PhotoTom
10-30-2009, 11:34 PM
Senate poised to reject Governor's move to shift NRC's appointment authority, similar bi-partisan movement brewing in the House
Last week MUCC and members of the Conservation Coalition business, recreation, land conservancy and agriculture organizations from across the state along with former directors of the Departments of Agriculture and Department of Natural Resources lined up to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 23 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-SCR-0023) (McManus, R-Lake Leelanau), a resolution that would formally reject Executive Order 45 of 2009.
Joining MUCC as members of the Conservation Coalition were Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Michigan Bow Hunters Association, and the National Wildlife Federation. All groups praised the reform of re-combining the Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality as an opportunity to improve natural resources management in Michigan, but argued that shifting the appointment of the new Department's director from the bi-partisan Natural Resources Commission to the Governor will create a politically-motivated structure within the new Department.
The groups also reminded joint committee members about Proposal G of 1996, when sixty-nine percent of Michigan voters supported a referendum designed to keep politics out of natural resources management. MUCC argued that Executive Order 45 of 2009 essentially puts natural resources management at the whim of 4 year election cycles, in direct contrast to the sentiment behind Proposal G.
MUCC cited certain provisions in the Order that deserve merit, like the creation of an Environmental Science Review Board. The Board would help provide independent scientific information to the NRC and Department officials when forming policies on complex issues like Chronic Wasting Disease, but MUCC argued its credibility will also be in jeopardy with a politically-appointed Director.
Bi-partisan movement brewing in the House
In addition to SCR 23, State Rep. Jeff Mayes (D-BayCity) last week introduced House Concurrent Resolution 32 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/concurrentresolutionintroduced/House/pdf/2009-HICR-0032.pdf), a similar resolution to reject Executive Order 45 of 2009. Mayes's Resolution currently has 36 Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Reportedly, the resolution continues to gain the support of additional lawmakers as the issue percolates. Both houses of the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled House must formally pass resolutions rejecting the E.O. It is critical that House Speaker Andy Dillon (D, Redford) is urged to hold a vote on HCR 32.
TAKE ACTION!
Merging the DNR and DEQ is a great opportunity to improve management, but more politics is a step in the wrong direction
As continuing budget negotiations occupy the bulk of lawmakers' attention, MUCC and the Conservation Coalition are challenging sportsmen and women to step out of the woods and demand their state representatives support HCR 32 and ask for a vote.
Find your state representative HERE (http://www.house.mi.gov/find_a_rep.asp)
Email House Speaker Andy Dillon (andydillon@house.mi.gov) or call him toll-free at (888) 737-3455 - tell him to take HCR 32 for a vote
Download the "Don't trash Proposal G" (http://www.mucc.org/) flyer and distribute it to your club or organization members
Conservation Coalition readies letter to Governor Granholm
Statewide and regional sporting and conservation groups continue to sign onto a letter to the Governor, asking her to re-consider the provision within E.O. 45 of 2009 that strips the NRC's appointment authority. If your organization would like to consider "signing on," please email Dave Nyberg (dnyberg@mucc.org) or Amy Spray (aspray@mucc.org)to receive a draft copy or indicate your support.
Lessons learned from Wisconsin
George Meyer, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and former eight-year Secretary (Director) of the Wisconsin DNR, has weighed in on the Governor's recent move to strip Michigan's NRC's appointment authority recently from the perspective of a "lesson learned" in Wisconsin.
Meyer served as Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for eight years, from 1993 until 2001 when he was appointed by the Natural Resources Board in 1993, and reappointed by the Governor in 1995 and 1999.
Mr. Meyer recalled a similar unraveling in Wisconsin's shift from a Board-appointed Secretary (in WI, "Natural Resources Board" is to NRC as "Secretary" is to Director) to a Governor-appointed Secretary in that there was no public hearing nor citizen input, just a unilateral shift in power. According to Meyer, Wisconsin sportsmen and women have been fighting for fourteen years to have the Board-appointed Secretary restored and ninety percent of hunters, anglers and trappers have voted for the restoration.
In response to an alleged firing of Wisconsin's DNR Secretary for enforcing state law contrary to the bequest of Governor Jim Doyle, a bill last month passed the Wisconsin State Assembly to restore the appointment authority of the WI DNR Secretary back to the Natural Resources Board by a 61-32 vote (with four of our supporters temporarily out of the state). Currently, the sportsmen community is in the process of seeking a Senate vote on the bill which has 16 out of 33 state senators as co-sponsors. As predicted, Wisconsin's Governor is working against the bill, but what's surprising, according to Meyer, is that he changed his position on the issue this past February after fourteen years of strong support for the bill.
Listed below are Meyer's policy arguments for why Wisconsin must restore appointment authority to the state Natural Resources Board:
Experience has shown that in Board-appointed systems, there is longer tenure of leadership of the agency and greater continuity, which is critically important for the long-term perspective needed to manage natural resources. In Wisconsin, we had four leaders of the Natural Resources Department (and its main predecessor, the Conservation Department), from 1954 until 2001, (forty-seven years). From 2001 until today (2009), a total of eight years, we have had three Secretaries and will have a fourth in January 2011. This constant turnover of staff has caused significant program disruptions as attested to by the public and agency staff.
Under a Governor-appointed system, there is a tendency to have appointees without a significant level of natural resource management experience. In most past situations, the Board would hold a broad national recruitment to get the most qualified person from across the country to head the agency. In contrast, the last two Governor's appointed Secretaries have had no natural resource management experience. The main attribute that they had was that they were close to the Governor.
Lastly, Wisconsin has seen an evolution to the current situation where there is a very high level of direct political interference by the Governor's office in agency decision-making. This has included interference in taking enforcement actions, issuing regulatory permits and making grants which are to be issued pursuant to statute and administrative rule. Department staff readily attests to this interference, but due to concern over their positions (some have had their jobs threatened), they are reluctant to give specifics on the record. As I mentioned we are in the process of bringing one of the prime examples to light. We understand that it will be in tomorrow's Wisconsin State Journal.A recent story from the Wisconsin State Journal which illustrates how a politically-appointed DNR director can ruin natural resource management: Was DNR Secretary forced out by Doyle? (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_6980c2da-c0fa-11de-920a-001cc4c002e0.html)
As this same process unfolds in Michigan, it's up to the Michigan sporting and conservation community to make sure the management of our natural resources does not suffer from the potential of rogue political influence that has occurred to our Lake Michigan neighbors in Wisconsin.
Last week MUCC and members of the Conservation Coalition business, recreation, land conservancy and agriculture organizations from across the state along with former directors of the Departments of Agriculture and Department of Natural Resources lined up to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 23 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-SCR-0023) (McManus, R-Lake Leelanau), a resolution that would formally reject Executive Order 45 of 2009.
Joining MUCC as members of the Conservation Coalition were Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Michigan Bow Hunters Association, and the National Wildlife Federation. All groups praised the reform of re-combining the Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality as an opportunity to improve natural resources management in Michigan, but argued that shifting the appointment of the new Department's director from the bi-partisan Natural Resources Commission to the Governor will create a politically-motivated structure within the new Department.
The groups also reminded joint committee members about Proposal G of 1996, when sixty-nine percent of Michigan voters supported a referendum designed to keep politics out of natural resources management. MUCC argued that Executive Order 45 of 2009 essentially puts natural resources management at the whim of 4 year election cycles, in direct contrast to the sentiment behind Proposal G.
MUCC cited certain provisions in the Order that deserve merit, like the creation of an Environmental Science Review Board. The Board would help provide independent scientific information to the NRC and Department officials when forming policies on complex issues like Chronic Wasting Disease, but MUCC argued its credibility will also be in jeopardy with a politically-appointed Director.
Bi-partisan movement brewing in the House
In addition to SCR 23, State Rep. Jeff Mayes (D-BayCity) last week introduced House Concurrent Resolution 32 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/concurrentresolutionintroduced/House/pdf/2009-HICR-0032.pdf), a similar resolution to reject Executive Order 45 of 2009. Mayes's Resolution currently has 36 Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Reportedly, the resolution continues to gain the support of additional lawmakers as the issue percolates. Both houses of the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled House must formally pass resolutions rejecting the E.O. It is critical that House Speaker Andy Dillon (D, Redford) is urged to hold a vote on HCR 32.
TAKE ACTION!
Merging the DNR and DEQ is a great opportunity to improve management, but more politics is a step in the wrong direction
As continuing budget negotiations occupy the bulk of lawmakers' attention, MUCC and the Conservation Coalition are challenging sportsmen and women to step out of the woods and demand their state representatives support HCR 32 and ask for a vote.
Find your state representative HERE (http://www.house.mi.gov/find_a_rep.asp)
Email House Speaker Andy Dillon (andydillon@house.mi.gov) or call him toll-free at (888) 737-3455 - tell him to take HCR 32 for a vote
Download the "Don't trash Proposal G" (http://www.mucc.org/) flyer and distribute it to your club or organization members
Conservation Coalition readies letter to Governor Granholm
Statewide and regional sporting and conservation groups continue to sign onto a letter to the Governor, asking her to re-consider the provision within E.O. 45 of 2009 that strips the NRC's appointment authority. If your organization would like to consider "signing on," please email Dave Nyberg (dnyberg@mucc.org) or Amy Spray (aspray@mucc.org)to receive a draft copy or indicate your support.
Lessons learned from Wisconsin
George Meyer, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and former eight-year Secretary (Director) of the Wisconsin DNR, has weighed in on the Governor's recent move to strip Michigan's NRC's appointment authority recently from the perspective of a "lesson learned" in Wisconsin.
Meyer served as Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for eight years, from 1993 until 2001 when he was appointed by the Natural Resources Board in 1993, and reappointed by the Governor in 1995 and 1999.
Mr. Meyer recalled a similar unraveling in Wisconsin's shift from a Board-appointed Secretary (in WI, "Natural Resources Board" is to NRC as "Secretary" is to Director) to a Governor-appointed Secretary in that there was no public hearing nor citizen input, just a unilateral shift in power. According to Meyer, Wisconsin sportsmen and women have been fighting for fourteen years to have the Board-appointed Secretary restored and ninety percent of hunters, anglers and trappers have voted for the restoration.
In response to an alleged firing of Wisconsin's DNR Secretary for enforcing state law contrary to the bequest of Governor Jim Doyle, a bill last month passed the Wisconsin State Assembly to restore the appointment authority of the WI DNR Secretary back to the Natural Resources Board by a 61-32 vote (with four of our supporters temporarily out of the state). Currently, the sportsmen community is in the process of seeking a Senate vote on the bill which has 16 out of 33 state senators as co-sponsors. As predicted, Wisconsin's Governor is working against the bill, but what's surprising, according to Meyer, is that he changed his position on the issue this past February after fourteen years of strong support for the bill.
Listed below are Meyer's policy arguments for why Wisconsin must restore appointment authority to the state Natural Resources Board:
Experience has shown that in Board-appointed systems, there is longer tenure of leadership of the agency and greater continuity, which is critically important for the long-term perspective needed to manage natural resources. In Wisconsin, we had four leaders of the Natural Resources Department (and its main predecessor, the Conservation Department), from 1954 until 2001, (forty-seven years). From 2001 until today (2009), a total of eight years, we have had three Secretaries and will have a fourth in January 2011. This constant turnover of staff has caused significant program disruptions as attested to by the public and agency staff.
Under a Governor-appointed system, there is a tendency to have appointees without a significant level of natural resource management experience. In most past situations, the Board would hold a broad national recruitment to get the most qualified person from across the country to head the agency. In contrast, the last two Governor's appointed Secretaries have had no natural resource management experience. The main attribute that they had was that they were close to the Governor.
Lastly, Wisconsin has seen an evolution to the current situation where there is a very high level of direct political interference by the Governor's office in agency decision-making. This has included interference in taking enforcement actions, issuing regulatory permits and making grants which are to be issued pursuant to statute and administrative rule. Department staff readily attests to this interference, but due to concern over their positions (some have had their jobs threatened), they are reluctant to give specifics on the record. As I mentioned we are in the process of bringing one of the prime examples to light. We understand that it will be in tomorrow's Wisconsin State Journal.A recent story from the Wisconsin State Journal which illustrates how a politically-appointed DNR director can ruin natural resource management: Was DNR Secretary forced out by Doyle? (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_6980c2da-c0fa-11de-920a-001cc4c002e0.html)
As this same process unfolds in Michigan, it's up to the Michigan sporting and conservation community to make sure the management of our natural resources does not suffer from the potential of rogue political influence that has occurred to our Lake Michigan neighbors in Wisconsin.