What happened to govt scientist Charles Monnett whose findings stood in the way of Shell's plans for Arctic drilling?

The fate of Dr. Charles Monnett and the suppression of his work is a lesson in corporate strong-arming

by Kamil Ahsan, AlterNet, September 1, 2015

In February 2011, Charles Monnett, an Arctic marine biologist who in 2006 published the first observations of a decline in the polar bear population of the Arctic due to melting sea ice, was interviewed by Eric May and Lynn Gibson from the Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General. The conversation was perplexing. May and Gibson, criminal investigators with the IG, began by suggesting that Monnett was being investigated for scientific misconduct, but early on in the conversation they admitted that neither of them had any training in science and biology.

From there, the transcript of the conversation, a document released by Monnett’s legal representation, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), becomes murkier. May and Gibson’s line of questioning shifts several times, making it increasingly unclear what aspects of misconduct were being investigated. Monnett explains that his findings, published in Polar Biology, were peer-reviewed; May responds by asking how Polar Biology got involved. Monnett painstakingly takes May and Gibson through the calculations and observations underlying his data, but they seem dissatisfied and change tacks.

What happened after isn’t murky at all. Soon after the interview, Dr. Monnett’s hard drive and notebooks were seized. In July 2011, Monnett found out from his employer, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), that he had been put been put on administrative leave, barring him from speaking to his colleagues or continuing his research.

The investigation had turned in to a virtual witch-hunt—but when the IG finally released its report toward the end of 2012, its only allegations were of an administrative nature. Monnett subsequently filed a whistleblower complaintagainst BOEMRE, alleging that the official harassment had impeded him from doing his job and that the Interior Department was violating its own scientific integrity policies intended to protect federal scientists from political interference. In November 2013, Monnett reached a $100,000 settlement with BOEMRE.

The tale of Dr. Monnett is now a few years old, but instructive. Both Monnett and PEER have maintained that Monnett was harassed and essentially eliminated from the ranks of BOEMRE because he represented a threat to the financial stakes of oil companies like Shell hoping to open up the Alaskan Arctic for offshore drilling projects, and that suppressing scientific research was seen as necessary for Shell’s permits to go through. At the time, BOEMRE had been reviewing Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic. It approved those permits in 2012, and again, in a highly contentious decision by the Obama administration, earlier this year.

Now, years after the debacle, Monnett says he has complex feelings about the dynamics of the science done in federal agencies, given how overbearing the oil industry is and its pervasive influence on the government.

The Bush administration, Monnett recalls, had “created an environment where the managers [of BOEMRE] were very hostile and aggressive towards some of the scientists…which led to a number of people leaving the agency. These people were being actively attacked by managers, screamed at in hallways, threatened with all sorts of actions. Some of them were even being threatened with legal action. The agency just wasn’t receptive to honest analysis.”

“Because of pressure from industry and the administration…certain timelines had to be met, and those timelines weren’t long enough to allow [scientists] to do complete analysis. Management was dictating the outcomes…which is against the law in my view.”

The Bush administration’s agenda from the very beginning was pro-drilling, and therefore invested in fast-tracking Shell’s permits for the Arctic. During the administration’s tenure, there was a mass exodus of scientists from BOEMRE—at the time known as the Minerals Management Service—who were under pressure to overlook the overwhelming environmental concerns of Arctic oil drilling in their analyses.

But Monnett’s investigation began in 2011, not during the Bush administration but during the Obama administration, foretelling Obama’s climate legacy of paying lip service to climate change while fast-tracking Shell’s offshore drilling plans all the same.

On Monday morning, President Obama arrived in Alaska to shed “a spotlight on what Alaskans in particular have come to know: climate change is one of the biggest threats we face, it is driven by human activity, and it is disrupting Americans’ lives right now.” The trip, mere weeks after the final approvalfor Shell’s summer plans to drill in the Chukchi Sea, is likely to be seen in retrospect as illustrative of the schizophrenic energy policy the Obama administration has long espoused.

The Limits of Academic Freedom

Scientific suppression and the loss of many scientists to BOEMRE during the Bush administration have been well-documented, but as Dr. Monnett’s case reveals, something similar, if not worse, has been underfoot during the current administration. As the case of Professor Rick Steiner demonstrates, the influence of oil goes well beyond federal agencies in Alaska.

A tenured professor of marine conservation at the University of Alaska, Steiner spent a large part of his career in the Arctic and then Anchorage, Alaska. Steiner had been a vocal opponent of offshore oil drilling since the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and a staunch defender of marine conservation—positions that got him in to trouble multiple times during his career.

In December 2007, soon after Monnett’s polar bear paper was published, there was a federal proposed rule to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. At the time, Gov. Sarah Palin publicly stated that Alaska state marine mammal biologists (ADFG) disagreed with the rule, but Steiner was unsatisfied. After much resistance from the ADFG, he obtained the state review through a federal Freedom of Information Act request. The review, underscoring the dishonesty of the Palin administration, showed that marine mammal scientists overwhelmingly agreed that polar bears should be classified as endangered. This move, and many others, put Steiner on the radar as a staunch advocate of marine conservation and opponent of the pervasive influence of the oil industry in Alaska.

In 2008, when the federal government began to consider an expansion of oil development projects in Alaska, Steiner continued to raise major environmental concerns. Written records released by PEER chart out what happened next: the University of Alaska and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration terminated the grant funding for Steiner’s research work. The documentsdemonstrate how pressure from NOAA led university officials to cut Steiner’s funding: federal officials wrote that they “had an issue with Steiner” and that his environmental advocacy could “cause problems nationally” for the agency. PEERcalled this one of the first instances where a university and federal agency admitted to removing a faculty member’s funding because of their environmental positions.

Steiner filed multiple internal grievance claims which were all rejected by the university, and in February 2010, Dr. Steiner resigned from the university faculty on principle. Soon after, he was told by a friend who had been in a meeting with university officials that oil executives had met with university officials, telling them point blank that as long as Steiner continued to oppose the oil industry, the university would not get a dime of its money. The University of Alaska, like many public institutions in Alaska, is funded largely by oil revenues.

Like Monnett, Steiner says his experience taught him the limits to academic and scientific freedom in a place like Alaska. “It is a systemic problem far beyond BOEMRE,” he explains. “It’s in all the agencies, the universities. It’s state and federal and a broad systemic problem in Alaska.

“[TheuUniversity] felt I was being too much of an advocate for marine conservation which is in contradiction to their professed goal of being in favor of academic freedom.”

And indeed, the brazen nature of the university’s statements on Steiner’s case is deeply shocking. In the recommendation to cut Steiner’s funding, Dean Wiesenburg of the University of Alaska noted that Steiner “regularly takes strong public positions on issues of public debate.” Steiner, he said, “has chosen to be a maverick and work independently.”

To Steiner, what this means is clear. “There is an unwritten orthodoxy in Alaska,” he explains, “that dissenting opinions regarding unsustainable economic and political paradigms here need to be suppressed and silenced. Everybody knows that. There’s a very strong political dynamic where agencies and public institutions like the university are captured by the oil industry because it pays 95% of the state budget. Federal agencies bend over backwards for the oil industry and tend to marginalize voices that threaten that dynamic. If you criticize oil, you will have hell to pay.”

“There aren’t very many dissenters. The whole point of making an example of me and Charles [Monnett] was to suppress people from doing that in the future. People have learned that if they want to keep their job and their pay check, and their pension and their benefits, they need to keep their head down.”

A Handy Guide to Scientific Suppression

The cases of Charles Monnett and Rick Steiner have dire implications for how we view Shell’s offshore drilling plans in the Chukchi Sea this summer, and the lengths to which they went to acquire the permits. Much of this can only be guessed at. Steiner talks about the prevailing culture where federal agencies and universities begin to eliminate scientists who do not conform to the pro-oil agenda by not granting promotions or incentive awards, or giving them inadequate annual performance reviews. Another tactic, he says, is overwhelming staff scientists with trivial tasks, pulling them off projects for which they are qualified.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER, an organization that seeks to protect scientist whistleblowers, can add to this list. “The range of things we see,” he says, “range from attempts to terminate, suspend, crippling internal investigations. In one case involving a lab director, the funding for his graduate students was jeopardized so he lost a lot of his research capacity. Preventing publications has no limits—in one case, a scientist was raising issues and her email privileges were taken away. We were left scratching our heads wondering how that could have happened.”

One possible remedy is scientific integrity policies that protect whistleblowers, but as Ruch explains, they are far from satisfactory. “Industry puts pressure on government agencies, and government agencies are the instrument of retaliation,” he explains. “For the most part, scientists have few legal protections. These scientists are not covered by whistleblower laws, because they’re not disclosing violations of law, fraud, or abuse. They’re disclosing suppression of research, or watering down of methodologies or the omission of key findings.”

“The law generally treats these as a matter of opinion and in these cases, the chain of command generally wins over the staff scientist.”

In his experience, Ruch says “scientific integrity policies operate within the Department of the Interior—those were weakened in December to make it even more difficult to sustain a complaint. Up until that time, there had been 2 instances out of 14 where the scientist involved faced multiple suspensions and the responsible managers escaped punishment altogether. It’s difficult to advise scientists in good conscience to file complaints under their own name because they’re unlikely to resolve in anything good.”

Early in 2009, Obama released a presidential directive to develop policies that restore scientific integrity to federal actions, including providing federal scientists better whistleblower protections. At the time, this was hailed as a huge leap in the right direction.

Ruch feels not much has changed. “The agencies in the Interior have largely ignored the presidential directive,” he explains. “Some policies claim protections but have no mechanisms by which that protection is implemented, which makes it empty protection.”

Environmental groups argue that this scientific suppression, and overlooking the enormous environmental risks, has been key to the Obama administration’s approval of Shell’s permits this year. Much of the information detailing the safety and reliability of Shell’s operations has not been released to the public, despite multiple FOIA requests by groups like Greenpeace and PEER. A recent FOIA request by PEER, directed at the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), seeks to release information on how Shell’s plans for certified by third-party observers, as well as information on the deployment of capping stack and containment domes in the event of an oil spill. BSEE has not responded. PEER has now filed a lawsuit in a federal district court to bring these details to light.

As President Obama continues his trip in Alaska to highlight the dangers of climate change amid overwhelming opposition from environmental and indigenous groups, it begs big questions about the administration’s overarching legacy with federal scientists and the oil industry. Ruch feels strongly about this: “In terms of the actions inside these agencies, there has been no discernible difference between those under George Bush, who was an oil man, and Barack Obama, a constitutional law professor who when his own Commission on the Deepwater Horizon spill met with him, one of the very first questions he asked was about Arctic drilling.”

“It has been clear that Arctic drilling is part of the ‘all-the-above’ energy strategy and the same sort of suppression and the same suite of issues have never really been analyzed.”

For an administration pretending to conduct a dramatic push toward mitigating climate change, that is a shameful record.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/what-happened-govt-scientist-whose-findings-stood-way-big-oils-plans-arctic-drilling

 Share with Facebook friends

AlterNet may send you periodic updates; you can unsubscribe at any time.

Tom linster/Shutterstock

Whether in Svalbard or elsewhere polar bears are in trouble. It's not too late to change the disastrous course that President Obama has set for Shell Oil in the fragile Arctic. His administration is currently finalizing the next five year plan, in which the president has the power to exclude all drilling in the Arctic Ocean. In addition, he should instruct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to review and revise its polar bear recovery plan, which currently allows for a shocking and unacceptable 85 percent decline in polar bear populations, and give polar bears the protection they deserve. 

Tell President Obama to stop drilling in the Arctic and save America's polar bears.

Free legal help for embattled US scientists

by Rebecca Trager, Chemistry World, October 22, 2014

The legal fund will help to defend scientists in fields such as climate change, where researchers have been targeted © Shutterstock

A pro bono network that will provide legal protection for US scientists in government and academia has been launched by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an environmental group based in Washington, DC. The new Alliance for Legal Protection of Science (Alps), will provide legal information, counselling and formal representation to embattled scientists at no cost to them.

‘We have public scientists at universities and in the government who are being hassled basically because of their research,’ says Kyla Bennett, the project’s director. ‘A lot of the work that these scientists are doing is of potentially great significance to regulation and even stock prices. There is both industry pressure and political pressure on these scientists to stifle or change their science.’

Bennett emphasises that these researchers need to pursue their work without fear of getting fired, losing their grants or being presented with intrusive public records requests that are designed to hamper their work. Because individual researchers are often ill-equipped to counter what Peer calls well-funded ‘harassment campaigns’, the intent is for Alps to help by organising legal and other resources to protect the targeted scientists and their work.

For example, the programme features a new online resource for scientists to schedule legal sessions and easily access information about their rights and options on various topics, including the right to publish without official approval. It also includes details on what information scientists can legally withhold.

Academic exemption?

Michael Mann is a climate scientist formerly with the University of Virginia, US, now at Penn State University, who was on the receiving end of repeated subpoenas by Virginia’s attorney general and others starting in April 2010 for various records related to his research. He says that Alps appears to be a spinoff from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund launched in January 2011 to defend climate scientists that was housed in Peer.

‘It is great to see Peer now expanding the scope of the original effort to include the entire community of scientists that have been attacked or intimidated by special interests,’ he tells Chemistry World. ‘Whether studying the health effects of tobacco, the potential threat of certain pharmaceutical products, the pollution of our air and water by industry or the science underlying human caused climate change, scientists have often found themselves under attack when their findings collide with the agendas of vested corporate interests.’ He says it is critical that those scientists have some place to turn when they find themselves under legal attack.

Charles Monnett, a wildlife researcher who was suspended from his job at the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for six weeks in 2011 amid questions about his data and whether he had wrongfully released government records, is also very enthusiastic about the new programme. Monnett and others suggest that he was penalised over his observations of drowned polar bears that became an iconic illustration of climate change in action.

Monnett, whose scientific integrity came under attack, ultimately received $100,000 (£62,000) to settle a whistleblower complaint against the agency. He says he never resumed his former duties overseeing a $50 million portfolio of 20 to 30 studies, and retired from the agency last year due to health issues he says were brought on by stress.

‘This is important if you don’t want scientists to be stifled and to have fear that if they ever buck the system that their science and their careers are going to be destroyed,’ Monnett tells Chemistry World. ‘I was isolated, and many in my agency viewed me with extreme hostility.’

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/10/free-legal-help-embattled-us-scientists

Interview with Charles Monnett

POLAR BEAR WHISTLEBLOWER

He did what scientists are supposed to do. Listen here (after the news on lifetime gag order on Canadian MP staffers): http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2424047394,2424048373,2424049794 On a flight over the Arctic in 2004, U.S. wildlife researcher Charles Monnett reported seeing drowned polar bears -- a finding that he later published in a scientific journal. His sighting became a symbol of the melting Arctic, and a focal point for campaigners like Al Gore. Everyone was unhappy about his discovery. But some people were just unhappy because he wrote about it. Mr. Monnett's employer -- the U.S. federal government -- launched a years-long investigation of him. And, he claims, tried to silence work that challenged oil and gas development in the Arctic. Charles Monnett has now received a cash settlement from the federal government -- and no longer works there. We reached Mr. Monnett in Seattle. http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/2013/12/12/thursday-middle-east-winter-australia-gay-marriage-mp-staffer-rules-and-more/

Arctic scientist Charles Monnett gets $100,000 in settlement with Feds

from NPR, December 4, 2013

A scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears raised alarms about climate change has received $100,000 to settle a whistle-blower complaint against an agency of the Department of the Interior.

Under the settlement, wildlife researcher Charles Monnett retired from his job at the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on November 15, 2013, and the agency agreed to remove a letter of reprimand that officials had placed in his file.

“Well, it’s over, in the sense that my relationship with the department and the federal government is over,” says Monnett. “I am still a scientist. I still have some standing in the scientific community. I may continue to play a role in some fashion, particularly in the Arctic. That’s yet to be seen.”

NPR requested comment from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management but a spokesperson said the agency could not comment on personnel matters.

“Sound science is the foundation of BOEM’s decision-making, and therefore we take the integrity of our scientists and the reliability of their work very seriously,” said spokesperson Connie Gillette in an email. “We are proud of the exceptional scientists at BOEM and of BOEM’s scientific programs.”

The settlement document states that it does not constitute any admission of liability, and that the agency entered into it to avoid the costs of litigation.

The settlement ends a controversial saga that began back in 2004, when Monnett saw drowned polar bears while flying over the Arctic during a routine aerial survey of whales. He reported on the dead bears in a scientific journal, and Al Gore mentioned them in the movie An Inconvenient Truth. The dead polar bears became a potent symbol of the threat of melting ice.

But in 2010, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General received allegations of scientific misconduct from a federal employee. Investigators repeatedly interrogated Monnett and a colleague about their report of dead polar bears.

Monnett believes this was an effort to silence scientific efforts that might interfere with oil and gas development in the Arctic. He says his wife and son were harassed — “by people who didn’t like my politics, whatever they perceived them to be.”

Last year, the investigation ended. And Monnett’s employer, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said it did not look like he had engaged in any scientific misconduct. But the agency did officially reprimand Monnett for an unrelated matter, leaking internal government documents.

“I thought that was silly,” Monnett says. “It seemed desperate, on the part of the agency. They stick this letter in my file and end it, and tell me to just forget about everything and let’s just move on. … It just seemed like a desperate attempt to justify a hole that the department had dug itself into.”

So, Monnett lodged a whistle-blower complaint, with the help of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, saying that the five emails he had sent to outside individuals showed that the agency was breaking laws to push through Arctic offshore drilling permits.

In addition to the other agreements in the settlement, the agency promised to issue a certificate for a conservation award from the Secretary of the Interior. (The group representing Monnett says that he won it in 2010 but that the agency removed his name.)

And Monnett agreed to not reapply to any position with the Department of the Interior for five years.

“Well, I’m sad, I guess. It’s been disappointing,” says Monnett. “As a young person, fresh out of graduate school, I was idealistic, and I thought that it would all be about the truth.”

http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-polar-bear-researcher-gets-100000-in-settlement-with-feds/

Witch hunt against Arctic scientist Charles Monnett finally over

from Fox News and AP, December 4, 2013

An Alaska scientist who gained fame in 2011 due to his observations of drowned polar bears, findings that helped galvanize the global warming movement, has retired as part of a settlement with a federal agency.

Charles Monnett was briefly suspended in 2011 from his work with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement — now known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management —during an inspector general's investigation into a polar bear research contract he managed. Investigators in their report released last year said the probe was prompted by a complaint from an Interior Department employee who alleged that Monnett had wrongfully released government records and he and another scientist intentionally omitted or used false data in an article on polar bears.

The agency, BOEM, ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct but reprimanded Monnett for improper release of emails that an Interior Department official said were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate agency approval of an oil and gas company's Arctic exploration plan.

While Monnett returned to work, his prior research portfolio, which was focused on Arctic issues, had been reassigned, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which helped Monnett with his case. Monnett filed a complaint, seeking to have the reprimand rescinded, to have his name restored to an award for a bowhead whale tracking project and the ability to transfer jobs, a request that the complaint said had not been granted.

Under the settlement, signed in October but released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility on Wednesday, Monnett will receive $100,000 but cannot seek Interior Department work for five years. His retirement was effective November 15, at which point the agency agreed to withdraw the letter of reprimand and issue Monnett a certificate for his work on the tracking project.

The settlement makes clear that it does not constitute any admission of liability, including any admission that federal employees "treated Monnett in a discriminatory or retaliatory manner." BOEM spokeswoman Connie Gillette said by email that she could not comment on personnel matters but said sound science is the foundation of BOEM's decision-making and the agency takes the integrity of its scientists and reliability of their work very seriously.

Monnett, in a release, said the agency tried to silence and discredit him "and send a chilling message to other scientists at a key time when permits for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic were being considered. They failed on the first two goals, but I believe that what they did to me did make others afraid to speak up, even internally."

He said he could not, in good conscience, "work for an agency that promotes dishonesty, punishes those who actually stand up for scientific integrity, and that cannot tolerate scientific work not pre-shaped to serve its agenda."

Ruch said Monnett, 65, is exploring his future options. He said he left his federal job with a fully vested pension.

In 2004, during an aerial survey of bowhead whales, Monnett and another researcher saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm, observations that were later detailed in a peer-reviewed article. They said they were reporting to the best of their knowledge the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances.

They said their findings suggested drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the regression of pack ice or periods of longer open water continues. The observations helped make the polar bear a symbol for the climate change movement.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/04/arctic-scientist-in-global-warming-row-retires-as-part-settlement-with/

BOEM settles with whistleblower scientist Charles Monnett, ordeal finally over -- no scientific misconduct

by Jill Burke, Alaska Dispatch, December 4, 2013

When scientist Dr. Charles Monnett saw dead polar bears floating in the Arctic waters off of Alaska in 2004, he could not have foreseen that it would lead, a decade later, to a career-ending inquiry into his credibility and the trustworthiness of his work.

RELATED: 

Lost interview: Alaska scientist described how he discovered 'drowned polar bears'

Drowned polar bears: Probe of Arctic scientist concluded

It didn't matter that he'd ultimately withstand years of would-be criminal investigations, brought upon him by his own superiors. Or that he'd eventually clear his own name. In the end, stopping the turmoil came down to saying goodbye to a 20-year government career.

In November, Monnett resigned his post with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and agreed to stay away from any job with the Department of the Interior for at least five years. As part of the deal, BOEM removed a previously-issued reprimand from Monnett's personnel file, reinstated his name to a Cooperative Conservation Award he earned in 2010, and gave the longtime scientist $100,000.

“It's hard to be happy about any of this,” Monnett said when reached via phone in Seattle. “It seemed so unnecessary to go through, but I think under the circumstances I feel reasonably vindicated. I've cleared the air and can move on with my life now.”

In 2006, Monnett and another scientist included their discovery of drowned polar bears as a note in a journal article published in Polar Ecology. “All I did was say 'here are some polar bears that drowned, and it was a result of a storm and storms may become more common as a result of changes in the sea ice,'” Monnett said.

The article quickly became a clarion call for environmentalists looking to thwart oil and gas development in the Arctic, and created tension within Monnett's agency, then known as the Minerals Management Service, which also sold oil and gas leases. Years later that article was among the topics investigators from the Office of the Inspector General grilled Monnett about during long interviews.

Both sides claimed they were acting solely in the interest of scientific integrity. Monnett viewed himself as a principled agitator, unwilling to compromise his ethics or his work to fit agency agendas. BOEM would claim they were obligated to review Monnett's past conduct in doling out grants and as a scientific observer and author. BOEM would finally conclude that they'd uncovered no scientific misconduct -- though investigators hinted at this -- and slapped Monnett with the lowest form of punishment, a written reprimand for sharing work-related emails with people outside of his agency.

When asked to respond to Monnett's departure and the financial settlement, BOEM would only say “We cannot comment on personnel matters. Sound science is the foundation of BOEM's decision-making, and therefore we take the integrity of our scientists and the reliability of their work very seriously. We are proud of the exceptional scientists at BOEM and of BOEM's scientific programs.”

The letter of reprimand, issued in September 2012, gave Monnett and his attorney, Jeffrey Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, something tangible to finally dispute. The settlement reached in October, including the $100,000, puts an end to that appeal and to any other whistleblower complaints generated by Monnett, including that BOEM had attempted to “ram through Arctic offshore drilling permits.”

“It may be the most expensive letter of reprimand that the Interior Department has ever issued,” Ruch said.

The settlement also calls for Monnett to stop his attempts to gain access to documents about the Inspector General's investigation, and the role of BOEM officials to it, under the Freedom of Information Act.

Ruch characterizes the Inspector General inquiries into Monnett as “clueless and relentless.” Clueless, because they didn't think the investigators understood the scientific analysis and math Monnett had done, or that they understood the process by which journal articles are reviewed. Relentless, because they never knew when the investigators would come back for another run at Monnett.

It was, in Ruch's eyes, a politically motivated witch hunt.

Things are different now at BOEM, but Monnett isn't convinced “different” amounts to better. He believes the agency has rebuilt itself to better fit a model where scientists are forced to be compliant with top-down agendas, to resist taking a hard look at things, to just get the job done quickly and efficiently so that permits can be approved.

“It's different, but only because dissent has been smashed,” Monnett said.

So what's next for the man who'd hoped cutting-edge research would answer key questions to help evaluate the effects of oil and gas activity on marine mammals and Arctic ecosystems? A little rest and relaxation, and maybe, scientific work found elsewhere, perhaps in another country, or in teaching.

He's been talked about for years. Now that the saga is over, he can set the record straight on a few things, portraits he calls wildly inaccurate. People either glorified or demonized him. Climate campaigner, polar bear biologist, Arctic scientist. None of the labels are correct, he said.

He's a marine ecologist, and the thing he calls the “one little thing I did as a byproduct of other things” -- note the dead polar bears during a fly over on a bowhead whale count -- branded him in ways he hadn't expected, and which he found embarrassing.

The stress of the intense scrutiny has been hard on him and his wife, who is also a scientist. It's taken a toll on his health; he says he's developed heart problems. And although he's disappointed to have ended his career in government, it does come with some sense of relief.

“I have been in purgatory a very long time. I can do anything I want now. I don't even need to think about what I am going to do next,” he said.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131204/arctic-scientist-and-us-government-part-ways-after-settlement

Dr. Charles Monnett sues U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for records on BOEM's disciplinary action.Reprimanded for Climate Change Work, Scientist Says

by Iulia Filip, Courthouse New Service, April 16, 2013

     WASHINGTON (CN) - A scientist claims in court that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management refuses to release records on its reprimanding him for "circulating scientific information to scientific colleagues" about climate change.
     Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Dr. Charles Monnett sued the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for records on BOEM's disciplinary action against Monnett.
     They claim the agency investigated Monnett on suspicion of releasing government documents without authorization, in retaliation for his studies of climate change.
     "Plaintiff Dr. Charles Monnett is a senior scientist with BOEM," the complaint states. "Dr. Monnett was the lead author of a peer-reviewed observational note published in a 2006 issue of the journal Polar Biology. Dr. Monnett's work stimulated public awareness of climate changes in the Arctic including the effects of sea ice loss. Since the time of the 2006 issue, the Department of Interior Office of Inspector General has forged an investigation into Dr. Monnett and reprimanded him for this work."
     The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management manages the United States' natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf.
     Monnett, an Arctic wildlife biologist, coordinated the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, including studies on the impact of oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
     In 2006, Monnett published an article that linked polar bear deaths in Alaska's Beaufort Sea to long-distance swimming due to sea ice regression.
     The article, published in the peer-reviewed journal Polar Biology, documented four dead polar bears in the Arctic Ocean that Monnett and a colleague saw while conducting overflights in 2004 for a bowhead whale study.
     The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cited Monnett's study in its 2008 decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" also mentioned the article, portraying the polar bear as a symbol of climate change.
     BOEM temporarily suspended Monnett in July 2011 during an investigation into "integrity issues," according to media reports.
     "In a report of investigation concerning Dr. Charles Monnett by the Interior Office of Inspector General released on Sept. 28, 2012, there is a section concerning alleged unauthorized release of U.S. government documents," the complaint states. "These excerpts discuss reviews conducted by Minerals Management Service ('MMS') officials concerning Dr. Monnett. These officials were carried over into BOEM in their same capacities."
     In November 2012, Monnett and his legal representative, the nonprofit watchdog Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a FOIA request with BOEM headquarters in Washington and its Alaska office. They requested records on the agency's investigation, including internal review documents, emails and meeting notes concerning hundreds of FOIA exempt emails allegedly forwarded by Monnett to unauthorized recipients.
     Among the records mentioned in the complaint are: "all written material including emails, and meeting notes reflecting the following: "[Monnett's supervisor Jeffery] Loman recalled that several BOEM managers were challenged by a few of its scientists, who asserted that the activity Shell proposed would constitute what the National Environmental Policy Act describes as 'significant impact' to the environment ... Loman explained that the scientists' opposition was handled by BOEM managers through protracted conversations and email exchanges." (Ellipses in complaint).
     The plaintiffs claim the agency delayed its response, and failed to release any information. They appealed, but received no records and no further correspondence.
     They claim that "BOEM's conduct frustrates plaintiffs' efforts to shed light on why a respected senior scientist was reprimanded for circulating scientific information to scientific colleagues. BOEM's actions also frustrate plaintiffs' efforts to educate the public regarding the status of resource deterioration in the Arctic Ocean and the extent to which federal agencies are adequately monitoring such developments and infringe on Dr. Monnett's right to access information the BOEM maintains pertaining to him."
     They want to see the documents.
     They are represented by Kathryn Douglass, staff attorney with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/16/56717.htm

Charles Monnett permitted to return to his old job with a minor reprimand for following what was common practice (and signed off on by his superiors)

by Jill Burke, Alaska Dispatch, March 23, 2013

The arduous scrutiny directed at federal Arctic wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Monnett over the past few years came down to little more than a reprimand. But the fallout rippled through the nation's offshore oil agency.

A letter obtained by Alaska Dispatch under the Freedom of Information Act shows why Monnett's employer, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), rejected two of three findings made by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). It took the two agencies nearly six months to release a handful of pages related to a request for information about the investigations of Monnett and his colleague zoologist Dr. Jeffrey Gleason. Most of what was eventually produced had already been widely disseminated last fall.

But a three-page letter, a response by the bureau to inspector general that addresses the agency's initial findings, documents in greater detail why the bureau declined to throw the book at its scientist.

Culture of bad practices 

Brought to light is a self-admitted culture within the Alaska Region of the Minerals Management Service (MMS), BOEM's predecessor agency, of bad contracting practices. The problem was apparently more widespread than the one scientist -- Monnett -- the inspector general singled out for procurement violations. So the bureau was unwilling to come down on Monnett when others in the office had done the same thing.

The U.S. Office of the Inspector General sent its agents to investigate whether Monnett inflated findings related to global warming. Along the way, the agents uncovered what they thought were other acts of misconduct -- dissemination of sensitive government documents to outside parties and inappropriately handing out a sole-source contract to a Canadian polar bear researcher. [Note that the Canadian university professor was the only qualified researcher with facilities close enough, and Monnett's superiors signed off on everything he did.]

In the end, Monnett received a written reprimand for sharing emails related to oil exploration in Arctic waters, including discussion about Royal Dutch Shell's plans in the Beaufort Sea and BP's proposed Liberty oil development, including how the projects’ environmental impacts might influence the Endangered Species Act, as well as fish and polar bears. The emails were sent to outside parties before MMS made final decisions and before a North Slope community filed a lawsuit against the service to block its approval of Shell's plans. The emails made their way into the court case, and ultimately the agency's approval was overturned.

An undercurrent of the investigation was whether Monnett and Gleason had committed scientific misconduct by publishing a paper that discussed their observation of drowned polar bears in Alaska's Arctic. The 2006 article published in the journal Polar Biology documented four dead polar bears in the Arctic Ocean that the scientists saw while conducting overflights in 2004 for a bowhead whale study. In the article, they noted the deaths could have been due to loss of sea ice and a large storm. Inspector General agents found Gleason and Monnett under-represented their observations [the agents were trying to make it look like Monnett had OVER-stated his results -- and look how that turned out for them] and that they didn't have a quality dataset to pull from to begin with [this is not true].

Interest in polar bears intensifies 

The inquiry by the Inspector General came just as the offshore hunt for oil in U.S. Arctic waters and public awareness of the plight of polar bears intensified. Pro- and anti-oil factions worked to gain sympathy at both the local and national levels.

When Monnett and Gleason discovered dead polar bears floating in the Beaufort Sea in 2004, they realized they were on to something significant, and they worked swiftly to become the first in the scientific community to publish their findings two years later. By 2008, the polar bear was officially listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened, largely based on projected survival rates derived from forecasts about the toll that climate change -- including less sea ice and more open water swims -- would have on the bears.

In a letter to the acting Inspector General dated Sept. 27, 2012, bureau director Tommy Beaudreau explained that the published polar bear manuscript is a “note” -- a unique observation that may suggest an avenue for future research, but which cannot be reproduced, therefore limiting its scientific value. The fact that the journal was peer-evaluated meant other scientists felt Monnett’s and Gleason's work was worth publishing. And, the Inspector General admitted the paper had not impacted the still-to-come 2008 decision to list polar bears as “threatened.”

For these reasons, the bureau refuted that any scientific misconduct had occurred. The agency also acknowledged that violations of procurement policy, if they occurred, were not limited to Monnett.

A senior contracting officer was aware of Monnett's handling of the contract and had approved the scientist’s actions. This same person acknowledged during the investigation that with sole-source contracts, you were able to be “looser in how you interact” than in competitive situations. Because MMS staff at the time was working with what is described as “little structure, policy, no procedures” regarding its procurement of contracts, the bureau refused to single out Monnett for punishment when the practices of the entire Alaska Region needed reform.

Since then, “intense focus” and “substantial reform” has taken place to clean up the way contracts are handled, Beaudreau told the Inspector General. The overhaul has included institutional changes, new leadership, and comprehensive training programs. “BOEM continues to strive for excellence and ongoing improvement in its procurement practices,” he wrote.

Lax oversight

It's an ongoing chapter in the agency's attempt to clean up its reputation in the wake of national scandals and criticism of the Alaska region. It began with BP's oil-well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which raised questions about whether MMS had been too lax in its industry oversight. Claims that fedeal officials had unethically close relationships with oil company executives followed. [This had nothing to do with Monnett or his work.]

Making things worse, not long after the spill began, Alaska's MMS office held a staff meeting, and someone brought a cake decorated with the famous line by former Gov. Sarah Palin, “Drill Baby Drill.” It made national news and anti-drilling interests demanded that agency head John Goll be shown the door.

Within months, more trouble erupted. The General Accounting Office announced it had found serious problems in the way the Alaska MMS office authorized permits. The problems included complaints from government scientists who said their work had been dismissed to make way for industry-sought approvals.

As it turns out, BP's Liberty project in the Beaufort Sea has languished. And Shell's inaugural drilling attempt in 2013 was fraught with mishaps, forcing it into hibernation for at least a year until it can repair equipment that was damaged or failed in the 2012 drilling season. [And with all the delays in the approval, Shell still completely blew it, and for all the world to witness their incompetence.]

Leading up to his September reprimand, Monnett had been banished from the environmental division of the bureau and reassigned as an analyst. But with the final decision in, he was allowed to return to his old job, according to Monnett's attorney Jeffrey Ruch. How much of that work awaited him was unclear, as much of it has been parceled out to other staff, Ruch said.

Agency has huge Alaska reach 

Meanwhile, work at the bureau under the “overhauled” Alaska region continues in three areas: leasing, resource evaluation and environmental stewardship.

Studies of marine life in the Arctic are ongoing, including monitoring of bowhead whale migratory patterns and habitat, polar bear populations and the characteristics of bears summering onshore. There’s also research on fish, snow crab, seals and walrus under way. Many studies incorporate assessments of these species in lease and potential drilling areas.

The agency “oversees more than 1 billion acres on the Outer Continental Shelf and more than 6,000 miles of coastline -- more coastline than in the rest of the United States combined,” according the Alaska OCS Region website, including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Bering Sea, Cook Inlet, and the Gulf of Alaska.

Contact Jill Burke at jill(at)alaskadispatch.com

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130323/polar-bear-scientist-probe-finds-problems-offshore-oil-agency