A very important read…
Here is the summary of the
fourth release from the General Services Administration related to STORIS. This
is a key release as it involves preservation issues including correspondence
with GSA’s federal preservation officer and the preservation officer from California. We see more apathy, arrogance and incompetence
across the board. A key issue is the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alaska
State Historic Preservation Office and the US Coast Guard. That MOA, created
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, mandated
that a history of the ship be created by the Coast Guard, written and
photographic, including a Historic American Engineering Record. That was done.
The MOA also stipulated that the Coast Guard had to preserve key artifacts such
as the ship’s bell, builder’s plate, Northwest Passage
plaque, etc. Those items were removed from the ship for safekeeping before she
went into the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet but stayed in storage at ISC Alameda for
years. We finally got the CG to take formal custody of those items in recent
weeks.
Once the terms of the MOA
were agreed upon, the CG was free to decommission the ship, recognizing the
vessel could ultimately end up destroyed. Unfortunately, that’s what happened,
and that does occur occasionally with properties under Section 106 of the NHPA.
But such an MOA, while it does allow such destruction to occur, does not
require that it occur. The spirit of federal preservation law is pretty clear
that the government is supposed to try, wherever possible, to preserve historic
federal properties unless there are absolutely no other alternatives. STORIS
had two nonprofits willing to take the ship for preservation and
interpretation. GSA officials, with their bureaucratic laziness, took the
shortcut to allow the ship’s destruction once they found the MOA. Then all the
promises made by GSA to the STORIS Museum, the promises to help us preserve the ship, were completely disregarded.
Two things that are
extremely important that you won’t see anywhere in this document are:
1. Any acknowledgement of 40
USC 548, which dictates that ships that displace greater than 1,500 tons are to
be disposed of through MARAD, not GSA. STORIS displaced 1,710 tons. It was
illegal for GSA to be handling STORIS.
2. Any acknowledgement of
Section 3502 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009.
This dictates that former U.S. Government vessels are to be dismantled in
domestic ship recycling facilities. GSA knew STORIS was purchased to be scrap
immediately, and acknowledge this in correspondence dated around the time of
the sale. Yet they did not list domestic scrapping requirements in the auction
prospectus nor do GSA officials step up to question the export to Mexico.
Enclosure 1 is the letter
from GSA to Danielle Ivory of the NY Times since she is now in charge of the
FOIA with its transfer to Press FOIA status. I get courtesy copied.
Enclosure 2 is the
Environmental Assessment for ACUSHNET and STORIS that we’ve had since day one.
This documentation is available online already, but GSA had someone go through
and completely review the document to redact information such as signatures.
This report has been available online for years through the USCG Web site and
yet GSA wasted the money to have someone sit and read through it to remove
information. What a colossal waste. But apparently they have to justify the
existence for someone’s federal paycheck. There is no doubt that GSA would have
charged me for this.
Remember, this is the FOIA
that GSA wanted to charge me $10,266 to receive. So far, with what has been
presented, I’ve gotten more information from local FOIAs that cost about $20.
Enclosure 3 is the extension for the MOA with AK SHPO from May 2013. The MOA
was just extended again earlier this year for the popular report section once I
filed a formal request to have the bell and other artifacts moved from Alameda to Maryland.
Using the MOA to justify
getting rid of STORIS is questionable, as by the time the ship was disposed of,
that agreement was over 6-1/2 years old and the circumstances under which it
had been created had changed, including STORIS being officially listed on the
National Register. It is my belief and that of other preservation
professionals, that the MOA should have been re-examined and reconsidered
considering these changes.
Enclosure 4 is the “redacted
releasable enclosure,” or over 300 pages of GSA communications that are
indicative of their bureaucratic ignorance, arrogance and incompetence. There
are some interesting finds among this dreck, including a specific directive to
withhold information from me as well as a snide insult about my efforts to find
information related to STORIS and the buyer. Not smart for a public official to
do that in what is now a public record. That information will be sent elsewhere
for the enlightenment of other federal officials who are trying to reform the
Freedom of Information Act.
Key GSA people in this
correspondence are Heather Bischoff, sales manager of GSA and Tonya Dillard,
GSA sales rep directly handling STORIS. These two women and their close
associates at GSA bear the lion’s share of direct responsibility for the series
of events that led to the destruction of STORIS. From the Coast Guard, is Jeff
Beach manager from the office of retired boats/cutters. I believe he is a
retired CG CDR.
P1 – States deadline to move STORIS is Wednesday at noon (following the auction). We know that MARAD claims
that its people couldn’t move the ship by that point, but there was a GSA
deadline, nevertheless.
P2- GSA says bidder must complete Certificate of
Financial Responsibility (insurance in case of oil spill), GSA has right to
grant extension on removal (hence why the buyer apparently was given all summer
to let the ship stay at the SBRF while he attempted to extort the STORIS Museum).
P5- Confusion as to who owns the ship and how the
transfer process went. Answered on p 13.
P7- GSA claims that it never took possession of
STORIS. Instead, possession was maintained by the Coast Guard. Possibly true,
but shouldn't GSA know that US government vessels can't be scrapped abroad
because of Section 3502 of the Duncan Hunter NDAA?
P21-22- Stated that GSA “inherited” a file with MOU
between AK SHPO and USCG for STORIS and ACUSHNET. STORIS not declared excess
until May 3, 2013.
Throughout: GSA's mission is to deliver the best
value in real estate, acquisition, and technology services to government and
the American people. What a joke. They gave away a national
treasure for practically nothing. If we would have known that $70K could have
bought her, we would have been able to do that. The auction was a farce and
caught us off guard. The ship’s destruction certainly did nothing in the way of
“best interests” for the American people, especially after the Coast Guard
spent over $300K to keep the ship in storage so that she could become a museum.
P 35- Discussion that
ship’s history is primarily in Alaska. This is incorrect. STORIS
was listed on the National Register as NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT, and not limited
to just Alaskan history. She had significance for the Greenland Patrol during
WWII and for the Northwest Passage transit. Both were bigger than just her Alaska career. The preservation
officers for GSA should have recognized this and advocated for her preservation
but did not. Instead, they fell back on the MOA. Easy out.
I spoke with GSA’s Jane
Lehman, by phone (referred to on P 42). She is the preservation officer for California, the one who told me that she
had no knowledge of STORIS and wondered why Atlanta was handling the sale for
GSA. I actually talked to her when she was on vacation, on the beach apparently
in Florida.
P22- CG turns over STORIS
to GSA for auction on 5/3/2013. This is four years AFTER the
Duncan Hunter NDAA was signed into law.
P 37- Beth Savage is the
federal preservation officer for all of GSA. I also spoke with her and she said
there was nothing she could do once the Atlanta sales people got ahold of
the ship.
P51- Here is a reference to
me “pestering” GSA about STORIS. This is an obnoxious thing for a bureaucrat to
state in a written record. I was polite and official in requesting the name of
the buyer so that we could try to negotiate to save the ship once she was sold
by GSA.
There
is also direct communication between GSA officials stating that no one should
give me the name of the buyer. They explicitly discussed withholding information
from me, while also recommending the Coast Guard keep quiet, as well. The
information would be released at “the appropriate time.” When exactly was that
appropriate time?
I
was to be forced to FOIA for the buyer’s name – which I did – and it took a
month to get one sheet of paper. By that time, we had already had the bulk of
discussion with the buyer already. GSA claims that it’s FOIA system is
“streamlined.” They claim that “it is not a lengthy process.” What a joke. Here
we are in June of 2015 and we still haven’t received information from this FOIA
filed Nov. 4, 2013, almost TWO YEARS ago.
P55-
More reference to me and they did not redact my phone number. Double standard
again. I had to send a message to GSA explaining that if they wanted the
information distributed as required by FOIA, that they had to be even. They
were more than liberal in redacting their own information, but couldn’t be
bothered to redact mine, which would require me to do so myself and further
delay the release of the information.
P61-
Discussion about who at GSA handles “large ship disposals” and Congressional
involvement with seeing the ship turned into a museum. GSA should not be
handling “large ships” above 1,500 tons per 40 USC 548.
P63-
Again discussion about Jim Loback not qualifying as a museum. Jim explained to
GSA on several occasions that he/we could not become a full-time museum
operation without possession of the ship. The ship was to be the facility. How
can we be a museum without the ship? GSA officials knew that and said they’d
work with us. Then they went back on their word once they found the MOA. More
discussion about the MOA and preservation requirements being fulfilled.
P68
– STORIS problem has been raised to GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini's office.
Again, no reference to scrapping prohibition language.
P74-5-
discussion about muddled dates to visit the ship with the auction ending before
the last visitation dates.
P76-79-
Appeal from the STORIS Museum Facebook page (written by
me) imploring others to not bid, to give us a shot at getting her as we
scrambled to put money together. GSA was getting concerned that people wouldn’t
bid and they’d get stuck with the ship.
P80-81
Seattle Times story about the auction
P84-88
– More from the STORIS Museum FB page
P89-
bid deposits and comment on 90 “Man, I hope we don’t have to return it to the
CG,” from Bischoff. Discussion between Bischoff and Dillard about keeping the
faith to get rid of the ship. History is not a concern; getting rid of the ship
no matter what is the focus of GSA.
P90-91
Relief from GSA that they were getting a bid deposit for the ship.
P93-
Discussion of MOA extension with AKSHPO.
P99-
Reference to Beth Savage not talking to me yet.
P102-
Notice of upcoming sale of CG vessel
P105-108
Reference to me leaving message of serious concerns with Beth Savage. This was
in regard to the ship’s National Register status and the way GSA was rushing to
dispose of the ship.
P109-
reference to the popular report (that CG still hasn’t completed as of this
writing…)
P134-
Continued discussion about the MOA and popular report comments from AKSHPO being
fried in the mail by the anti-pathogen irradiation screening process used by
the federal government to kill anthrax, etc. that might be in the mail.
Admission that the MOA creates a situation where the ship can be disposed of
without problems as there are no covenant restrictions on the end user, as “bad
news for Jim Loback.” This is just an out for GSA to be lazy and dispose of the
ship ASAP rather than do the right thing and act to preserve the ship as
federal preservation law encourages.
Repeated several times in
subsequent stream of communication…
P157-
discussion about STORIS being dropped from the system. Goes back to their “plug
and play, one-size-fits-all” computer system that has already brought up as an
issue, that GSA’s officials can’t recognize on their own that their involvement
with a ship beyond 1,500 tons was illegal, and that they had to rely on a
computer drop-down menu to determine how/where STORIS was to fit within their
auction system. There was obviously no computer warning, either, when the
tonnage was entered.
P161
- GSA employees reference an instant message chat re: STORIS. In the volumes of
repetitive GSA communication involving STORIS, I’m not sure we have seen this
IM stream. We had better receive it among the remaining STORIS correspondence
as IMs are covered by FOIA. It will be on the shopping list for future FOIA
issues/appeals.
P163-
Jeff Beach stating he figures the ship won’t be taken by fed/state agencies and
he wants the ship gone by September to avoid a $50,000+ storage fee. That means
that the CG spent over $300,000 to keep STORIS in museum hold from 2007-2013
and GSA sold her for $70k to become scrap. This is particularly disgusting
considering that Jeff Beach of Coast Guard puts a value on the ship of over
$2.5 million. So much for GSA’s slogan of “best value for the American
taxpayer.” The economic and cultural benefits of STORIS as a museum in Toledo would have eclipsed that
$70K at which the government essentially gave her away.
Repeated
several times in subsequent stream of communication…
Again,
even if the GSA couldn’t give STORIS to us, we could have and would have put
the funds together to buy her at $70K or even the $100K reserve price. We could
have done that. Not the $350K that the eventual buyer, Mark Jurisich of US
Metals Recovery was trying to extort, though. Potential donors were not going
to pay into the extortion with their money going into the buyer’s pocket rather
than the ship.
P170-200
Memo from Bischoff to Jeff Beach about the MOA with National Environmental Policy
Act requirements. She wants to know about USCG compliance with the MOA.
Discussion about reduction in surplus release date.
P176-
Revelation that full compliance with MOA requirements are not necessary for
disposal. (USCG is still working on meeting the requirements and it’s over two
years that these messages were sent.) The requirements that still need to be
met are production and distribution of the popular report section on the
history of the ship. Again, the Alaska SHPO provided corrections and requests
for information, but their information had been sent via postal mail and the
irradiation process damaged the materials.
P200-
Detailed discussion about meeting the stipulations of the MOA with AK SHPO. It
is acknowledged that the MOA is seven years old at that point. (Actually 6-1/2,
but still, that’s a long time and circumstances had changed significantly with
the ship’s listing on the NR.) And the CG continues to stretch things out to
this day, over 7-1/2 years since the original MOA was signed.
P229-
More discussion about the MOA, CG meeting its requirements and extension for
the CG to meet the popular report requirements as what CG submitted did not
meet the AK SHPO standards.
P287-
Continued repetitive discussion regarding the MOA with AK SHPO and USCG.
Attempts to reach Judith Bittner of AK SHPO unsuccessful as she was out of the
office.
P288-
GSAXcess - Want List on 05/07/2013 listing
P289-
Vessel stats, claiming no PCBs and a repairable vessel. No mention of domestic
scrapping restrictions through Federal Law (Section 3502 of the Duncan Hunter
NDAA of 2009).
P291-
Copy of the EA for STORIS and ACUSHNET sent to GSA. Notification from CG to GSA
that STORIS is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. “You should
inform GSA that CGC STORIS is included in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). We can provide GSA a copy of the NRHP registration form if they
want it,” Dr Daniel Koski-Karrell of the USCG. Koski-Karrell handled STORIS’ NR
nomination through the CG. The National Register designation obviously meant
nothing to GSA.
P292-
Message from Jeff Beach asking if there is any additional info other than EA
now that STORIS is listed on the NR.
P293-
The ship is specifically referred to as “the historic cutter STORIS.”
P301-
More discussion about the ship’s recent listing on the National Register, the
CG holding her at the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet for use as a museum and her
“rich history in Alaska.” Jo Antonson of AK SHPO
is named as being aware of the ship.
P302-
discussion from 4/22/13 regarding ship’s location
and historic status.
Discussion
on subsequent pages related to the Environmental Assessment, which we know now
to be very suspect as there was an obvious conscious effort to avoid testing
areas of the ship which would have tested positive for regulated levels of
haz-mat such as PCBs.
Continued
discussion about the popular report to meet the MOA requirements from 2006.
P315-
Question/concern from CG about ship dropping off of internal government sales
page and whether it is going up for public sale. Bischoff explains that someone
checked off an incorrect box on a computer input screen. Apparently GSA staff
members can’t think on their own if their actions don’t correspond to a
checklist on a computer screen.
P319-
Discussion between Heather Bischoff and Beth Savage, GSA’s federal preservation
officer. They refer to a phone conversation.
P320-
Discussion regarding the sale of STORIS compared to “FS Ranger” boats. And
matter of whether Federal Acquisition Service signature is needed for transfer
of the ship to GSA. (probably US Forest Service).
So
now we wait on GSA for the next batch of FOIA info.
