|
Fact Sheet Position Description: Resume: Currently, Manson serves, as judge for the Sacramento County Supreme Court, prior to that he was a Sacramento County Municipal Judge, appointed by former Governor Pete Wilson. In 1993 he was appointed as Chief Counsel for the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). He served in this position until 1998. Before his appointment at DFG, Manson was an associate at Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer where he practiced administrative and employment law, with some work on clean water and recycling issues. Record on Protecting Endangered Species Act - DEFENDED CONTROVERSIAL WAIVER OF CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DURING NATURAL DISASTERS In 1995, Governor Wilson issued a waiver of the state Endangered Species Act. This emergency waiver suspended species act provisions during natural disasters for five years. Critics, including agency biologists and 13 environmental groups including the Planning and Conservation League and the Sierra Club, said the waiver abandoned DFG responsibility for enforcing the Endangered Species Act and permitted state officials to nullify Endangered Species Act protections simply by declaring an emergency. While Manson defended the waiver, others in DFG disagreed. Hal Thomas, former Deputy Chief Counsel for DFG, stated "issuing that (endangered species) waiver was one of the most egregious acts I witnessed…It ran counter to our legal and moral duty to uphold the public trust". In April of 1997 the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled that the Wilson Administration, through the Department of Fish and Game, was wrong in March 1995 when it issued a permit suspending the state Endangered Species Act during natural disasters for the next five years. The judges also called into question whether the state Endangered Species Act gave Fish and Game the right to issue permits that allow developers, local governments and property owners to inadvertently kill endangered plants and animals during construction. Since 1989, the department has issued 180 such permits to developers, local governments and property owners, allowing them to "inadvertently kill" endangered plants and animals during construction. SUPPORTED EFFORTS TO WEAKEN THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Following the Court of Appeals ruling, conservative state legislators tried to revise the CA Endangered Species Act. Manson helped craft bills that relaxed wildlife protection regulations, especially provisions of the 1970 California Endangered Species Act. Two bills became law: one bill, SB 231, allows farmers in a voluntary land-use program to kill endangered species without penalty, meaning that in return for participating in locally developed programs to encourage habitat growth farmers would be given immunity from prosecution for accidentally killing animals listed as endangered under law; another bill, SB 879, forbids agency biologists to cross private lands to study wildlife without landowner permission (SB 879). In regards to one of these bills, SB 879, Manson stated "the passage and signing of this bill is extremely important in making sure planned development can go forward". These bills were bitterly opposed by environmental groups throughout the state including; the Natural Resources Defense Council and the California Native Plant Society and by leading policy makers including former State Senator Tom Hayden who chaired the Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee. MANSON TURNS BLIND EYE TO LOGGING OF OLD GROWTH REDWOOD STAND In 1993 Pacific Lumber Company entered and repeatedly conducted unauthorized logging operations in Owl Creek, a 465 acre virgin redwood grove which is one of three nesting colonies in California for the marbled murrelet an endangered sea bird. Fish and Game biologists had concluded that the logging of Owl Creek would harm the murrelet and insisted Pacific Lumber obtain "take" permits for the bird. So Pacific Lumber appealed to the biologists' politically appointed bosses, namely California Department of Forestry director Richard Wilson. The forestry department had disagreed with the Fish and Game proposal to amend the company's logging plan to include a pledge not to harvest in the future until a murrelet protection plan was in place. Fish and Game attorneys, joined by federal wildlife officials, continued to remind the company that permits were still required before logging could begin. Nevertheless, Pacific Lumber started cutting three days after the amendment was signed by the forestry department. Unfortunately, DFG did not hold Pacific lumber accountable for illegally logging Owl Creek. In response to the logging Manson said "It was regrettable and not helpful….We remain hopeful and optimistic about being able to resolve the particular concerns that Pacific Lumber has." Record on Law Enforcement MANSON LINKED TO RETALIATION AGAINST DFG WHISTLEBLOWER Manson record on law enforcement is poor both on protection of fish and wildlife, but also agency employees. A case frequently cited by critics of Manson is that of a whistleblower from DFG named Jerry Mensch. The DFG was considering a permit for a Caltrans (state transportation department) project involving construction of a pier with creosote-coated pilings on a delta island. Mensch, a supervising biologist in the DFG Regional Office responsible for the Sacramento River Delta, received a direct order from the DFG Deputy Regional Director, Jim Messersmith, to approve the permit. Despite Mensch's protest that the permit violated specific prohibitions against putting creosote or other coal tar products into state waters - prohibitions contained in both the state Health & Safety and Fish & Game Codes -Messersmith insisted, intimating that the order emanated from above his level (on the second tier of hierarchy under the DFG Director). Mensch signed the illegal permit, but then filed a criminal complaint with the Solano County District Attorney who, in turn, filed criminal charges against Messersmith. Messersmith pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors and promptly retired. Mensch was removed from his position and transferred to a newly-created position that had no discernible duties. Mensch brought whistleblower complaints against DFG and top agency officials, including Manson. However, Manson was dismissed from the case because he refused to answer questions put to him by Mensch's attorney, repeatedly invoking the attorney-client privilege. The State of California settled the case for an undisclosed sum and Mensch still works at DFG. MANSON DEFENDED DFG IN FAILURE TO COLLECT FEES TO SUPPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS In 1996, DFG was sued by the California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS) for failing to collect fees from developers required by Fish and Game regulations. The collection of environmental fees was authorized in a 1991 regulation adopted by Fish and Game. It was meant to help the financially beleaguered department finance environmental reviews required by the state. In response to the lawsuit, a judge ordered DFG to attempt to collect the more than $2 million in environmental fees that were not paid by developers. Manson said that the agency would begin collecting current fees but refused to collect them retroactively until a state Court of Appeals heard the issue. Manson stated that collecting fees retroactively "would be a bureaucratic nightmare..and we just don't have the staff for it". The California Supreme court refused to hear the appeal but DFG was forced to pay CAPS legal fees of $43k. MANSON ATTEMPTS TO EXEMPT COLLEAGUE FROM WILDLIFE FEE In 1994, Manson wrote a letter to Mendocino County on behalf of the Department of Fish and Game asking the county to exempt a top state official from paying a special wildlife fee on a property that he owns in Covelo. Manson submitted the letter on behalf of property owner Richard Wilson, who was the director of the state's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Manson wrote in his letter that a proposed split of Wilson's property would have minimal effect on local wildlife so "there would not be a reason to impose a fee". However, Mendocino County officials disagreed "We disagree with Wilson's opinion that future development (on the property) is speculative", said Frank Zotter, deputy counsel for Mendocino County. "People split lots so they can develop them. Fish and Game has always taken the position that lot splits have direct or cumulative effects on wildlife - that's why the fees are paid." The wildlife fee is intended to reimburse the state for studying the impact that future development of a property will have on wildlife. However, the press got wind of the letter and it was soon withdrawn by the Deputy Director for Fish and Game, according to a 1994 San Francisco Chronicle article. Mendocino County officials had questioned the propriety of the letter as well. Contact: Kristen Sykes, Friends of the Earth, 202/783-7400x100 |
