Natural Resource
takes harsh stand on audit
PETE
IACOBELLI Associated
Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Natural Resources Department
director John Frampton strongly disagreed with a Legislative Audit
Council report released Thursday that questioned the agency's scope
of authority and some of its law enforcement practices.
"DNR disagrees with the conclusions and accuracy of this audit,"
Frampton wrote audit council director George Schroeder in a letter
dated July 19. "For the time and effort expended by both the LAC and
DNR on this audit, the taxpayers were ill-served."
The audit, titled "A Review of Regulatory Issues at the
Department of Natural Resources," found that, among other things,
DNR:
_ issued more emergency regulations from 1998 to 2002 than other
state agencies, which the report said can limit legislative and
public oversight;
_ wrote tickets citing statutes that have been repealed or
redesignated;
_ misstated its statutory authority or did not have authority in
regard to complying with the Administrative Procedures Act.
"In my opinion, the whole thing was garbage," Frampton told The
Associated Press by phone Thursday. He said all audit council
concerns were looked at and corrected before the audit process began
in December 2002.
Frampton's agency crafted an eight-page response - in some cases
going point-by-point with the audit - that was included in the
council's filing.
Schroeder says it's out of the ordinary, though not
unprecedented, to get such a harsh rebuke from an audited
agency.
"It's kind of disturbing," Schroeder said.
Gov. Mark Sanford's spokesman Will Folks said the governor will
review the report over the next several days. A message left with
the office of Sen. Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney, who requested the
audit, was not immediately returned.
Other things found by the LAC were that in 30 percent (24 of 81)
of tickets sampled, DNR fined people when it didn't have the
authority; issued tickets for violations of state-managed lakes
program at Lake Monticello in Fairfield County when that lake is not
part of the program; and that the agency doesn't effectively
communicate rules changes to the public or its law enforcement
officers.
"It was a waste of our time and their time," Frampton said.
"There was nothing constructive that came from it."
Schroeder says the report cost $137,418.
The harshest charge in the audit seems to be that Natural
Resources officers wrote 186 tickets citing incorrect statutes,
including 172 between January 2002 and October 2003 for a boating
registration rule that had been redesignated in 1999.
Under the old statute, the audit said, counties got 25 percent of
fines. The new statute sent all moneys to Natural Resources. Because
$16,000 in fines came from violating the new statute, "DNR may have
lost over $4,000 during 2002 and 2003 because officers cited the
wrong code," the report said.
Frampton said that's akin to writing the wrong year on a check.
"That's not much of a mistake," he said.
Schroeder said the government has an obligation to cite the
correct law when charging people. He said these kinds of errors crop
up at all law enforcement agencies, but most of the time, the
agencies work to fix them. "Instead, we get this kind of response,"
he said of the Natural Resources Department.
Another audit point was about errors found in some hunting,
fishing and wildlife management brochures. Those came, the report
said, from printing the brochures before the Legislature adjourned
and missing late legislation that might affect the agency.
Natural Resources is now delaying publishing the brochures until
July after lawmakers leave the Statehouse.
"They talk about our mistakes," Frampton said. "We found 23
mistakes in their writing. Come on, let's get serious."
Frampton said he found no reason to take any of the audit's
recommendations to heart. He wrote his own letter to Sanford on
Thursday in defense of his agency. Folks said the governor had been
contacted by Frampton.
Schroeder says the audit council will do a follow up report in 18
months, as is procedure.
"Given their attitude," Schroeder said, "I think we know how
they're going to
respond." |