Skip to main content

B-198218 L/M, APR 24, 1980

B-198218 L/M Apr 24, 1980
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

LETTER COMPLAINING THAT FEDERAL APPROPRIATED FUNDS WERE. YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT THIS OFFICE INITIATE ACTION TO RECOVER THESE ALLEGED IMPROPER EXPENDITURES. DON CAMBOU SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS TO PRODUCE A MOTION PICTURE FILM ENTITLED "LONG CANYON" WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PRESENT AND DEVELOP THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE LONG CANYON AREA OF IDAHO SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS A ROADLESS WILDERNESS AREA IN FEDERAL LEGISLATION. THE FILM WAS TO BE UTILIZED AS A PREFACE TO PUBLIC FORUMS ON THIS SUBJECT AT WHICH ALL INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS. SINCE THE ASSOCIATION IS PRIMARILY SUPPORTED BY GRANTS FROM THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES.

View Decision

B-198218 L/M, APR 24, 1980

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

PETER B. WILSON, ESQUIRE WILSON & WALTER ATTORNEYS AT LAW:

WE REFER TO YOUR MARCH 20, 1980, LETTER COMPLAINING THAT FEDERAL APPROPRIATED FUNDS WERE, IN YOUR OPINION, IMPROPERLY EXPENDED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A BIASED MOTION PICTURE FILM. YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT THIS OFFICE INITIATE ACTION TO RECOVER THESE ALLEGED IMPROPER EXPENDITURES.

ACCORDING TO YOUR LETTER, IN THE SPRING OF 1977, THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE HUMANITIES IN IDAHO (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSOCIATION) GRANTED MR. DON CAMBOU SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS TO PRODUCE A MOTION PICTURE FILM ENTITLED "LONG CANYON" WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PRESENT AND DEVELOP THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE LONG CANYON AREA OF IDAHO SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS A ROADLESS WILDERNESS AREA IN FEDERAL LEGISLATION. THE FILM WAS TO BE UTILIZED AS A PREFACE TO PUBLIC FORUMS ON THIS SUBJECT AT WHICH ALL INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS.

YOU ALLEGE THAT THE FILM PRESENTS A BIASED VIEWPOINT AND THUS VIOLATES AN ASSOCIATION GUIDELINE THAT PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY ITS FUNDS SHOULD NOT "*** INFLUENCE AN AUDIENCE TOWARD ANY SINGLE POSITION OR PRESENT A ONE-SIDED TREATMENT OF AN ISSUE." IN SUPPORT OF YOUR ALLEGATION, YOU QUOTE A SENTENCE FROM A MARCH 6, 1980, LETTER TO YOU FROM THE HONORABLE M. RUPERT CUTLER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, AS FOLLOWS:

"I THINK EVERYONE WHO WATCHED THE FILM RECOGNIZED THAT THE FILM MAKER PREFERRED THE WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE TO LOGGING IN THE AREA."

YOU THEREFORE REQUEST THAT THIS OFFICE RECOVER THE FUNDS EXPENDED ON THE FILM, SINCE THE ASSOCIATION IS PRIMARILY SUPPORTED BY GRANTS FROM THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

IN AN ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE YOUR ALLEGATIONS, WE SPOKE WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES AND OF THE ASSOCIATION. WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE FILM WAS A COMPONENT OF A PROJECT DESIGNED TO ENGAGE SCHOLARS OF THE HUMANITIES AND THE PUBLIC IN A DIALOGUE INVOLVING THE ISSUES THAT ARISE IN DESIGNATING THE LONG CANYON AREA AS A ROADLESS WILDERNESS AREA. WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE GRANT TO THE PROJECT SPONSOR WAS MADE WITH THE FOLLOWING 4 CONDITIONS:

1. THE OVERALL PROJECT MUST BE DESIGNED TO EXPLORE ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY RATHER THAN TO ADVOCATE ANY PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW OR POLITICAL OR SOCIAL ACTION.

2. THE PROJECT MUST PROVIDE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPRESSION OF DIVERSE OR CONFLICTING POINTS OF VIEW.

3. THE PROJECT MUST OPEN THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC POLICY TO DEBATE.

4. THE PROJECT MAY ADMIT ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH ALLOW PARTICIPANTS IN A PROJECT TO ADVOCATE THEIR VIEWPOINT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE, HOWEVER, MUST PUT THESE PROCEEDINGS IN PROSPECTIVE, REFRAIN FROM ANY ATTEMPT AT ADVOCACY, AND BE FREE OF BIAS, DOGMATIC ASSERTION OR ORIENTATION TOWARDS ONE COURSE OF POLITICAL OR SOCIAL ACTION.

WE WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATION CONSISTING OF ABOUT 11 MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ABOUT 11 MEMBERS OF THE CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY, EVALUATED THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE FILM AND ITS SCRIPT, AGAINST THE ABOVE MENTIONED CRITERIA. THE EVALUATION RESULTED IN A DETERMINATION BY THE ASSOCIATION THAT THE CRITERIA HAD BEEN SATISFIED. ALSO, WE NOTE THAT MR. CUTLER, ON WHOSE OPINION CONCERNING THE FILMMAKER'S PREFERENCE YOU RELY, ALSO INDICATED THAT THE FILM DID PRESENT THE FULL RANGE OF ISSUES WHEN HE STATED THAT: "BUT THIS PREFERENCE DOES NOT DETRACT FROM WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE CHIEF VALUE OF THE FILM - SHOWING THE RANGE OF ISSUES AND REACTIONS WHICH EMERGE OVER CONTROVERSIAL ROADLESS AREAS." ACCORDINGLY, MR. CUTLER'S STATEMENT APPEARS TO CONFIRM THE SPONSOR'S OPINION THAT THE FILM SATISFIED THE GRANT CONDITIONS SET FORTH ABOVE, RATHER THAN VIOLATE THEM, AS YOU ALLEGE.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY RECOVER GRANT FUNDS ONLY WHEN THE CONDITIONS OF THE GRANT HAVE BEEN BROKEN. THE INITIAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE GRANT CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET IS UP TO THE GRANTING AGENCY. AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT ITS GRANTEE, THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE HUMANITIES IN IDAHO, HAS VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF THIS GRANT. THEREFORE, WE KNOW OF NO BASIS FOR RECOVERING THE FUNDS SUBGRANTED TO MR. CAMBOU. IF THE ENDOWMENT DETERMINES THAT A GRANT CONDITION WAS VIOLATED IT WOULD HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOVERING THE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE ASSOCIATION, AND NOT THIS OFFICE. ANY EVENT, WE SEE NO BASIS FROM ANY OF THE MATERIALS WE HAVE GATHERED FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE GRANTING AGENCY'S OPINION, WHICH CONCURS WITH THE SPONSOR'S, IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OR CAPRICIOUS.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs