Letters

Yet, WCI isn't even mentioned on WGA's "Climate Change" page, where one of the entities you described above – the Western Regional Air Partnership – is prominently mentioned. We contend that to an outside observer, these facts might indicate that either WGA does not wish to give the impression of associating itself with WCI, or that some WGA members are uncomfortable with discussing WCI. After all, several of the Governors you mention as "Observers" for WCI have publicly stated their opposition to cap-and-trade schemes – schemes that are being actively developed under WCI.

2) "[Y]ou suggested that general membership contributions of Western Governors have been used to support the activities of the WCI, despite the fact that WGA has voluntarily provided detailed records to specifically, categorically, and conclusively show that all monies used to support WCI have been earmarked specifically for this project. At no time have WGA dues or any other WGA funds been used to supplement this work ..."

"WGA provides organizational support services to WCI on a contractual basis. Staff, overhead, and other costs are strictly segregated and separately funded through WCI-specific sources. As was shown in the records provided, no WGA member dues have ever been used to support WCI. It is unfortunate that you find it 'difficult to see how tax dollars from non-WCI states did not subsidize this process.' Nevertheless, this is the case."

The analysis NTU conducted of the financial records released by WGA staff shows clearly, in our view, that WGA staff spent an extraordinary amount of time promoting the agenda of the WCI. The records that you provided do NOT confirm whether WGA was completely "reimbursed" for that time, nor can they answer other legitimate questions raised by NTU's analysis. For example:

• Did the WGA staff's participation in WCI projects deprive non-WCI-partner states of work on issues of greater concern to them?
• According to Mr. Chesser, Patrick Cummins of your staff expressed concern over the amount of time that might be involved in producing the materials he requested. Was this an indication that WGA staff was already being taxed in performing regular duties as well as WCI support?
• Did the WGA Board approve the use of WGA as a conduit for outside funds by the specific advocacy organizations of WCI? No documentation from board meetings or other proceedings was provided that could answer this question.

We raise these concerns not out of disrespect for the integrity of WGA, but rather our past experience with the interplay of funds in other organizations. As Governor Otter well knows, for example, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act he opposed while in Congress provided some $60 million in taxpayer funding each year to environmental groups supposedly for official activities and purposes only. Back then there was an obvious concern that organizations with left-leaning agendas could be playing fast and loose with taxpayer dollars.

Indeed, we find it ironic that Governor Otter would sign such an inflammatory letter against National Taxpayers Union's questions about WGA possibly associating its good name with a project backed by groups that have a radical environmental agenda. After all, as the Governor should remember, he was a founder in the fall of 2001 of Greenwatch, which he described then as a database to "monitor and keep the extremists in check." Greenwatch went on to criticize a report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in the following manner:

As you know, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change has entered into agreements with WGA to support the Center's "extensive involvement in the WCI." Knowing this, we would hope you have at least some concern over the growing trend of WGA associating itself with organizations and foundations whose agendas seriously clash with those of taxpayers in other states. Apparently this is not the case.

3) "[A]ll Governors, acting as the WGA Board of Directors, were of course made fully aware of all contracts that WGA entered into. As with any such organization, the Board of Directors has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to be informed of all such relationships, and to suggest that they did not perform this responsibility is a serious matter."

Your own accusation – that NTU suggested the Board of Directors did not perform its legal and fiduciary responsibilities – is the false one here. We simply asked the question, "Were all Western governors made fully aware of the contracts and financial agreements WGA entered into, including the public relations contract engaged to help 'shape public opinion' to support WCI?"

In any event, apparently the answer to this question may very well be "no." The Wall Street Journal's John Fund, who many of your member Governors know to be an excellent journalist with high integrity, elicited the following quotation for a story he wrote that appeared on June 12:

It is quite possible that other organizations and individuals will request or review WGA's records, and perhaps they will find answers to the perfectly legitimate questions that have been asked about its arrangement with WCI. I can assure you, however, that NTU considers its own involvement in this issue to be concluded.

In closing, I would remind Governor Otter of his wise words, spoken earlier this year regarding transparency and openness of public finance:

These principles were our only motivation in making our original inquiry and call for disclosure of WGA, an organization that receives public funds. Based on your reply, WGA does not seem interested in providing such disclosure proactively.

Sincerely,

Pete Sepp
Vice President for Policy and Communications

This letter is available in PDF

Email to a friend

Printable Version