Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 3:13:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Subject: ProPublica press inquiry
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 12:19:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David McSwane
To:
BLM_Press@blm.gov, Mike Spies

Hello,
We are Mike Spies and David McSwane, reporters with ProPublica. We’re working on a story about the
BLM’s realignment, and the story will highlight concerns among staff that the agency’s might is being
diminished by the move. The story will generally raise quesOons about the jusOficaOons for the
overhaul, whether it will be cost effecOve and whether the move is part of an effort to influence
federal employees to quit. It is built on internal agency records we’ve obtained, interviews with
current BLM staff and recordings of staff meeOngs. Below are some finer points we’ll include in the
story and some quesOons we have. We welcome any comments you’d like to add. Our deadline to add
your comments is 12:30 p.m. Thursday.
An internal document we’ve reviewed, that was produced earlier this week, indicates that 11
staffers vacated their posiOons between July 16 and September 13 and includes the note: “We
anOcipate addiOonal employees will depart.”
How does this square with acOng director Pendley’s comments before the House Natural
Resources Commi]ee last week that he didn’t want to lose a single employee?
Is this plan intended to decrease the BLM workforce?
The latest accounOng we’ve seen indicates that only 59 BLM officials will remain in Washington,
39 will be moved to Grand JuncOon. Another 214 are being transferred from Washington to
locaOons throughout the West.
Are there any changes you’d like to note?
Last week, AcOng Director Pendley specifically told the House Commi]ee on Natural Resources
that FOIA officers and BLM officials who work directly with Congress would not be moving out of
Washington. Here is the quote:
“I want to assure Congress that we will conOnue to do our core headquarters’ funcOons, and by that I
mean our Congressional affairs, our regulatory affairs, our public affairs, our budget funcOon and our
Freedom of InformaOon Act requests.”
“They’re going to be in main Interior,” he said, “a hallway away from the secretary of the Interior, the
Department Secretary and other decision makers, and they’ll be able to be responsive to the requests
of Congress.”
But the internal documents we’ve reviewed contradict those statements. We reviewed
hundreds of job descripOons and found the following, which will appear in the story:
Many of the jeesoned posiOons play key roles in assisOng with Congressional oversight, civil rights
issues, transparency and assessing potenOal environmental impacts. About seven posiOons in the
bureau’s equal employment opportunity division will be sca]ered into offices in Phoenix, Denver, or
Grand JuncOon. Four legislaOve affairs specialists are being asked to move three Ome zones away, to
Reno. Five people who process Freedom of InformaOon Act requests, and an analyst who processes
Page 1 of 3

 external requests for data, are slated to be moved to one of a dozen Western ciOes. At least seven
senior posiOons whose descripOons include “interfaces significantly with Capitol Hill” are being moved
to four different western locales, records show.
Did the acOng director lie to Congress? How does this internal accounOng square with the
assurances made that FOIA staff and Congressional liaisons will not be impacted by this
overhaul?
Staff has been repeatedly told that future funding for the realignment is assured, even though
Congress only appropriated $5.6 million dollars for the iniOal stage of the move. When an employee
raised this concern in a July meeOng, an assistant director said it was unknown if there was a
conOngency plan in plan should future funding get blocked.
Why is BLM staff being told that that the bureau anOcipates Congress will provide FY 2020 funds for
the realignment?
Is there a Plan B if Congress declines to provide addiOonal funds for the realignment? If so, what is it?

BLM officials have repeatedly told staff and lawmakers that the Department conducted a cost-benefit
analysis showing the realignment is cost beneficial. But the Department has also said, in wriOng, that
the total cost of the move is unknown.
How is it possible to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis without knowing the total cost of the
move?
Why hasn’t the cost-benefit analysis been made public?
Why, aker a requesOng a copy of the analysis via FOIA, was ProPublica’s request placed on the
“complex track”?

Documents show that BLM management has offered staff relocaOon incenOves, including a one-Ome
lump-sum payment equal to a quarter of an employee’s salary in exchange for a two-year commitment
to the job. In a le]er, Pendley acknowledges that staff will be taking a pay cut. “Under this opOon,” he
wrote to Secretary Bernhardt, “it is esOmated that the cost could be as much as $4,545,798.”
Has staff been told that they will be taking a locaOon-based pay cut if they move?
How did Mr. Pendley arrive at the figure menOoned above? Does that figure only account for salaries
and bonuses?
When arguing for the reason why the request should be approved, Mr. Pendley wrote, “Maintains
consistent messaging that the Department of the Interior wants to work with employees?” Why would
BLM staff feel otherwise?

In staff meeOngs, employees have asked if the Department will also find jobs for the spouses of those
moving out West. In one meeOng, an official said, “That’s a consideraOon we’ll have to make through
the process.”
Will the Department be helping the spouses of BLM staff find jobs out West? And how?
According to a recent implantaOon plan, BLM employees have unOl July 1 to accept their
Page 2 of 3

 reassignment, or, unless an extension is granted, they will lose their jobs.
Is this Oming set in stone?
Please feel free to call or email if you have any quesOons. The story is set to publish tomorrow akernoon.
Thank you,
Mike and David
J. David McSwane
Reporter
ProPublica
641 S Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
202-886-9529
@davidmcswane

Page 3 of 3