Rock Hill Herald: Brown got off easy

The Rock Hill Herald today blasted U.S. Rep. Henry Brown's zeal for special treatment after a fire got out of control and burned national forest. If he had not been a congressman, he likely would have been treated differently, it said:

Let's get this straight: U.S. Rep. Henry Brown started a forest fire and was fined $250 -- and he's complaining?

Brown reportedly was burning on land he owns near Cordesville, east of Moncks Corner, on March 5 when the blaze jumped both his line and that of the Francis Marion National Forest. The fire burned 20 acres of national forest land before firefighters were able to bring it under control.
Forest Service officials said Brown was fined after an "extensive investigation" to ensure that their enforcement policy was consistent. Brown, however, was miffed. He said it was like the city fire department putting out a fire at your house, then sending you a bill.

"It's an arrogance in the government, and not just because it's Henry Brown, but everybody," Brown said. "It's a real equity issue as far as I'm concerned. There is no consideration for no-fault accidents in the code. I just felt like the fire was out of my control."

Well, yeah, it was out of control, but he started it. He failed to control his fire.

The analogy about the city fire department charging for putting out a fire at his house doesn't work, either. A better analogy would be if he started a fire in his back yard and it spread to his neighbor's back yard. Who's responsible then?

In some states, those who set wilderness ablaze, either deliberately or out of carelessness, can face heavy fines and jail time. Seems to us, Rep. Brown got off easy.

Voters castigate "Pyro" Brown over his behavior

Now that people are waking up to how Rep. Henry Brown has been throwing around his weight to get special treatment following a forest fire he set that got out of control and burned 20 acres of national forest, they're not happy.

Retired forester Albert L.C. Nelson of Pawleys Island writes the Myrtle Beach Sun News:

I have never encountered a situation where a landowner did not accept responsibility for a fire that escaped from their land and the contingent liability. Brown's actions can be expected to raise questions about use of his office.

Also in the Sun News, Myrtle Beach resident Henry J. Mason writes:

The editorial Monday regarding U.S. Rep. Henry Brown's refusal to [accept] a modest fine for his wanton destruction of federally owned public property is a classic example of federal politicians thinking that the law only applies to us common folk. As you pointed out in your editorial, there is no Democrat running against Brown this November, but I will take the time to vote for the
Green Party candidate who is.

"Pyro" Brown still doesn't think rules apply to him

Rep. Henry Brown still seems to think he should get special treatment after setting the forest afire.

That's the long and short of an op-ed he wrote this week for a couple of newspapers, if you read between the lines. From The Post and Courier:

"I do not expect special treatment as a congressman. However, as a private citizen, I would hope to have the same rights as my constituents. This includes a right to dissent. Earlier this year, I was burning underbrush on my farm in Cordesville. I was burning with a permit from the S.C. Forestry Commission, as was the U.S. Forest Service on this same day. During the course of the afternoon, winds picked up and the fire jumped the breaks constructed to prevent such an occurrence. Approximately 20 acres of federal land were burned. In conducting this burn, I did not believe I broke a law, nor acted negligently. "

We bet Saddam Hussein probably believed he didn't break any laws in Iraq either.

Brown is still making excuses. Evidence that he hasn't learned his lesson is found in the fact that The State newspaper finally chimed in Sept. 24 in this editorial after it got tired of his nonsense:

"Henry Brown is not responsible.

That’s the message that the Lowcountry congressman has conveyed through several channels to the U.S. Forest Service, whose officers wanted to cite Rep. Brown for a planned fire that jumped from his tree farm into the Francis Marion National Forest this March. The fire’s spread, Rep. Brown maintained, was an “act of God,” and he should not be held liable.

But a fire does not have to be intentional to violate the law. If a private citizen allows a fire to get out of control on National Forest land, a fine is assessed, whether the violator is a wayward scout, a bunch of rowdy partiers — or a member of Congress....

What he cannot do, and must be scrupulous to avoid any hint of doing, is use his position to evade enforcement of the law. That certainly is not the impression the Forest Service got. Rep. Brown maintains that the law is unfairly written, and that he did nothing for himself that he would not do for any constituent. But he’s not a constituent. He’s debating his penalty with Forest Service officials in his congressional office — that is hardly “acting solely as a private citizen,” as Rep. Brown maintains. There’s a clear implication that he used his position to pursue a break from the law....

The whistle-blower complaint even alleges that Rep. Brown threatened to use his position on the key House Budget Committee against the agency, a charge the congressman denies.

For Rep. Brown, the best answer is simple. He should pay his $250 fine, a low amount that reflects the inadvertent nature of his violation. He should publicly declare an end to his feud with the Forest Service, including rejecting any inference that the agency will pay in Congress for enforcing the law. Finally, he needs to be more responsible in the future, as everyone should, while conducting controlled burns."

Georgetown Times: Burning questions for Brown

An excerpt from a Sept. 20 editorial by the Georgetown Times:

Rep. Henry Brown contends that he has done nothing for himself that he wouldn’t have done for any constituent in his dispute with the U.S. Forest Service. But the congressman should know that working for his own self-interest isn’t the same as working on behalf of another 1st District resident. Nor will it be perceived as such....

Rep. Brown reportedly was concerned about the political fallout of being ticketed for the fire damage. He should thank his lucky stars that such a proposal to relieve him of financial responsibility was dropped....

While Rep. Brown doesn’t have to roll over and play dead if he believes he’s been unfairly treated by the Forest Service, his appeal should have been determinedly low key and lodged as plain Henry Brown.Unfortunately, the question now isn’t about Henry Brown’s responsibility for the forest fire, but whether Rep. Brown’s congressional muscle has been misapplied.

Sun News: What were you thinking Henry?

An editorial from the Myrtle Beach Sun News:

Last March, U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, R-Hanahan, who owns land adjacent to the Marion National Forest, inadvertently burned 20 acres of public land. As a result, in keeping with administrative rules, the U.S. Forest Service attempted to give Brown a $250 ticket and bill him $7,000 for damaging public land.

State Sen. Arthur Ravenel, R-Mount Pleasant, who had had a similar experience, gave Brown some good advice concerning the ticket and damages bill: Just pay them.

Instead, Brown balked, allegedly telling a Forest Service supervisor that his political opponents would find out about the fine if he had to list it on his ethics report. Brown threatened closer congressional scrutiny of Forest Service programs, according to a complaint two Forest Service employees filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Brown disputes this version of events. But he has never paid the ticket or the damages. And, even though the agency's rules grant no relief from fines attributable to "an accident of God," as Brown called the March fire, he says paying it "would be like admitting I did something wrong." That isn't the issue here.

This whole business is profoundly disturbing. As of the March 16 filing deadline, Brown had only token opposition in his bid for re-election this year. So his putative fear that having a Forest Service ticket on his ethics report could harm his political career is laughable. And even if he'd had credible major-party opponents, he would have faced only chiding over the incident, as he clearly didn't intend to harm public property.

Even though the office of Strom Thurmond Jr., U.S. attorney for South Carolina, counseled the Forest Service to treat Brown just like any other citizen, Brown clearly believes he merits special treatment. If he didn't, he would have paid his fine. The rest of us, Ravenel included, would have had no choice.

These events may not call Brown's qualifications for office into question. But they do raise doubts about his sense of proportion and about his conception of the appropriate use of congressional power. If he is to regain his credibility with his constituents, he needs to work doubly hard to erase these doubts.

"Pyro" Brown fined for forest fire

U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., has been fined $250 by the U.S. Forest Service for his part in a fire that spread from his Berkeley County property to burn 20 acres of national forest land.

According to The Post and Courier:

U.S. Forest Service officials delivered a $250 ticket to Brown's Capitol Hill office on Friday while the congressman was in the Lowcountry.

Agriculture officials say Brown was fined after an "extensive investigation" for the sake of "consistency" in their law enforcement policy. For now, however, officials say Brown will not be charged for the cost of putting out the fire -- estimated at $4,000 to $7,000 -- because the agency is reviewing that policy.

Dan Jiron, a spokesman for the agency, said Friday the review is being done because of flaws in the law that Brown pointed out.

But the ticket only seemed to fan Brown's incendiary rhetoric, instead of cooling him to accept blame for his own incompetence:

"It's an arrogance in the government, and not just because it's Henry Brown, but everybody," Brown said. "It's a real equity issue as far as I'm concerned. There is no consideration for no-fault accidents in the code. I just felt like the fire was out of my control."

Earlier, Brown blamed the forest fire on an "act of God." Forest Service officials say they'll continue to investigate whether Brown used his position as a congressman to get special treatment.

More stories:

• The State
• WIS TV
• Washington Post

More fallout over Brown's flame out with the Forest Service

From WIS-TV:

Sept. 15, 2004 - Two US Forest Service employees have filed a complaint alleging First District Representative Henry Brown used his office to threaten the service if he was fined for a fire last winter in the Francis Marion National Forest.

A Charleston newspaper reports Wednesday the complaint filed last week with the Agriculture Department Inspector General's Office alleges that Brown threatened there would be close review of agency programs if he is fined $250 and ordered to pay $7000 in firefighting costs.

The Post and Courier says the complaint alleges that a half dozen officials refused to allow officers to give Brown a ticket and the Bush administration ordered the matter dropped.

The complaint was filed by Jack Gregory, special agent in charge of the Forest Service's southern region, and South Carolina patrol Captain John Andy Sadler.

Brown says he never made any threats.

Other stories:

• The State newspaper, Columbia, S.C.
• WCNC TV, Charlotte, NC

Whistleblower group says Brown tried to extort Forest Service

From the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility :

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

CONGRESSMAN EXTORTS FOREST SERVICE INTO DROPPING FIRE PENALTY
Rep. Henry Brown Set Forest Fire That Burned Out of Control

Washington, DC — The U.S. Forest Service blocked the assessment of mandatory criminal penalties and civil cost recovery for an escaped fire set by U.S. Representative Henry Brown (R-South Carolina) that burned out of control in the Francis Marion National Forest, according to a whistleblower complaint released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Orders to agency law enforcement to cease prosecution and collection of fire suppression costs came after the Congressman met with U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey.

Citing “blatant” obstruction, extortion and violations of agency policies, the whistleblower complaint was filed with the Agriculture Office of Inspector General on September 8th by two top Forest Service criminal investigators, including the senior agent for the southeastern U.S. The complaint details how Rep. Brown threatened retaliation against the Forest Service budget if the
enforcement against him were to proceed.

On March 5, 2004, Rep. Brown conducted a prescribed burn on his property adjoining the national forest. Brown had a state permit authorizing a 25-acre burn but he set the fire on a day in which a “Red Flag Alert” was issued due to high winds. The fire quickly burned more than 200 acres of Brown’s land and crossed over into the national forest, burning another 20 acres there. The Forest Service needed a helicopter, three fire engines and a bulldozer to bring the fire under control. A Forest Service review of the fire found that Brown was negligent:

“Mr. Brown was not adequately prepared to detect, or adequately equipped to suppress, the escaped fire on 5 March 2004 with only two men, a bucket of water, and no means of delivery of that water to the escaped fire.”

“This is an act of corruption both petty and profound,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that agency policy requires both assessing a criminal fine of approximately $250 as well as a civil action to recover the agency’s fire suppression costs, estimated at approximately $4,000. “The pattern with this Administration is that the laws do not apply to its political allies.”

When Forest Service officials informed Rep. Brown that he would be cited for the fire, the Congressman expressed concern that his political opponents would find out about it and warned that if the Forest Service persisted its programs “might need to be scrutinized more closely.” Brown then reportedly contacted agency officials at higher and higher levels without receiving the assurance of non-prosecution. It was not until he met with Agriculture Undersecretary Rey, a former timber lobbyist, that he extracted a promise to drop the matter. Even after agency specialists ruled that the collections requirement could not be waived, on August 24th, law enforcement agents were directed by email, “we are to take no action.”

While it has opened an investigation, the Inspector General has no authority to take direct action of any kind and may only refer the matter for criminal prosecution and/or disciplinary action. “We would be surprised if the IG acts quickly and aggressively to investigate its own undersecretary,” added Ruch. “This Administration has no track record of holding its own political appointees accountable.”

• Read the Whistleblower complaint

Brown accused of using position to threaten Forest Service

According to news reports across the South today, U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., has been accused of trying to use his position on a congressional committee to retaliate against the U.S. Forest Service if he was fined for burning 20 acres in the Francis Marion National Forest.

Sounds like our fellow, the schmoozy Henry Brown, who has denied the allegation.

According to the Charleston Post and Courier:

Brown is at the center of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Inspector General's investigation prompted by two Forest Service officers. They say the 1st District Republican invoked the wrath of his House Budget Committee and asked for retroactive changes in the law to avoid paying firefighting costs and a $250 fine.

Half a dozen ranking Agriculture officials refused to allow officers to ticket Brown or bill him for extinguishing the blaze, according to the complaint, which says a Bush administration official ultimately ordered the matter dropped.

"I've been working for a long time in the Forest Service, 34 years, and this is the worst abuse of anything I've ever seen in terms of poor decision-making and arrogance," said Jack Gregory, special agent in charge of the Forest Service's southern region.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

[Forest Service official John] Sadler, however, suggested Brown had another reason for not wanting to pay the fine: fear of political repercussions.

During a telephone conference in March, Sadler said, the congressman told him and other Forest Service officials that he feared his political opponents would use an admission of a criminal violation against him.

Sadler took notes of the conversation.

According to the whistle-blower documents, instead of agreeing to pay the fine and the firefighting costs, Brown threatened congressional scrutiny of the agency. He also said he would try to get the agency's regulations changed to make it more difficult to pursue such cases in the future, according to the complaint.