The Marine Sanctuary's citizen advisors get scolded for speaking their minds to Congress.

Free Speech

Sometimes, it''s the little things that can make a big difference. The little, seemingly logical things--like keeping your elected officials informed. Then you find out you''ve violated federal law and could end up in jail, all for writing one little line--"cc: Congressman Sam Farr."

That''s what happened to members of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council.

The 19-member, all-volunteer council--made up of people from the agriculture, fishing, conservation, diving, and education communities--set off a spark in Washington, D.C. last September when relaying its concerns over the renewal of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Among other things, council members said they believed the federal sanctuary program has been shortchanged.

It wasn''t the content of the letter, however, that seems to have raised the feds'' hackles, but the fact that it was also sent to members of Congress, who hold the pursestrings for all federal programs.

Nancy Foster, assistant administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lambasted the council for what she believes to be inappropriate lobbying.

"Your letter caused serious problems for the National Marine Sanctuary," Foster wrote in a January 6 letter. "This action exceeded the scope of your authority, violated law and policies, and created the appearance that NOAA engaged in prohibited grassroots lobbying."

According to its charter, the council is supposed to advise only the head of the Commerce Department, who oversees marine sanctuaries, and Sanctuary Superintendent Bill Douros.

Under federal law, officers and employees of government agencies are prohibited from using federal funds to lobby. Doing so could result in a year behind bars. Unclear, though, is whether the law applies to the volunteer council members. No matter. Sometimes it''s all in the perception.

"This is big-time federal law we''re talking about," says Advisory Council Chair Steve Webster, who also works for the Monterey Bay Aquarium. "Basically we''re voluntary sanctuary staff. We don''t have all that much latitude for self-actualization."

Actions that might look like lobbying Congress, especially during budget time, says Webster, can take on the "appearance of impropriety," something the feds take seriously.

But does cc-ing Congress members really constitute lobbying?

"If you go back to the charter, I think, yes, we did go beyond our bounds," acknowledges Advisory Councilmember Vicki Nichols of the environmental group Save Our Shores.

Others aren''t so sure. "It''s the great unknown," says Advisory Councilmember Karin Strasser Kauffman. "But I just can''t imagine that such an undemocratic process would prevail. We want to be able to talk to Congressman Farr openly and freely. That''s the United States of America."

Blazing a New Trail

The confusion may be rooted in the fact that the Sanctuary Advisory Council, created in 1994, is just the second such group to be established in the U.S.

Add the fact that the council consists of 19 diverse and distinct personalities, including developers, commercial fishermen and environmental advocates, some of whom lobbied to get the Monterey Sanctuary established in the first place. These are people accustomed to speaking their minds.

"We are all very devoted, opinionated and somewhat aggressive in presenting our opinions," says Nichols. "We''ve been viewing ourselves as an advisory body with an opportunity to have a dialogue."

"Through our efforts, we have bumbled a little here and there," she says, "often because we are so committed."

Given the number of volunteer hours they spend on sanctuary issues, says Nichols, some councilmembers feel frustrated that their recommendations can''t go beyond the walls of the sanctuary office or the Commerce Department. Making sure other agencies and Sam Farr get copies of those recommendations, she says, was a way to ensure the "word was getting out."

"We''ve been told that is inappropriate," says Nichols. "Through our zealousness we have gone beyond out parameter. It''s understandable, yet frustrating."

However, like most rules, there are ways to get around them. Some of the members met with Farr last month to talk about how they can continue to keep him abreast of their work. "We want to keep the communication open and still have a good public process," says Donna Blitzer, Farr''s district director.

One idea is having a Farr staffer attend the council''s meeting. In fact, Blitzer showed up at the last council meeting Feb. 4. Farr himself may attend a meeting or two a year.

Another way is for Farr to ask for copies of all the council''s correspondence. Under federal law, it''s not considered lobbying if he initiates the communication.

The councilmembers are also free to write their Congress members as individuals outside their role with the sanctuary. They can even identify themselves as members of the council. What they can''t do, according to NOAA''s interpretation of the law, is write to Congress members on council letterhead or speak on behalf of the council as a whole.

Meanwhile, a council committee has been formed to look into the legal aspects of Foster''s letter. Depending on the findings, says Kauffman, "We may have a big controversy, and we may not."

At least for now, Webster says councilmembers are accepting NOAA''s position. "We''re well-sensitized to the fact that we got into some hot water," he says. "The last thing we need is to be regarded as some kind of loose cannon."

Send a Letter to the Editor | Post a Public Forum