Where does CSP black hole end? (Editorial)

We continue to be troubled — deeply so — by the perverseness of the federal agencies involved in what is known as the CSP case, or is it rather the perverseness of their interpretation of the laws and regulations governing the old and now-defunct Conservation Security Program?
Three Mid-Shore farm operations, and the 12 landowners for whom they till, received grants from the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service under CSP contracts issued in 2006.
The contracts — all 15 of them — were approved by the NRCS, and money was issued and the farmers did all the work for which they were paid.
In 2010, auditors of the Office of the Inspector General, said the 15 contracts were invalid.
Only three should have been issued, one to each of the three major farm operations.
The OIG told the NRCS the payments made to the farmers and the landowners were improper and to get the money back.
Now, the contracts, which were drawn with the help and counsel of NRCS staffers, both in the Talbot County office and the Maryland state office in Annapolis, obviously conformed to CSP and NRCS policy as it existed in 2006, or they would not have been drawn and issued in that form.
Needless to say, we are troubled by the fact that these farmers and the 12 neighboring landowners now are being penalized to an extent which could ultimately cost them a total of nearly $1 million because the policy governing the issuance of those grants changed between 2006 and 2010.
Also troubling is the curious congressional adoption of a law on which the OIG is hanging its hat in demanding repayment.
It’s called the Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 22, 2010, about the time that the OIG was conducting its audits.
It says that if the CSP payments are ruled improper, Uncle Sam wants his money back.
Also troubling is what appears to be a constitutionally-based violation in the law which governs the conduct of the USDA’s National Appeals Division in cases involving the CSP.
As far as the law governing cases such as this, here is how NAD hearing officer Karen King concluded her report on three days of hearings in Easton in November:
It “provides that an appellant bears the burden of proving that an agency’s adverse decision is erroneous by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, appellant did not meet this burden. The agency decision is not erroneous.”
Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?”
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution defines due process.
Due process implies “a fair trial.”
In a fair trial, a jury of one’s peers is instructed that the prosecution is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that is, that the defendant is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Finally, we are troubled by what appears to us to be a flaw in “the fair trial” process.
Two NRCS staff members with an intimate knowledge of the preparation and execution of the original contracts, did not testify at the Easton hearings.
Were they subpoenaed? Were they asked to testify? Why didn’t they show up?
Reasons differ — but the fact of the matter is, they did not.
The case is now on the desk of NAD Director Roger Klurfled for final determination within the USDA.
Depending on what happens there, the case could end up in the federal courts.
Innocent until proved guilty, we are assured, works there.