Report from Idaho -- Forest Service Ethics

The 2024 election will be about whether we can trust the government. 

That is why I am posting yet again on government ethical rules, norms, and behavior. 

It looks like it might be Biden vs. Trump. 

Voters will think hard about whether Biden is too old, and will question his capabilities. Trump will be judged on his character and ethics.

We have had corrupt public officials in America. But bad behavior, if discovered, was shameful and disqualifying. That norm is no longer in place. Phil Jahn wants it restored. 

Phil Jahn is a classmate from my junior high and high school days. After high school Phil built trails and fought forest fires for the Forest Service to help pay his tuition at Valparaiso University. He received an additional degree in Soil Science at Oregon State University. He was a career Forest Service manager. He is retired now. He serves on advisory boards in his home community of Grangeville, Idaho. 

Guest Post by Phil Jahn

Jennifer Angelo's guest post shared her concerns about Justice Clarence Thomas, from the perspective of an attorney with the U.S. Postal Service. I share her concerns. I was a mid-level manager in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the "Smokey Bear" people.

 

During my 35 years with the Forest Service I helped manage several million acres of our nation’s forest lands in Oregon and Idaho. My decisions affected timber, range management, wildlife, fisheries, archaeology, recreation, and minerals. They affected contractors, permittees, and the public. It was rewarding work.

 

In the Forest Service, ethics training involves all employees. It becomes more intense as one rises into management positions. Trainers and attorneys advised managers through questionable situations.  

 

There are three main areas where Forest Service employees faced potential conflicts and temptations. They are: 1) accepting gifts or favors from a client or someone who could benefit, from our decisions. This would be purchasers, permittees, or contractors. 2) appointments or personnel actions appearing to have elements of nepotism, and 3) purchasing stocks involving companies whose businesses are affected by our decisions, or where we might have "insider information," for example about who would be awarded a timber sale.  

 

I was confronted with situations involving all of these areas. When unsure, or in gray areas, I and fellow employees were instructed to seek legal guidance. As regards gifts, I was advised that it was permitted for me to accept a cup of coffee, but not a main menu item such as a cheeseburger from someone I was doing business with. That was the line. I wrote a few articles that a state fish and game agency published in one of their magazines. They wanted to offer an honorarium of a few hundred dollars each. I was advised not to accept the offer since I was in a position to authorize some of their activities on national forest lands. I was allowed to be reimbursed for my out-of-pocket cost of supplying the photos. That was the line. Can you imagine Justice Thomas or other high-level officials holding themselves to such a standard?  What about Ivanka and Jared Kushner's self-enrichment through supposed dealings with the Chinese and Saudi governments?  And Hunter Biden. Who knows?

 

Administrators often fall victim to the appearance of nepotism, if not nepotism itself. If a supervisor were to hire his/her spouse or child to fill a position in his/her organization, that would be blatant nepotism and illegal. That doesn't happen often. However, there are instances where "you hire mine and I'll hire yours" can occur with a wink and a nod between administrative unit supervisors.This may not be strictly illegal, but it creates suspicion. That is as close as it got in the Forest Service world. I wonder how the former president's hiring of Ivanka and Jared Kushner would rate under nepotism regulations. 

 

I was once advised that I shouldn't invest in Boise Cascade stocks because I was responsible for selling timber to them. My decisions might influence their profit margins. The concern was public perception. Today, once again, I read about legislators on Capitol Hill who adjusted their investments "just in time." This smells like corruption to me.

 

Corruption at the Forest Service might slow or stop projects from getting done, it could approve bad projects, and it could result in below-standard construction projects passing certification. It is dangerous and it risks taxpayer money. Once it starts, corruption spreads and gets worse. If we see it at the top, and see that no one is able or willing to stop it, it changes the culture and filters down to employees at every level. It never starts at the bottom because there are too many safeguards in the management chain that will inform, advise, and admonish -- unless these layers above become corrupt. They set a standard. Like Jennifer Angelo, I don't like what I see. 

 

My message to readers of your blog is that nearly all government employees I have met in my career go to work each day and conduct business ethically, with a sincere desire to serve the public. I would venture that most would be mad, disgusted, or heartbroken by what is happening at the highest level of our government right now.  I know I am.

[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]