeared on its website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Environment Hawai\u02bbi <\/em>reported last August, the notice, posted on June 17, stated that the selected contractor was to begin work on June 25, \u201cor as soon as available.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neither NOAA nor the council would say who had been selected or how much they were to be paid. Environment Hawai\u02bbi<\/em> then filed a Freedom of Information Act request, which was finally fulfilled on May 19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The FOIA request asked for all proposals \u201creceived by the council in response to the RFP.\u201d If the council claimed confidential information, then we sought \u201ca list of individuals and\/or entities responding to the RFP.\u201d No such list was provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead, the NOAA Grants Office provided just one contract, executed on July 27, for \u201clegal services for preparation of council appeal to GMD Audit Resolution Determination.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The table describing \u201cdeliverable activities and targets\u201d has been redacted, citing exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act. That exemption allows agencies \u201cto withhold trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n A statement of work requires the contractor to \u201creview documents, correspondence, records, and provide advice related to\u201d the council\u2019s appeal of the Grants Management Division\u2019s decision upholding the OIG audit findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The contractor was required to execute a \u201cconfidentiality agreement\u201d because, the council stated, \u201cthe records, documents and files associated with the scope of this contract includes [sic] confidential information and\/or Personally Identifiable Information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the contract specified payment of $25,000 to Lynch, it left open the possibility of additional work and \u201ccontract modifications.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the event negotiations over a repayment plan become necessary, or other significant, unforeseen tasks arise, the parties will meet and confer and assess if contract modifications are required,\u201d the contract states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 <\/em>Patricia Tummons<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nFor Further Reading<\/h2>\n\n\n\n