Editorial: Baltimore Sun On USCG: Justice Capsized?

On June 4 we wrote in this column, “In [Coast Guard] legal actions involving merchant mariners, defendants are too often considered guilty until proven innocent.” Little did we suspect how much truth there was in that statement. “Too often” was not nearly strong enough.

The Baltimore Sun, after an extensive investigation, reported on June 24, “A computer analysis of the court’s records [the U.S. Coast Guard’s administrative court system] reveals a striking imbalance in the decisions of its judges, with mariners losing virtually every case before the court over the past eight years. Of more than 6,300 charges filed by Coast Guard investigators since 1999, mariners have prevailed in just 14 cases—three of which the agency is trying to reverse on appeal. Including dismissals, the Coast Guard wins or reaches a settlement in 97 percent of its cases. The Social Security Administration, by comparison, prevails in 43 percent of the cases heard by its administrative law judge.”

It was the finding of the Sun that “the system isn’t merely tough on mariners but stacked against them.”

Whether it will upset the applecart of the CG’s “good old boy” court system or not, we can’t say. The Sun’s front-page blockbuster titled “Justice Capsized” has spread across the nation like wildfire. Sun reporter Robert Little has brought into public view what abused mariners far and wide have been saying for years.

Of particular interest to us are charges against Chief Judge Joseph N. Ingolia, who, records show, instructed administrative law judges (ALJs) under him to always rule in favor of the Coast Guard, never to make work for the Coast Guard, and never to worry about the difficulties such rulings cause licensed mariners.

We suggest that readers search the Internet for the Sun story, which was repeated by the Associated Press from coast to coast, we’re told. As we said, it is very long and very detailed. The investigation was based on evidence in federal court records, computer data files, internal memos and the sworn testimony of a former agency judge, Jeffie J. Massie. Judge Massie’s 87-page sworn statement was presented to lawyers who represent mariners. It appears that something truly is rotten in Denmark!

Some 200,000 captains, engineers, and crewmembers who require Coast Guard-issued licenses or other documents in order to work are at the mercy of a system that cares not for their welfare. As the Sun points out, “the harshest penalty a Coast Guard judge can hand down is revocation of those credentials. But even a brief suspension can cause turmoil in the life of someone who has built a career working on the water.”

While there is insufficient space to provide details, please accept our word that legal experts have done some serious eyebrow-raising over the way the court system operates. Some of the judges’ actions have been described as “extraordinary and highly inappropriate” by William Funk, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore. He is the co-author of two textbooks on administrative law. Other law school professors have expressed similar viewpoints. At least two New Orleans lawyers have filed complaints with the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney in Louisiana stating that some Coast Guard actions “amount to criminal obstruction of justice.”

What rubs us the wrong way is the court system’s willingness to “hang ‘em high” whether they are guilty or not. We have in our possession court records that appear to substantiate claims of innocence by several defendants. Admittedly a couple of the cases involve failed drug tests. Expert medical witnesses appeared on behalf of defendants and one ALJ even admitted believing the defendant’s defense, but Judge Ingolia would have his job if he voted in the defendant’s favor, he told colleagues.

One fortunate mariner who beat the system did so in a unique way. He legally recorded telephone conversations with Coast Guard officials. They bristled when he told them, because they apparently said a few things they wish they hadn’t. This mariner could “set the hook” because in his state of Arkansas, recording the conversation was legal. This mariner was successful in winning a lawsuit valued at upwards of $2 million against a hospital whose employees had falsified his records.

Make no mistake. We do not condone the use of drugs, and we think operators who use them should be escorted off the waterways. There is too much at risk to have them there. But to destroy willingly the lives of men and woman who have not violated the law goes against everything this nation stands for. As far as the Coast Guard is concerned, Dame Justice is blind.

Right now the manpower shortage on the waterways is critical. Finding licensed mariners to keep the fleet on the move is not easy and in some cases impossible. Presently the industry is experiencing a resurgence, and not being able to hire help obstructs progress. A portion of the responsibility for that shortage must be attributed to the Coast Guard.

Other government agencies have administrative court sytems, but their procedures don’t mirror those of the Coast Guard.

The surfacing (breaking, in newspaper terms) of this story on a large scale should be embarrassing to the Coast Guard, but it probably won’t be. Some higher-ups already have zipped their lips and have shown a propensity for haughtiness under fire. The agency’s approach has always been that if they ignore criticism, it will go away.

Congress, on the other hand, must not ignore it—not if it wants to represent government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)