Now the Rest of the Story
A recent story about the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ enforcement efforts against one septic hauler seeks to sensationalize the situation. Admittedly, different people can legitimately disagree over how any particular case should be handled. Such a disagreement even occurred within the DNR civil service staff about the appropriate level of punishment for this particular case. However, one wouldn’t know of the debate because only one side of the story was portrayed in the article.
Consider the following:
- The company did not go unpunished. The debate is over whether the company should be fined with lower citations or referred to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for potentially higher citations. A fine was paid, and the situation was handled in a way that the next violation could lead to the suspension of the septic license – which the article failed to report.
- Two different district attorneys cut the amount of the fine from those suggested by the DNR but not the number of citations. It was important to ensure that all five citations ended in convictions to allow the department the ability to strip the business license and operator certifications if another instance emerges.
- The paperwork was admittedly sloppy in this instance. However, soil testing of the area indicated that the field could be put back into use. An assessment by the statewide manager of this program determined that the risk of environmental harm was relatively low given the distance between the soil surface and groundwater, especially when considering that septage and holding tank waste does not contain the level of nitrates it did in the past due to requirements for more frequent pumping of these systems.
- This was a first time land-spreading violation for this company. For similar cases in the past, the DNR has issued tickets for a first offense; and then referred to the Department of Justice on the second. Earlier this year, this administration referred a septage hauler to DOJ that had a second violation. Consistency of enforcement is important.
Lots of current and former staff were interviewed for these articles and only those supporting one conclusion were included in the article. Why?
I am disturbed by the implication that there were ethical lapses or that politics were involved in the DNR’s decision making. Why was there a separate article buried further in the paper that stated there was no ethical violation? Why present the story this way?
Our administration holds itself to the highest ethical standards. The following facts support this assertion:
- Upon first contact on June 22, Deputy Secretary Moroney openly acknowledged that he knew an employee of the company. When it became clear from the facts that the matter would come before him for a decision, he recused himself. He did not have to recuse himself under the state ethics guidelines, but he desired to avoid any appearance of impropriety. He went beyond the guidelines.
- After determining Executive Assistant Gunderson did not personally know any individuals from the company, Moroney asked Gunderson to make the decision on how to proceed with the case. Gunderson made the decision while consulting with DNR enforcement staff.
- Recently, it was brought to the DNR’s attention that Gunderson had received two contributions from the company owner in 2006 and 2008 during his race for the State Assembly. Gunderson did not recall receiving the contributions. Gunderson voluntarily asked the Government Accountability Board to issue an opinion about these circumstances and was cleared of any possible ethics violations. Going forward, Gunderson has indicated that he will check past campaign reports prior to agreeing to handle any case that could be assigned to him from Moroney.
- It is important to stress that the DNR did not cut the number of citations issued after being contacted by a State Legislator. The DNR instead held its position.
Why wasn’t the story just about the facts and the differing views of the appropriate level of punishment? Why didn’t it include all of the facts? Why did it include a discussion possible ethics violations when no ethics violations occurred and when Moroney exceeded the standards with his actions? Why did it imply political favoritism when the final decision was not swayed at all by political influence? I will let you, the citizens of this great state, come to your own conclusion.