Conflict of Interest?

If you're investigating NASA and yet NASA's picking up the check for your work, how impartial can your investigation be? That question is being posed by The Orlando Sentinel and other newspapers around the world, after revelations that civilian members of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) are getting hefty salaries from the space agency they're supposed to be dispassionately examining.

Not Bad Pay, Either

And the pay's not bad. Five civilian members of the CAIB are now receiving at least $134,000 a year from NASA, even though they were added to the board to ensure its impartiality:

• CAIB Chairman Howard Gehman, USN, ret.
• Dr. Sally Ride, former Shuttle Astronaut, now Professor Of Space Science, University of California/San Diego
• Roger Tetrault, Chairman, McDermott International, ret.
• Sheila Widnall, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT
• Douglas Osherhoff, Professor, Stanford University
• John Logsdon, Director, George Washington University Space Shuttle Institute

Paying The Investigators Changes The Rules

With the revelation that the five civilian members of the CAIB are on NASA's payroll, the rules change dramatically. Even though NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has promised full disclosure of the facts as NASA continues its invstigation into the Columbia tragedy, the fact that all 13 CAIB members are NASA-paid now means they can meet behind closed doors. They can meet in secret, make findings in secret and report to NASA - in secret.

Already, Gehman has exercised the CAIB's new "right to privacy." More than 200 NASA workers who helped prep and conduct Columbia's last mission have been interviewed by the CAIB. Gehman, a retired Navy admiral who is being paid at the rate of $142,500 per year, "Those (transcripts) are never going to see the light of day," according to the Sentinel.

But Gehman insists the point is not to withhold evidence from the public. In a prepared statement released to ANN over the weekend, he said,  "The board determined it could provide a much deeper and richer review of NASA policies and procedures if it employed standard safety investigation procedures, which are incompatible with [open-government] provisions."

That statement did not respond to a rising chorus of questions about the pay NASA is providing both him and the other five civilian members of the CAIB.

Science Board: "Baffling"

The Orlando Sentinal quotes Steven Aftergood, leader of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists as saying "Three words - conflict of interest." Aftgergood accuses NASA of tainting the CAIB by picking up the tab for the five civilian members. "The upshot is, we don't have an independent investigating board. This means NASA is investigating itself. This defeats the whole purpose of having an independent inquiry. What they did was hire outsiders and convert them into an internal board. It's just baffling."

All five civilian members of the board say the NASA money in no way compromises their impartiality. However, in an e-mail to the Sentinel, Sally Ride said, "I don't see it an issue for the Board members to be on the federal payroll - this board, unlike most pro-bono government committees, is essentially a full-time job (for which people should receive some compensation). But one might ask whether it should be NASA's payroll."

In 1986, when the shuttle Challenger exploded 104 seconds after lift-off, then-President Ronald Reagan appointed a special investigatory commission, funded by Washington. President George W. Bush did not do that in the wake of the Feb. 1, 2003 Columbia disaster in which seven astronauts were killed.

Plan In The Can

Ninety minutes after the tragedy, NASA Administrator O'Keefe announced establishment of the CAIB. It's a canned plan - that is, one ready to pull off the shelf in the event of a tragedy like the disintegration of Columbia. Designed in 1995, it's written along the same lines the military uses to investigate flight accidents. It calls for secret testimony and secret meetings - and a focus, not on who is at fault in an air disaster, but on how such accidents can be prevented in the future.

From the get-go, the plan was criticized because the investigation team seemed to have a conflict of interest. NASA members were investigating themselves and each other.

"The fact of the matter is, so far the commission that's there now was appointed by NASA, is staffed by NASA and reports back to NASA, and I'm afraid that's just not going to be credible," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN, right), ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee's Space subcommittee, in comments echoed by members of both parties, the Sentinel reported.

Under increasing heat from Congress and the public, O'Keefe added the civilian members to the CAIB, saying NASA "has taken the necessary steps to ensure the board's complete independence."

But, as the Sentinel reports in Sunday's editions, O'Keefe didn't tell members of Congress in testimony last February that the investigatory procedures themselves, devised eight years ago, would remain the guiding light of the CAIB.

Civilian Members React To Criticism

How do the five civilian CAIB members themselves react to the growing outcry over their impartiality? Each was quoted in the Sunday edition of the Sentinel.

• Adm. Gehman: "Any inference that all board members were made federal employees to avoid (open government) provisions is not accurate. The board determined it could provide a much deeper and richer review of NASA policies and procedures if it employed standard (secret) safety-investigation procedures."
• Prof. Ride: "I don't see it an issue for the board members to be on the federal payroll. This board is essentially a full-time job. But one might ask whether it should be NASA's payroll."
• Mr. Tetrault: "It is certainly my belief that we have acted independently from NASA and, on occasion, have been very critical of some of their practices."

• Dr. Widnall: "I could care less whether I'm a government employee. I think it's just a matter of convenience. I do not compromise my independence in any way."
• Dr. Osheroff: "We rely on NASA for a lot of stuff, but I can tell you that we have been very highly critical of the past way NASA has done many things. Most of the people who are on the board, I don't think they care where they're getting paid."
• Dr. Logsdon: "The basic evidence of CAIB's independence from NASA, and specifically mine, will be the content of our report and recommendations."

FMI: www.caib.us