Marine "esources" chief abruptly steps down

From another source, I have received a copy of Olsen's statement regarding his resignation. It does not make for pretty reading:

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

I submitted my resignation to Governor LePage, effective at 0915 hours this morning.

As you all know from my confirmation hearing testimony, my interviews with some of you, and from repeated appearances before the Marine Resources Committee, I took this job with several aims, all of which I discussed with the seven-person committee that unanimously recommended me as the sole candidate for Commissioner of Marine Resources, and with the Governor when I met him December 30 and he offered me the job.

Among those aims were to manage Maine's marine resources for sustainability: of our resources, of our fishing industry, of our coastal communities, and for all the people of Maine.

The marine resources of Maine are, we should all recall, the resources of the people of the entire state, not just those who, by having been in the industry at the right time, now have not only the exclusive right to harvest lobster, scallops, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and, in many towns, even clams, but enjoy, on their own and without recourse to other authority, the right to enact, and then alter as they wish, regulations to exclude all others.

The other 1.3 million residents of Maine who have been excluded from these fisheries and from the opportunity to make a living on the ocean should feel no less a sense of ownership of these valuable resources.

In managing for sustainability, I planned, and the Governor concurred, that we would take advantage of the vastly increasing offshore groundfish stocks and return to Maine the fleet of boats that has, for economic and regulatory reasons, migrated to Massachusetts -- taking with them hundreds of shoreside processing jobs.

We would also seek to adapt the laws and regulations by which interest groups exclude from their fisheries all competition and new entrants, enacting instead transparent means for new entrants to join each fishery, while prudently maintaining sustainable resources.

We would manage our resources based on science -- both biology and economics -- not based on how many lobstermen can fill a legislative hearing at the Augusta Civic Center.

The Governor was clear that those were his aims, as well as mine, and he pledged his resolve to pursue that course for the benefit of all the people of Maine. Speaking at the Maine Fishermen's Forum in March, he said "Commissioner Olsen is in charge."

Let me be clear. Had the Governor not been perfectly clear on those points of agreement, I would not have accepted the position. As you all know, I did, after all, grow up in this industry. Like my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather before me, I had my own boat by age 12. I worked my way up to a larger boat and fished 550 traps single-handed by the time I was out of college. I spent the first decade of my professional career deeply involved in fishing and fishery management. I knew the challenges of dealing with entrenched groups, particularly those who have taken public resources for their exclusive use, and who can intimidate lawmakers who question such exclusive privilege.

I was equally clear in my statements at my confirmation hearing before the Joint standing Committee on Marine Resources, which saw fit to unanimously endorse my nomination as Commissioner of Marine Resources. At that time, I also pledged both complete transparency, and my determination to maintain a constant dialogue with industry, a determination that I have fulfilled in working every single day since assuming duty January 26.

At the Maine Fishermen's Forum in March, I addressed completely and transparently every question put before me by an audience of some 400, including many members of the press and the Marine Resources Committee. The Governor told the same gathering, "Commissioner Olsen is in charge."

Regrettably, while I have maintained my commitments, the Governor's office has not maintained its resolve.

Since then, the Governor and his senior team have repeatedly given private audiences to groups and individuals objecting to my open discussion of the issues. While legitimate fishing industry representatives wait months for appointments, a single vocal individual with wild accusations can get through the door within days. A group with a photocopier can generate a hundred letters of complaint.

I learn about such meetings only when these individuals go back to their colleagues, or their fellow lobster zone council members, or, frankly, my own DMR staff, to draw from three known cases, to say that they got to the Governor and he's going to fire the commissioner.

Instead of backing me in our joint aims of managing Maine's marine resources for the benefit of the entire state, the Governor and his senior team cut me off. As a Commissioner of the State of Maine, I had to wait six full weeks, from early May to late June, to get a meeting with the Governor on time-critical issues of resource management worth tens of millions of dollars to the State.

When I did get a meeting, and presented my initiatives to the Governor, he rejected them all:

-- No further collaboration with the City of Portland to develop measures to return our groundfish boats to Maine, despite the work already done to secure the support of visiting Commerce Department officials. Portland was against him, he said, and we will not work with that city. Rather than work with Portland, he said, we'll build a new port somewhere.

-- No further collaboration with the Director of the federal National Marine Fisheries Service to secure emergency federal assistance that could help return the fleet to Maine.

-- No consideration of measures to properly and prudently manage the heavily overcapitalized shrimp fishery so that Maine could gain the most value-added from this resource.

-- No collaboration with the federal government to jointly manage resources in federal waters. Instead, he instructed his deputy legal counsel to find a way for Maine to supersede federal authority outside the three-mile limit.

Yet more disturbing, after that meeting in late June, the Governor sent his chief of staff and his chief of boards and commissions to threaten me with firing if I would not do whatever necessary to stop the complaints reaching him from special interest groups. I was not allowed to know the source of the complaints, or their content, but I was to back off. "If you don't turn this around by the end of summer, Commissioner Olsen, the Governor will have to make a hard decision, and you don't want him to have to do that, Commissioner Olsen."

In addition, the Governor has adopted a policy of prohibiting me from attending meetings that he has with industry members, even those for whom I initiated the meeting request. I learn the outcomes of these meetings -- and his positions on the topics that they raise -- from a staff aide who reports to me whatever she feels like reporting.

Finally, with the initiation July 1 of the still-ongoing top-to-bottom, all-agency review of the Department of Marine Resources by a team of outside experts, and the uncovering of deficiencies there, those industry members, grant recipients and DMR staff members who have collaborated for the past decade to their mutual benefit, and against the best interests of the State, have found common cause in attacking me. That's understandable, I suppose. It must be very uncomfortable when the Commissioner's investigations uncover the fact that your supposedly well-run program essentially doesn't exist.

In the latest development, a senior DMR bureau director has ordered key staff members to no longer provide me with information that I am seeking.

This morning, I asked the Governor for his direct support to take action. He urged me to do so, including via firings, and confirmed that I have led his agenda of responsible fisheries management and government reform, but he declined to go public with that support. Instead, his aide said, after Labor Day they would call unspecified people to get their opinions on me, and those poll results would determine whether I stay on as commissioner. If such support was evident from the telephone poll, then, the governor pledged, he would hold a press conference to voice his unequivocal support for me. If not, I would be relieved. In short, my future, and that of Maine's fishing industry, would depend on a staffer's telephone poll.

In that regard, and with me no longer here to ensure transparency, I urge each of you to insist on the publication of the review study, as required by law, and reject the attempt, already under way, at a cover-up. I am confident that the report will reinforce my own findings that the Department is in need of major overhaul.

I still find it amazing that a tiny faction of industry members seeking to protect their state-granted monopolies over a public resource -- perhaps a hundred and fifty out of some 12,000 marine resource license holders -- and signing pre-printed letters, can trounce a supposedly iron-willed Governor. But, clearly, they have done so.

So, I am leaving, not for health reasons, and not to spend more time with my family, and not to pursue other interests, which are all the commonly used themes for such resignations, but because this administration is more interested in pacifying special interest groups than in responsibly managing Maine's marine resources for the benefit of the entire state. I cannot be part of that. The legacy of my fishermen father, grandfather and great grandfather will not allow it.

I leave with regret for the people of Maine, who have allowed public resources to become the private domain of a select few, and especially for those other Mainers who have been prevented from earning a living.

Finally, I regret leaving that portion of DMR employees who, in the face of their supervisors' and colleagues' intransigence and willful disregard of the State's greater interests, try their hardest to manage our state resources and enforce our laws for the benefit of all Mainers. To them I give my heartfelt thanks and my best hopes for avoiding the retribution that they are even now facing.

The above comments should be put in context of Olsen's public comments about his last boss after he left the State Department.

Olsen's statement seems refreshingly honest about the issues related to Maine's fisheries and his department, as well as about the governor and his staff.

The honeymoon ought to be over.
Gov. LePage should not be immune from criticism.
Imagine, the governor of Maine refusing to work with the City of Portland on bringing back the fishing industry, because "Portland was against him."
Yuck.

I agree with your comments Mainemom. I was in the seafood industry for three years back in the mid 90's and his comments on the entrenched special interests are right on target. Even if only half of his comments are true it paints a sorry picture of several aspects of our marine resources industry . I do hope that the audit report is issued.

I realize that we're hearing only one side of the issue, but again even if only half true, it doesn't reflect positively on either Governor LePage or his staff. It just provides more ammunition for the anti LePage forces.

And your point Mr. Billings?

i can assure everyone the Norm Olsen commends are 100% correct.

Dan,

What does the Palestinian stuff have to do with the details of what seems to be going on? What are yiu suggesting that that context sheds light on?
Unless Olsen is outright lying, this is pretty bad. It doesn't provide anti-lepage ammunition; it provides a look at how the gov operates, and demands that you ask yourself if that's the kind of "leader" you want to support. The stuff about Portland is most disturbing, as MM noted. At best, it would show PL to be just another politician, grinding axes and playing games at the real expense of Maine citizens. This isnt Mardens, where you might cut out a vendor bc you dont get along with the salesperson.

Doing favors (as pols do) is one thing, but actually quashing economic development bc you hold a grudge is reprehensible. Unconscionable.

I'll be interested to see what the admin has to say in response. Taking/Faking the high road and not responding would be an admission that what Olsen says is true.

What a pity party. After 40 years in an age of endarkenment there is a change of direction in state government. Some factions within the system will find it difficult and even impossible to adjust to an environment that encourages individual initiative and free enterprise. So be it. They will find a place where they are comfortable and that will happen in Maine's Department of Marine Resources too.

It helps those of us on the outside to have those four decades of direct exposure to the system as it existed to understand the positions and unique understanding of the inhabitants of the system. "Sustainability" is one of those words that immediately identify individuals comfortable with the system as it still exists and Mr. Olsen leads off with it. It is one of those words that sound innocuous, but their adoption by the hard green movement identifies them. Others use those words with their original meanings, but soon abandon those words that have been co-opted within the agenda.

Mr. Olsen bemoans "complaints reaching him from special interest groups". Special interest groups is a term used by the environmental industry to describe citizens who possess individual initiative and an ethic of free enterprise. They are an anathema to the collectivists who feel that all private initiatives must conform to some predetermined "vision" developed by the environmental industry. In their world view they perceive that private enterprise has "collaborated for the past decade to their mutual benefit, and against the best interests of the State".

You see, their vision of the "state" is not the whole of Maine. It is the bureaucracy and the control system in place that has made Maine dead last in business opportunity as defined by several free enterprise groups. Some of the leaders in state government departments will be unable to embrace the renewal of opportunities for free enterprise and self determination coming in the next 3.5 years. They will be unable to adapt and simply explode in a wrath of self righteousness. They can't help it. Their world view cannot change with the times. Just wish them well and hope they don't hurt themselves or others as they go their way.

NoNo mainemom he shouldn't be but preferably not here !

And any post above from the govs. staff should also be put in context .

If his previous bosses had issues , why was he hired to begin with,is that in the context?
I know it is his fault !

Too funny - red herrings in a Marine/fisheries thread....

If LePage did say those things, where is the proof. One person's disgruntled resignation letter?

As to not inviting him to some of the meetings, so they would be more 'open', I can see where having him present would create an arena of intimidation, sort of like disagreeing with a police officer to his boss. The fear of retribution, whether unfounded or not, would be plausible.

I also have to admit, the viro buzz words certainly abound in his letter.

I'm wondering where Islander sits on this.

Where one may see a disgruntled resignation letter, which I suspect means that you assume it is a clouded tantrum, I see a forthright and succinct explanation of why it made no sense for him to continue in the position. It has also been another of the examples why I wish I had not been so enthusiastic about Mr. LePage becoming governor.

I'm curious. Since when does Maine Media Today publish "opinion" pieces exceeding 1,600 words if even on their website? They even point out the statement above the fold on the dead-tree version.

Would LePage be given the same room, unedited?

Olsen has made some serious allegations and he is a serious man. I suspect, however, that there's a lot more to this story.

...the viro buzz words certainly abound in his letter.

Indeed, my thought exactly. And by "special interest group" would he be referring to....fishermen?

Roger, your comments are spot on. Thanks for the analysis.

I read that to mean the people referenced here:

"the Governor and his senior team have repeatedly given private audiences to groups and individuals objecting to my open discussion of the issues. While legitimate fishing industry representatives wait months for appointments, a single vocal individual with wild accusations can get through the door within days."

And some more words from Mr. Olsen ... http://www.kjonline.com/news/olsen-resigns-from-lepage-cabinet_2011-07-2...

So you guys are cool with Paul LePage throwing Portland's fishing industry under the bus?

Olsen's comments also seemed to suggest that competition and "free enterprise," as RE called it, isn't necessary te objective. Is it more about protecting interests?

The (ex)commissioner's statement does contain a discomforting amount of "viro" buzz words mixed with sour grapes, and it is inconsistent on whether he did or did not have the Governor's support. E.g., he says in late June, the Governor rejected all his proposals, but he says in late July the Governor "urged" him to take action "including via firings, and confirmed that I have led his agenda of responsible fisheries management and government reform." Sounds like he supported you, just didn't like all your ideas. Hard to see that as loss of support. Jeepn's post points out, too, his description/gripe about not attending meetings is only his perspective. There are legitimate reasons why all parties would not sit down at the same table with the Governor in a single meeting.The Governor has consistently said that he wants to change the regulatory framework in a way that brings more jobs to the state.

Speaking of context, this guy seems to have taken LePage's public statement introducing his commissioner to the industry that he is "in charge" literally. Actually, the Governor is in charge. I'm not sure why this guy is so bent out of shape over that reality, or why it took him until 9:15 yesterday morning to figure it out.

I'll be first to admit I know precious little about the regulation of Maine's commerical fishing industry. But when it comes to opening this industry to new entrants and allowing participants to make catches that will earn them a living, my understanding is that it is federal regulations that are the problem. There's already been too much "collaboration" between states and federal agencies-- all to the detriment of state sovereignty. If the Governor wants to find a way to assert Maine's sovereignty and free us from the shackles of federal regulation, then I wish him godspeed!!

And Maine has over three tousand miles of coastline. The loss of a working waterfront is not destroying jobs and splintering family homesteads in Portland the way it is in Hancock and Washington counties. If the Governor is working to bring groundfshing fleets and shoreside processing jobs back to Maine, I agree 100% that Portland should not be the focus of that endeavor and Portland shouldn't get any special treatment in making sure the jobs and fleets go there instead of further downeast, in the 'other' state of Maine where people know what real poverty and real unemployment looks like and feels like.

IAC - the "rush to publish" is part and parcel of the LePage attack mode I cited on the JDwight thread. Some media and political opposition factions are so anxious to "get" the Governor that they truly don't care who they run over in their rush to discredit him.

Nor, it appears, do they care about accuracy, grammar, or spelling.

I'm curious. Since when does Maine Media Today publish "opinion" pieces exceeding 1,600 words if even on their website? They even point out the statement above the fold on the dead-tree version.

It's not an opinion piece. It's a statement. Organizations and individuals often put out statements during major events. It IS a bit unusual for a media outlet to run said statements verbatim and complete; usually, reporters cull major points from them. However, I would argue that Olsen's statement is in fact newsworthy and don't fault the media outlets for running them - even if their motives in doing so are less than pure.

>>..the viro buzz words certainly abound in his letter.

Indeed, my thought exactly. And by "special interest group" would he be referring to....fishermen?

I think you guys are reading way too much into this. Sustainability is a word that has been co-opted and abused by the viros, but it IS a legitimate concept. Regardless of your political POV, fishermen do need stocks that they can count on, and to know how much fish is out there and how much they can take in a given year so that there's enough breeding stock for next year. Another word for that is sustainability. The larger issue is that the federal government has grossly and negligently interfered with the process. On the plus side for the Maine Lobstermen's Association, they've created self-enforced and self-regulated approach to this which has worked pretty well in keeping stocks healthy. The downside to the MLA are some of the issues Olsen pointed out in his statement - severe barriers to entry and polices which drive other fisheries out of state.

Mr. Olsen bemoans "complaints reaching him from special interest groups". Special interest groups is a term used by the environmental industry to describe citizens who possess individual initiative and an ethic of free enterprise.

Again, reading too much in. MLA is by any definition a special interest group - i.e., its primary focus is upon ensuring its members are gainfully employed. So, by the way, is the Port Clyde Fishermen's Association and other associations of fishermen. The fact that the left has figured out a way to use these terms as weapons doesn't change their root definitions.

And Roger, part of the problem Olsen was complaining about is entrenched and possibly underperforming DMR personnel and special relationships that those and other DMR staffers may have with powerful interests in the fishing industry. Free marketeer that you are, I'm surprised you would find Olsen's stated desire to make the agency more accountable and effective objectionable.

Anyone who lives near the coast of Maine, as I do, and has friends who own lobster boats, understands that the established boats will go to great lengths to keep new ones out of "their" waters.

I don't know what initiatives Mr. Olsen was developing, but reading between the lines, I wonder if he wanted to change those dynamics.
Maybe he recognized a problem of "the commons" and sought a fairer way to address it than for boat owners to claim territory they have no legal right to claim.
I can see where any effort in that direction would meet some powerful resistance.

This kind of work is not opposing free enterprise; where there are no property rights, there is no free market.

again, i have knowledge of the operations of DMR and what Norm Olsen stated in his letter is exactly right.

As i'm sure that there are employees in all state dept. that feel entitled to a pay check without having to do any work for it, it is surely true in DMR

Norm didn't stand a chance of succeeding in making charges within the dept. The employee were just going to wait out Norm and go back to doing business as usual.

He had senior staff that was stone walling he efforts.

Norm's first mistake was not firing the senior staff when he first got there.

Norm's second mistake was not holding onto the resignation letter for a couple of weeks and going back to the office and cleaning house. The director that counterorderd the directives of the commissioner should have been fired on the spot.

"the "rush to publish" is part and parcel of the LePage attack mode I cited on the JDwight thread. Some media and political opposition factions are so anxious to "get" the Governor that they truly don't care who they run over in their rush to discredit him."
Naran:

GOV38 has prominently, and on several occasions publicly stated that buying a newspaper in this state is like paying someone to lie to you. He threw the gauntlet down early in his administration, and has not hidden his distrust or ambivalence over all things media related.

I appreciate that the ‘Go-Team-Go’ LePage cheerleaders find great injustice over this perceived lack of evenhanded treatment in the reporting of events. But in my view, it should not be a surprise to anyone to learn that there would be some members of the media who take considerable glee in some of the stuff that has transpired in this Administration – and frame their reportage accordingly.

You reap what you sow…
All’s fair in love and war…
It is what it is…

Pick whatever cliché works best.

Nicely said, Northarrow.

Northarrow -- Oh, trust me -- I understand.

However, it also needs to be understood that with, or without, "Gubernatorial Gauntlets" being heaved in the direction of the press, some of them are pre-disposed to be delighted with any dirt they can find on the Governor, his staff, his commissioners, his family, his coffee-makers, his laundry service, or anyone with an R after their name.

Anyone that has the slightest connection to (no matter how ethereal) or with, the Governor. Even those who are only "guilty" of supporting his aims, and his administration.

Wait a while; you'll probably get the "drift."

Anyone who lives near the coast of Maine, as I do, and has friends who own lobster boats, understands that the established boats will go to great lengths to keep new ones out of "their" waters.

I also live near the coast of Maine and this is spot on. However, when you have a mindset such as that seen on shore, you can understand why they are protective. After spending $150,000 on a boat, $50,000 on traps, who knows what on bait and other gear, they should take it personally when someone threatens that livelihood. It's no different from new people from away coming into town deciding they want to change it to what they just left. I'm not saying it's correct, just that I can understand why they are so protective --> it's personal and they are trying to protect the livelihood.

I don't know what initiatives Mr. Olsen was developing, but reading between the lines, I wonder if he wanted to change those dynamics. Maybe he recognized a problem of "the commons" and sought a fairer way to address it than for boat owners to claim territory they have no legal right to claim. I can see where any effort in that direction would meet some powerful resistance.

While it may be common law, so to speak, it also has some variability. Otherwise you'd see one set of buoys in an area, but that's not happening. Walk the Rockland Breakwater sometime and you'll see a cornucopia (I so rarely get to use that word in a sentence) of buoys dotting the visible range. While they may be friends & neighbors or distant inbred cousins twice removed on their mother's side, it's still not like the area is locked up and controlled by a single person, but rather a collaborative.

The powerful resistance is personal, and they take it very seriously. This is, after all, their very lives at stake. Their view is they take the risks and they are protecting those investments the best way they know how. There are unwritten rules of decorum to everything, from prison to school, and sometimes it's a hard lesson to learn. It is correct? I am not one to say since I do not fish commercially. I used to build lobster traps (the company has since gone out of business due to decreases in trap limits) and used to speak with lobstermen on a regular basis.

Right or wrong, the penalties are harsh, and as I said, I neither condemn nor condone them, but rather understand instead. First the person fishing out of zone (and thus in the 'wrong' zone) gets a friendly warning, then a non-friendly warning (maybe more than one, from different people), then a shot into the hull (usually on the bow), and finally their boat on the bottom. Now obviously not all lobstermen are like this, some are much more docile and non-confrontational, but I have seen more than one sunken boat on the lift in Rockport.

When I lived in Winter Harbor, the unwritten rules were clearly understood and accepted, and no one I am aware of had a problem. When in Rome, do as the Roman's do.

This kind of work is not opposing free enterprise; where there are no property rights, there is no free market.

I am unclear, what type of work is not opposing free enterprise? Lobstering? What do a lack of property rights have to do with the free market? Their mindset is "they were there first", which is their defacto 'rights'.

People have mentioned sustainability as if the government is the only entity that can regulate it, as if those who work and live within the arena do not know and can not practice sustainability. This is hogwash. It is in their best interests to practice it so they do not go out of business due to lack of product. Ironically, it's the same mantra I saw from the left (not accusing anyone of being leftist here) when they were attacking the forestry industry...the one that is now all but defunct in the state.

The portion of his letter that mentioned a place packed with lobstermen may have some merit, and maybe he should have listened to them. They are out there seeing what is going on day to day...it's their arena. Who would you rather listen to, the people who work, live, and breathe lobstering or the bean counter who occasionally takes a snapshot to analyze?

Updated: 1:22 PM
Portland's mayor seeks meeting with LePage

From staff reports

PORTLAND — Portland Mayor Nicholas Mavodones is asking Gov. Paul LePage to respond to accusations made by a departing cabinet member that the governor said he didn't want to work with Portland on fishing issues.
...snip

In a letter to LePage, Mavadones requested a meeting with him to discuss Olsen's statements, as well as "the future of the city and state’s combined efforts to develop and enact policies to help restore the state’s groundfishing fleet."

Source

**********

Mavadones letter to Governor LePage

Mavadones is an unprincipled, self-serving dirt bag, who will lie for any purpose.

I will never forget his TV Ads promising "15% Property tax reduction statewide" if we approved 1A or 1B, whatever it was the democrats proposed. We voted as he asked, and never saw one tenth of a percent reduction.

Press Release from the Office of Gov. Paul J. LePage

HALLOWELL – Following yesterday’s resignation of Norman Olsen, former commissioner of Maine’s Department of Marine Resources, the City of Portland contacted the office of Governor LePage to seek clarity on Mr. Olsen’s parting statements to the press regarding the Administration’s commitment to restoring Maine’s groundfishing fleet. Acting Commissioner Patrick Keliher moved quickly to alleviate any misperception, reaching out to Mayor Mavodones to reaffirm the Administration’s willingness to work directly with the City toward the shared goal of revitalizing the groundfishing fleet in this critically important port.

“The infrastructure in Portland is of the utmost importance to the future of the groundfishing industry. The Administration is making every effort to preserve the boats that have been able to persist and bring additional boats back to Maine,” said Keliher. “In fact, in his biennial budget the Governor proposed, and the Legislature approved, the elimination of sales tax on diesel fuel on commercial fishing boats specifically for the purpose of encouraging the fleet to land its catch in the Port of Portland.”

“There is still much to be done to address these important and complex issues facing Maine’s marine resource industry,” Keliher added. “The Governor is committed to working with all interested and impacted parties to achieve the best outcome for Maine.”

A meeting between the Governor, Acting Commissioner Keliher and Mayor Mavadones will be scheduled in the near future.

###

Posted: 3:37 PM

LePage denies dissing Portland

The Associated Press

PORTLAND — A spokesman for Gov. Paul LePage says a statement by ...(Olsen)..saying the governor didn't want to work in the best interest of Maine's largest city is "absurd."
...snip

Olsen also said LePage wasn't interested in working with federal fisheries officials.

Fisher rejected both allegations.

He said Olsen was angry when he wrote the letter and that it showed. ...

Source