DENVER-
The office that serves as watchdog over the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to reduce its staff and possibly close offices across the country to cut costs, actions some members of Congress say are premature because a new budget hasn’t even been considered.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, and four other members delivered a letter Friday to EPA acting Inspector General Bill Roderick questioning early buyouts that could require employees to leave as soon as April 30.
Committee members asked that their staffs be briefed and a 60-day notice given before any field offices are closed.
In documents obtained by The Associated Press, Roderick told his staff Feb. 9 that despite an anticipated $900,000 increase in funding for the rest of the current fiscal year, “it is very likely we will have to close facilities and/or conduct a reduction in force” in face of a $5.1 million decrease in President Bush’s fiscal year 2008 budget request for the office.
Asked by staffers if there would be work force reductions if funding increases instead, Roderick responded in a March 5 e-mail to all staffers: “It is unlikely we will know what is going to happen soon enough to not lose some of the staff.”
The EPA personnel office started sending early retirement and buyout forms to employees March 15.
John Manibusan, spokesman for the inspector general’s office, said Roderick would not comment because he hadn’t received the letter. EPA spokesman Dave Ryan declined comment, saying the inspector general’s office is a separate organization.
It wasn’t immediately known how many people are being offered buyouts or early retirement, how many are employed nationwide by the EPA’s office of the inspector general, and how many offices, if any, would be closed under Roderick’s initiative.
In their letter to Roderick, Energy and Commerce Committee members objected to attempts to make the reductions “a fait accompli prior to any Congressional action or approval.”
“We are concerned that if Congress does not approve the requested (office of inspector general) budget cuts, your buyout initiative could cause unnecessary loss of experienced personnel, work force disruption and waste of taxpayer dollars,” the lawmakers wrote.
Besides Dingell, Democrats Diana DeGette of Colorado, Albert Wynn of Maryland, Hilda Solis of California and Republican John Shimkus of Illinois signed the letter.
“In recent years the inspector general’s office has provided a strong, independent voice to protect human health and the environment on some controversial issues,” said Vickie Patton, formerly on the EPA’s general counsel staff and now an attorney with Environmental Defense in Boulder. “The prospect of terminating the inspector general’s professional staff is like a major private business summarily getting rid of its independent accountants.”
The inspector general’s current budget is $50.5 million, but the proposal for next year is $45.2 million, EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said.
Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the EPA’s proposed budget is the smallest since the early 1990s. Other environmental agencies also face cuts, he said, partly because of the Iraq war and other government expenditures.
“Given the additional costs as well as additional responsibilities, the EPA right now is on a pretty strict diet,” he said.
There are 15 inspector general’s offices nationwide, including the main one in Washington. Recent reports by the office included one saying the EPA didn’t have the data to support statements days after the 2001 terrorist attacks that dust and debris from the World Trade Center site weren’t a health threat. The investigation concluded the assurances were issued after the agency was pressured by White House officials.
A 2005 report by former Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, who resigned last year, said the EPA hadn’t ensured cities were getting all the protections ordered by Bush to detect a biological terrorism attack.
An investigation by the office last year found that the EPA couldn’t verify the effectiveness of its cleanup programs in Libby, Mont., where a now-closed vermiculite mine is blamed by some health authorities for a large number of asbestos-related deaths and illnesses.
