DOCSLIB.ORG

Toxic Temptation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toxic Temptation TOXIC TEMPTATION The Revolving Door, Bureaucratic Inertia and the Disappointment of the EPA Superfund Program Eric J. Greenberg THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY 1910 K Street N.W., Suite 802 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 223-0299 TOXIC TEMPTATION The Revolving Door, Bureaucratic Inertia and the Disappointment of the EPA Superfund Program Eric J. Greenberg THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY 1910 K Street N.W., Suite 802 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 223-0299 "Let the public service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and woman who works in any area of our national government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and with honor in future years: 'I served the United States government in that hour of our nation's need.'" - John F. Kennedy "To the extent that the public believes that people who move in and out of government are doing so in order to advance their own economic interest as opposed to representing the public interest when they are in government, that's not a good thing for society." -- William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA's first and fifth Administrator, 1991 "I've had it with patriotism: I'm into greed now." - Anne Gorsuch Burford, EPA Administrator, 1981-1983, to Regardie's Magazine, August 1984 The Center for Public Integrity is an independent nonprofit organization that examines public service and ethics-related issues. The Center's Reports combine the substantive study of government with in-depth journalism. The Center is funded by foundations, corporations, labor unions, individuals and revenue from news organizations. This Center Report and the views expressed herein are those of the author. What is written here does not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of the Center for Public Integrity's Board of Directors or Advisory Board. Copyright (c) 1993 THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any other form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the written permission of the Center for Public Integrity. Washington, D.C. 20006 ISBN 1-882583-01-9 The Center for Public Integrity Eric J. Greenberg is an award-winning newspaper reporter based in New Jersey, where he reports on environmental issues. He is the 1991 winner of the Society of Professional Journalists Public Service Reporting Award, an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award and the Washington Journalism Center/Thomas L. Stokes Award for the best environmental investigative reporting in the United States and Canada. He was also a finalist in the 1991 national Livingstone Award for best journalism by a reporter under age 35. He has a bachelor's degree in journalism from the State University College at Buffalo and did graduate work in urban affairs journalism at the University of Maryland's College of Journalism. The author gratefully acknowledges those who helped in the preparation of this study: Marchel Abner, who assisted in the research, is a senior at Central Missouri State University, where she is pursuing a bachelor's degree in journalism. Bill Baldwin, who assisted in the research and proofreading process, is a senior at the University of Southern California, where he is pursuing a bachelor's degree in English and a bachelor of science degree in Public Administration/Urban and Regional Planning. Cindy Collins, who assisted in the research, layout and proofreading process, holds a master's degree in journalism from The American University and a bachelor's degree in English from the University of California at Berkeley. She writes for The National Jurist and Atlantic News Service. Dain DeMarco, who assisted in the research and proofreading process, is a junior at The American University, majoring in print journalism. Margaret M. Ebrahim, who assisted in the research and proofreading process, is a senior associate at the Center. She holds a master's degree in international affairs from The American University. Spencer Freedman, who assisted in the research, is studying political science as a junior at Brown University. Charles Lewis is the founder and Executive Director of the Center for Public Integrity. For 11 years, he did investigative reporting at ABC News and CBS News, most recently as a producer for "60 Minutes." Ned Martel, who assisted in the research, is a reporter for States News Service. He has been an intern at Washington Monthly, received a fellowship from the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and reported for the Naples (FL) Daily News. Joe Minadeo, who assisted in the research, is currently a student of University of Vermont's School of Law. Peter Overby, who edited this study, is an investigative reporter for Common Cause Magazine. His work has also appeared in the Washington Post, Reader's Digest and Utne Reader. Andrew Porterfield, formerly of the Center for Investigative Reporting, conducted research, reporting and interviewing for this study. Diane Renzulli, who assisted in the research, layout and proofreading process, is administrative assistant at the Center. She has a bachelor's degree in English from Georgetown University. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INVESTIGATIVE METHODOLOGY 5 SUPERFUND SINCE ITS INCEPTION 7 CONCLUSION: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE 47 TOP OFFICIALS LEAVING EPA 1980-1993 49 Thomas L. Adams, Jr. 50 Alvin Aim 51 Eckhardt C. Beck 53 Barbara D. Blum 55 Anne Gorsuch Burford 56 Douglas M. Costle 64 Thomas W. Devine 67 Gary N. Dietrich 68 Thomas P. Gallagher 70 William N. Hedeman, Jr. 71 John Hernandez 74 Terrell Hunt 77 Merna Kurd 78 Rita M. Lavelle 79 Gene A. Lucero 86 Douglas MacMillan 87 Richard H. Mays 88 Jeffrey Miller 89 Steffen Plehn 90 J. Winston Porter 92 Courtney Price 93 William Reilly 94 William D. Ruckelshaus 102 James N. Smith 110 Lee Thomas 111 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Superfund, the multi-billion dollar program to clean up the nation's worst toxic waste sites, is a promise unfulfilled. Conceived in secrecy and confusion in the waning days of President Jimmy Carter's administration, the program has been plagued with fraud, political manipulation, influence-peddling and contractor terrorism. As of December 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has placed more than 1,200 of the so-called most dangerous hazardous waste sites in the country on the Superfund National Priority List (NPL). But the past decade, despite billions of dollars spent, the EPA has cleaned up fewer than nine percent of them. The remaining 91 percent continue to contaminate water supplies, destroy environmental habitats and contribute to human illness, birth defects, respiratory problems, miscarriages, cancer and even deaths, according to one federal study. Most of the hazardous waste sites already accounted for are hi residential areas. Some of the worst polluted sites hi the nation have not even yet been placed on the national priority list. Formulated behind closed doors in 1980, the Superfund program during the Eighties immediately fell into disarray, hampered by high turnover as employees at all levels left to work for environmental contractors, corporate polluters or law firms. Morale plunged for those who remained. A recent government report revealed that lawyers wind up with most of the money allocated to clean up the toxic sites. Superfund has also fallen victim to partisan politics and has been used as a tool to sway voters at election time. And it has suffered from bureaucratic inertia and at times, ideology, most recently from the now-defunct Council on Competitiveness, headed by former Vice President Dan Quayle. Indeed, in recent years, there have been serious questions about not only the sheer competence and management of the EPA Superfund program, but the actual intent and the degree of aggressive pursuit by Superfund managers. The Center for Public Integrity has learned that: * The EPA has failed to collect Superfund costs of nearly $4 billion since the program began. * The U.S. government stands to lose as much as $5 billion in potentially recoverable cleanup costs from corporate polluters over the next six years if immediate legal action is not taken. One EPA Superfund expert calls the situation a crisis. * Superfund's toughest provision to penalize uncooperative corporate polluters has been implemented fewer than 25 times since 1981. To date, the agency has collected treble damages in only three cases. It remains unknown how many cases, and how much money, were simply never pursued. Part of the problem appears to be the close relationship between the regulators and the regulated. EPA seems to have become a training academy for high-paying jobs in the private sector. The Center has found an endless procession of hazardous waste policy decision-makers who have gone through the "revolving door" from government to industry. Of the top EPA officials who have worked with toxic waste clean-ups and left government since 1980, the Center found that 80 percent of them have gone to firms holding Superfund clean-up contracts or have consulted with or given legal advice to companies about dealing with Superfund. The Revolving Door Superfund is basically a sum of money, now some $15 billion, set aside to finance the cleanup of abandoned or inactive polluted properties. The money comes from taxes on polluting industries, from legal action against polluters at specific sites and from congressional appropriations — that is, the taxpayer. The EPA routinely contracts out Superfund clean-up projects to private firms. Contract costs have skyrocketed. The agency paid Superfund contractors $200 million in 1982; by 1989 those payments had soared to somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion. Environmental consulting firms, eyeing the billions of dollars available in Superfund, regularly hire EPA and Superfund officials, who then help win contracts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Neglected Question of Congressional Oversight of Epa: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes (Who Shall Watch the Watchers Themselves)?
    THE NEGLECTED QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF EPA: QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES (WHO SHALL WATCH THE WATCHERS THEMSELVES)? RICHARD J. LAZARUS* I INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the federal environmental protection laws within its charge have received much attention in the literature during the past twenty years. Commentators have frequently considered the relationship of EPA to the courts, including the advantages and disadvantages of both more and less exacting judicial review of agency decisions.' Scholars have likewise periodically examined the peculiar way in which Congress has drafted the federal environmental protection laws to ensure their achievement of policy goals. 2 These laws have Copyright © 1991 by Law and Contemporary Problems * Associate Professor of Law, Washington University, St. Louis. In my plenary review of EPA's first twenty years, reproduced later in this volume, I describe more fully the collision of institutional forces (including those unleashed by Congress) that have surrounded EPA, why they developed, and how they have affected both EPA and the evolution of federal environmental law. See RichardJ. Lazarus, The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal EnvironmentalLaw, 54 L & Contemp Probs 311 (Autumn 1991). This article explores in greater depth the causes and effects of congressional oversight of EPA, a specific topic for discussion at the Symposium on EPA sponsored by the Duke University and Washington University Schools of Law in November 1990. The article benefitted greatly from the comments I received at the symposium, especially those offered by Joel Aberbach, Don Elliott, Anne Shields, and Steve Shimberg. Kathleen Lindenberger and Cathy Varley provided valuable research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of the Records That Petitioners Seek Is Attached to the Petition, Filed Concurrently Herewith
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Professor Stanley Kutler, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists petition this Court for an order directing the release of President Richard M. Nixon’s thirty-five-year- old grand jury testimony and associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.1 On June 23-24, 1975, President Nixon testified before two members of a federal grand jury who had traveled from Washington, DC, to San Clemente, California. The testimony was then presented in Washington, DC, to the full grand jury that had been convened to investigate political espionage, illegal campaign contributions, and other wrongdoing falling under the umbrella term Watergate. Watergate was the defining event of Richard Nixon’s presidency. In the early 1970s, as the Vietnam War raged and the civil rights movement in the United States continued its momentum, the Watergate scandal ignited a crisis of confidence in government leadership and a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of executive power and the mettle of the democratic process. “Watergate” was 1A list of the records that petitioners seek is attached to the Petition, filed concurrently herewith.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruckelshaus Weighs in on EPA-Bashing
    Ruckelshaus weighs in on EPA-bashing Original Reporting | By James Lardner | Environment, Regulation March 9, 2011 — In 1983, Ronald Reagan needed a symbol of integrity to run the Environmental Pro- tection Administration and put the lid on a scandal involving its Superfund cleanup program. He turned to William Ruckelshaus, who had won the environ- mental movement’s respect as the agency’s first leader from 1970 to 1972, and then, in the “Satur- day night massacre” of October 1973, had resigned as Deputy Attorney General rather than carry out President Richard Nixon’s order to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had taken the Wa- tergate cover-up more seriously than he was sup- posed to. Last week, Remapping Debate sought out the 78-year-old Ruckelshaus — who has also worked as an executive or director at various corporations, including Weyerhauser and Browning Ferris Industries — for some historical perspective on environmental policy and the way the EPA and other rule-making agencies are treated by elected officials nowadays. A lifelong Republican, Ruckelshaus endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008, citing Obama’s campaign commitment to action on climate change as one big reason. Once upon a time the GOP supported environmental protections… Ruckelshaus’s memories of Washington stretch back four decades to a time when, as he recalled, “the Clean Air Act passed the House by 374 to 1; it passed the Senate by 73 to nothing. These were not partisan issues,” he said. “They have become much more partisan since.” He was quick to add that some of Congress’s habits, such as not giving an agency remotely enough funding to accomplish its statutory goals, are longstanding.
    [Show full text]
  • JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the Last
    STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DEAN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS: “LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION AND OTHER CRIMES.” JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the last time I appeared before your committee was July 11, 1974, during the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon. Clearly, I am not here as a fact witness. Rather I accepted the invitation to appear today because I hope I can give a bit of historical context to the Mueller Report. In many ways the Mueller Report is to President Trump what the so-called Watergate “Road Map” (officially titled “Grand Jury Report and Recommendation Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives”) was to President Richard Nixon. Stated a bit differently, Special Counsel Mueller has provided this committee a road map. The Mueller Report, like the Watergate Road Map, conveys findings, with supporting evidence, of potential criminal activity based on the work of federal prosecutors, FBI investigators, and witness testimony before a federal grand jury. The Mueller Report explains – in Vol. II, p. 1 – that one of the reasons the Special Counsel did not make charging decisions relating to obstruction of justice was because he did not want to “potentially preempt [the] constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” The report then cites at footnote 2: “See U.S. CONST. ART. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).” Today, you are focusing on Volume II of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 79 Issue 6 Article 2 November 2011 Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? Robert V. Percival Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert V. Percival, Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? , 79 Fordham L. Rev. 2487 (2011). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol79/iss6/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHO’S IN CHARGE? DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE DIRECTIVE AUTHORITY OVER AGENCY REGULATORY DECISIONS? Robert V. Percival* Most regulatory statutes specify that agency heads rather than the President shall make regulatory decisions .1 Yet for more than four decades every President has established some program to require pre-decisional review and clearance of agency regulatory decisions, usually conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).2 On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama joined his seven predecessors in expressly endorsing regulatory review when he signed Executive Order 13,563.3 President Obama’s regulatory review program generally emulates those of his two most recent predecessors, relying on OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review only the most significant agency rulemaking actions.4 Although this form of presidential oversight of rulemaking is now well established, an important, unresolved question is whether the President has the authority to dictate the substance of regulatory decisions entrusted by statute to agency heads.
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing the Administrative State: Chevron Debates and the Transformation of Constitutional Politics
    DECONSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: CHEVRON DEBATES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS CRAIG GREEN* ABSTRACT This Article contrasts Reagan-era conservative support for Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC with conservative opposition to Chevron deference today. That dramatic shift offers important context for understanding how future attacks on the administrative state will develop. Newly collected historical evidence shows a sharp pivot after President Obama’s reelection, and conservative opposition to Chevron deference has become stronger ever since. The sudden emergence of anti-Chevron critiques, along with their continued growth during a Republican presidency, suggests that such arguments will increase in power and popularity for many years to come. Although critiques of Chevron invoke timeless rhetoric about constitutional structure, those critiques began at a very specific moment, and that historical coincidence fuels existing skepticism about such arguments’ substantive merit. This Article analyzes institutional questions surrounding Chevron with deliberate separation from modern politics. Regardless of one’s substantive opinions about President Trump, federal regulation, or administrative deference, this Article identifies extraordinary costs to the legal system of overruling Chevron through mechanisms of constitutional law. * Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Ph.D., Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School. Many thanks for comments from participants at the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference and the Philadelphia Law Department’s Annual Conference. Thanks also for individual suggestions from Kent Barnett, Jane Baron, Pamela Bookman, Heather Elliott, Kellen Funk, Tara Leigh Grove, Joseph Hall, Jonathan Lipson, Jane Manners, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Andrea Monroe, Lauren Ouziel, Rachel Rebouché, Dan Rodgers, and Neil Siegel.
    [Show full text]
  • Stage 3: Congressional Hearings in March 1973, Judge Sirica Sentenced Liddy, Hunt, and Four of the Burglars to 20, 35, and 40 Years in Prison, Respectively
    Student Handout 23A Stage 3: Congressional Hearings In March 1973, Judge Sirica sentenced Liddy, Hunt, and four of the burglars to 20, 35, and 40 years in prison, respectively. McCord admitted just before the sentencing that there was more information to be shared. Thus Sirica delayed sentencing him. Soon thereafter, L. Patrick Gray, the acting director of the FBI, admitted to having destroyed Watergate evidence. He then resigned. In May, North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Activities, con- vened televised hearings on Watergate. Many Americans watched the hearings with great fascination. In June, John Dean, whom Nixon had fired as White House counsel in April, testified before the Senate Select Committee. He revealed that the former attorney general, John Mitchell—who had become Nixon’s 1972 pres- idential campaign manager—had ordered the Watergate break-in. Dean explained that the White House was covering up its involvement. He also testified that the president had authorized payments of hush money to the burglars to keep them quiet. Nixon’s aides vehemently denied this charge. On July 16, White House aide Alexander Butterfield testified. He revealed startling information—that Nixon had had a taping system installed in the White House to automatically record all conversations there. Only a hand- included 350,000 angry telegrams sent to Congress and ful of people had known about the system. Now, the the White House. The president responded by appointing hearing’s key questions—what did the president know, another special Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and and when did he know it—could be answered by listening then turning over the subpoenaed tapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 106Th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2000 No. 137 House of Representatives The House met at 9 a.m. ceedings and announces to the House H.R. 2780. An act to authorize the Attorney The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. his approval thereof. General to provide grants for organizations Coughlin, offered the following prayer: Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- to find missing adults. God of all grace, be with us now and nal stands approved. H.R. 4404. An act to permit the payment of until the end. f medical expenses incurred by the United You know each of the Members of States Park Police in the performance of this House. You have given each dif- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE duty to be made directly by the National ferent gifts; that together they may The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman Park Service, to allow for waiver and indem- achieve Your purpose and bring about from Wisconsin (Mr. SENSENBRENNER) nification in mutual law enforcement agree- liberty and justice for all. come forward and lead the House in the ments between the National Park Service You have called them forth from dif- Pledge of Allegiance. and a State or political subdivision when re- ferent places and assembled them in Mr. SENSENBRENNER led the quired by State law, and for other purposes. this Chamber to serve this great Na- Pledge of Allegiance as follows: H.R. 4957. An act to amend the Omnibus tion and shape its future.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiating the Cleanup of Toxic Groundwater Contamination: Strategy and Legitimacy
    Volume 28 Issue 1 Environmental Dispute Resolutions Winter 1988 Negotiating the Cleanup of Toxic Groundwater Contamination: Strategy and Legitimacy Lloyd Burton Recommended Citation Lloyd Burton, Negotiating the Cleanup of Toxic Groundwater Contamination: Strategy and Legitimacy, 28 Nat. Resources J. 105 (1988). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol28/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. LLOYD BURTON* Negotiating the Cleanup of Toxic Groundwater Contamination: Strategy and Legitimacy INTRODUCTION Toxic pollution of the nation's drinking water supplies has now become a familiar public policy issue. Ongoing studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various state governments are finding that the extent and severity of groundwater contamination is much greater than had been formerly assumed, both from "non-point sources" such as agricultural run-off and identifiable "point sources" such as manufac- turing sites and underground storage tanks. Several federal statutes have been brought into play in an effort to control the problem, with mixed results. Different statutes delegate imple- mentation authority to different local, state, and federal agencies, creating substantial jurisdictional overlap in some areas, disturbing gaps in others, and a considerable amount of confusion overall. Federal statutes include the Clean Water Act,' Safe Drinking Water Act,2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,3 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com- pensation, and Liability Act (the "Superfund" legislation).
    [Show full text]
  • High Country News Vol. 16.3, Feb. 20, 1984
    \I The EPA's SU/lerlund wbistleblower How Hugh Kaufmanmoves theball . ....--~-"~--- , ____ -/)by Ed Marston Reagan lied about hazardous ~waste~ telling the public a great deal about- How much yardage? "We may be -,p~li.fY:.in.his- most rece'm State of the what he knows of how .the system on our own twenty. But twelve years . Back 1U 1981, the __Reag an Union address; he talks about operates, and with displaying pride in . ago, we weren't even in the stadium. Admiaistrarten asSigned investigators "criminal activity" in the EPA under his accomplishments. We weren't even suited up," ~-to- 'shadow Hugh Kaufman, an Anne Gorsuch Burford;. he gleefully "They could put me in a box with a Kaufman was among the first to engineer in the Hazardous Waste recounts, how hl~ex.-~oss, Rita telephone and zero responsibility, and suit up, joining the new EPA in 1971 section of the EPA. In the course of . Lavelle, ended up with a Jail sentence; l-would still move the ball. They can't after .the Air Force. He enjoyed the that surveillance, the investigators and he spec~lates that the team of stop me because I' have too much Nixon yeats, when the EPA was snapped a picture of Kaufman EPA ass as sins (Burford, James access to themedia and too good a headed fot the first rime by William slipping into a motel room with a Sanderson, James. Wall) from Colo- track record for telling the truth." Ruckleshaus, '. woman. The woman was Kaufman's rado were dispatched by Reagan K f II h' "Nixon, far and away, was the best wife.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the City-County Council and Special Service District Councils of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana Monday, December 9, 2019
    MINUTES OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF INDIANAPOLIS, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019 The City-County Council of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana and the Indianapolis Police Special Service District Council, Indianapolis Fire Special Service District Council and Indianapolis Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Council convened in regular concurrent sessions in the Council Chamber of the City-County Building at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 9, 2019, with Councillor Osili presiding. Councillor Cordi recognized Pastor Tim Lindsey, Lifeline Baptist Church, who led the opening prayer. Councillor Cordi then invited all present to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL The President instructed the Clerk to take the roll call and requested members to register their presence on the voting machine. The roll call was as follows: 23 PRESENT: Adamson, Coats, Cordi, Coulter, Evans, Fanning, Graves, Gray, Harris, Holliday, Jackson, Johnson, Lewis, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Mowery, Oliver, Osili, Ray, Robinson, Shreve, Wesseler 2 ABSENT: Scales, Simpson A quorum of twenty-three members being present, the President called the meeting to order. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS And VISITORS Councillor McQuillen recognized Councillor McHenry’s husband Fred. Councillor Oliver recognized Marion County Clerk Myla Eldridge, Deputy Clerk NaTrina DeBow, and constituent Erin Latchett. Councillor Adamson recognized AFSCME representatives Georgia Cravey and Michael Torres. Councillor McHenry recognized residents of District 6 who showed up this evening to support others being recognized. Councillor Robinson recognized Pike Township elected officials, Senator Greg Taylor and Trustee Annette Johnson. Councillor Harris recognized Mayor of Clermont, Nancy Baxter.
    [Show full text]
  • An Indians – Project on the Judiciary
    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Native American Rights Fund ATTORNEYS John E. Echohawk Richard A. Guest 1514 P Street, NW (Rear), Suite D, Washington, D.C. 20005 Joel W. Williams LITIGATION MANAGEMENT (202) 785-4166 • FAX (202) 822-0068 COMMITTEE www.narf.org BOULDER OFFICE K. Jerome Gottschalk 1506 Broadway St. Natalie A. Landreth Boulder, CO 80302-6296 Melody L. McCoy Nae Ph. (303) 447-8760 ATTORNEYS 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302-6296 • FAX (303) 443-7776 Matthew L. Campbell K. Jerome Gottschalk (303) 447-8760 • FAX (303) 443-7776 ANCHORAGE OFFICE th David L. Gover 745 W. 4 Avenue, Ste. 502 Melody L. McCoy Anchorage, AK 99501-1736 Steven C. Moore Susan Y. Noe Ph. (907) 276-0680 Brett Lee Shelton March 16, 2017 FAX (907) 276-2466 Donald R. Wharton Heather D. Whiteman Runs Him ATTORNEYS Heather R. Kendall-Miller CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Natalie A. Landreth Michael Kennedy Erin C. Dougherty Matthew L. Newman DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPEMENT MEMORANDUM Don Ragona CORPORATE SECRETARY Ray Ramirez TO: Tribal Leaders and Tribal Attorneys National Congress of American Indians – Project on the Judiciary FROM: Richard Guest, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund RE: The Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States – An Indian Law Perspective On Monday, March 20, 2017, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary will begin confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Gorsuch on January 31, 2017, as his pick to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
    [Show full text]