February 17, 2004

Opinion:

Morrow County Commissioner says he spoke the truth

County is the victim, not the guilty party

[Morrow County Commissioner Ray Grace responds to comments by FEMA's Jesse Seigal, who called Columbia Basin Media's articles of January 14-19, 2004... "misleading." Here Grace defends the comments ascribed to him.]


I am Ray Grace. I am the County Commissioner that Mr. Jesse Seigal, a FEMA spokesperson, publicly charged with issuing statements about the CSEPP budget process which are, to quote him, “misleading at best, and illustrate a general lack of understanding.” As Mr. Seigal has chosen to publicly question both my veracity and subject matter knowledge, I am compelled to publicly set the record straight.

Mr. Seigal acts as the FEMA spokesperson in his reply to my questions to Mr. Michael Parker, Director of Chemical Materials Agency, on January 14, 2004. One has to question whether he consulted with appropriate FEMA and Army officials before issuing a misleading statement which lacks a general understanding of Morrow County’s concerns regarding the current Department of Defense and FEMA budget process. Mr. Seigal not only shows a lack of appreciation for the procedural problems local government faces in the federal budget process, he also attempts to engage in the process of making the victim the guilty party. FEMA staff were located in our community for the ostensible purpose of coordinating with local officials, and to assist in the process of making the CSEP Program more responsive to local needs. That makes it is difficult to understand why Mr. Seigal has yet to contact me to discuss these long standing concerns.

FEMA’s response to our concerns leads one to the following conclusions: first, FEMA does not want to realistically address the issues at hand regarding realigning county budget submissions with the US Army’s out year budget development process. Second, FEMA’s local spokesperson seems more concerned with shifting responsibility than accepting the responsibility to work with us to fix the budget process misalignment.

Why I am so confident in the county’s position? It is a position supported by numerous Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and General Accounting Office (GAO) reports, including one dated September 2003.

First, in October of 1987, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the Department of the Army (Army) and FEMA. In that MOU, FEMA agreed to “assume total authority, responsibility and accountability for working with State and local governments.” Thus, these funds are simple administrative ‘pass-through’ from the Army to protect public safety during the chemical weapons destruction.

Further, CSEPP Policy Paper Number 1, dated May 7, 1991, in reference to Public Law 99-145, states, “The Congressional mandate for the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (CSDP) includes a provision that the Department of Defense ensure “maximum protection for the environment, the general public, and the personnel who are involved in the destruction of the lethal chemical agents and munitions,” And, “The efficacy of any protective action strategy ... must be considered in the light of ... the acceptance of the strategy by the affected community.”

According to the September 2003 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report (GAO-03-1031) to Congressional Committees:

“The program remains in turmoil, affecting management performance because of long-standing and unresolved leadership organizational, and strategic planning issues,” (page 3).

“These problems include ... public concerns about emergency preparedness plans and budgeting shortfalls,” (page 3).

“Previous schedule milestones had been largely based on overly optimistic engineering estimates,” (page 9).

“In a 1995 testimony we cited the possibility of further cost growth and schedule slippage ... In 1997, we found high-level management attention was needed at the Army and FEMA,” (page 11), and (in a 2000 recommendation to Secretary of Defense) (FEMA should} “establish procedures to improve coordination among the program’s various elements and with state and local officials,” (page 12) ... “The Army and FEMA needed a more proactive approach to improve working relations with CSEPP states and local communities and to assist them in preparing budgets and complying with program performance measures,” (page 11).

“In 2001…increased the estimated costs by 60 percent, from $15 billion to $24 billion ... there are growing concerns in Congress over DOD’s ability to accomplish it’s mission,” (Pages 1 & 2).

Finally, under Conclusions: “The program continues to flounder ... contributing to the program’s continued instability, ineffective decision making, and weak accountability ... The Chem-Demil Program is entering a crucial period ... the program faces potentially greater challenges ... including the possibilities of growing community resistance, unanticipated technical problems, and serious site incidents ... these problems …are likely to continue plaguing the program ... the program will continue to be paralyzed by delays caused by unanticipated issues, resulting in spiraling program costs and missed deadlines that prolong the dangers of the chemical weapons stockpile to the American public,” (pages 24 & 25).

By the way, even the Department of Defense concurred with the findings of the GAO, openly admitting that there is a problem. For further details, see the following GAO Reports; GAO-03-1031; GAO-03-5; GAO-04-221T; and GAO-04-362R; at www.gao.gov.

Morrow County Court’s questions were addressed to Mr. Parker because FEMA, at the local, regional, and national level, have repeatedly ignored Morrow County’s requests to get our annual budget submission cycle in line with the federal budgeting process timeline. For example, we did not request Mr. Parker to change the federal budgeting process, as Mr. Seigal suggests, but to help revise our CSEPP budget submission schedule, to bring us into ‘phase’ with the federal cycle. Our point was that FEMA, by scheduling the local budget process more than two years after the president’s budget is submitted, guarantees everything above the Army’s seriously flawed and outdated Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) will be ‘unfunded’. Doesn’t it make more sense to bring us into synchronization with submission, than to consistently scramble for year-end surpluses to fulfill previously justified requests, thus exacerbating budget challenges late in the fiscal year?

Mr. Seigal states “that an uncommon level of response capability has already been bought and paid for in the Umatilla Community.” Excuse me, but I believed the ‘uncommon threat level,’ generated by destruction of 3700 tons of mustard and nerve agents in our community was the exact reason Congress created the CSEP Program. I also happen to believe this ‘uncommon threat’ requires an “uncommon level” of response capability to properly protect public safety and to comply with Public Law 99-145. It is also my firm belief that only after the public is properly protected, should we proceed to destroy these aging, deadly weapons. Having said that, I also understand the decades old munitions containing the chemicals are reaching the end of their useable life and may begin failing with increasing frequency. By delaying funding for public safety through bureaucratic measures, FEMA has actually increased the public safety risk. To me, this is unconscionable.

Mr. Seigal says “a number of states have conquered the challenges of the LCCE process and experience little uncertainty or delay in receiving their funding.” In all these instances I am aware of, heavy pressure from state governors and federal legislative teams was the solution, not support from FEMA. I believe it is a symptom of system failure that CSEPP states must involve governors and legislators in order to receive necessary public safety funding required by Congress in Public Law 99-145 and other documents.

Mr. Seigal’s comments suggest the local community is the problem. He insinuates we may not have “the ability to effectively coordinate and use all these wonderful tools in the immediacy of a chemical incident response.” Where is his evidence of such failure? His statements are not suported by evaluated exercises and FEMA’s own site assessment reports.

Humorously, after this he goes on to say, “FEMA hopes to work with the community to move forward in realistic planning to maximize the potential effectiveness of the response.” Which is it, Mr. Seigal, and by the way, in reading your job description, we thought you were actually here to help us, the “customer,” protect public safety in this program?

As an elected official, I am honestly tired of FEMA personnel like Mr. Seigal refusing to recognize that Oregon CSEPP requirements actually change over the years, requiring additional federal resources. And yes, unfortunately, our crystal ball doesn’t allow us to accurately forecast 5 years into the future as the federal budgeting process requires, but neither, evidently does FEMA’s.

So, in my frustration, I still continue to seek someone in the federal chain who is willing to help us with this dilemma, which was superimposed by a higher level of authority, out of our control, and which is apparently staffed with folks much less concerned with public safety than with bureaucratic jargon.

Ray Grace County Commissioner Morrow County, Oregon [Editor's note: The above article was printed as submitted with the exception that some of the formatting was changed or omitted.]