She certainly didn't try very hard to cut the states portion of union health care premiums.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2013619517_edit08split.html

Well you certainly hit on the two main reasons for the high cost of government under this Governor and Legislature. Pretty much nailed down the small business thing also.

A recent Senator that was very much pro sportsman called the Commission the worse idea ever. ( as to fish & game ) Said the agency used the Commission as a shield for not only political accountability but by controlling the information to the Commission prevented rational change. WDF&W has very few friends in the political world or in the public. This BB is one of the few places they are defended.

Well sorta, maybe, sometimes?

Or 8 RVRFSHRs...they are more economical.

On a serious note, I gotta admit, I'm very skeptical about this merger. My whole life revolves around fish and fishing. May seem kinda pathetic to some but that's what I've chose. I'm leery that a merger like this will be better for the fish and wildlife of Washington state.

I like having a WDFW commision (assuming its not infiltrated with commerical interests) and a single agency with its mandate to protect wild fish and insure recreational fishing opportunity. I could totally see this getting lost with a merger. I'm a firm believer in paying for what you use. If we want to keep fishing, hunting, using parks or whatever, then it should come at a cost. I'm not a big fan of all the special interest committees that cost money, doesn't provide any revenue, and serves a minority. That is the stuff that should be cut, not added. Granted, WDFW needs good leadership at the top but what they need even more is the field staff to carry out the basic day to day needs. What they don't need is more upper level management.

I'd like to hear the perspective of WDFW staff on this issue.

Yes, I'm very afraid things are going to get worse before they get better...if they ever get better.

REFERENDUM BILL NO. 45
Chapter 2, Laws of 1995, First Special Session (Shall the fish and wildlife commission, rather than the governor, appoint the department’s director and regulate food fish and shellfish?) The measure was submitted to the voters at the November 7, 1995 state general election and was approved by the following vote: For – 809,083 Against – 517,433.

There is no doubt that having the WDFW (or merged agency) director being appointed by the governor will further politicize the agency. The very proof is that both the Governor and the Legislature prefers the Gov.-appointed director agency model. Why? To make the shortest direct line of accountability from the Director to the Governor and from the Director to the Legislature, without having to go through citizen Commissioners, who as a well-informed group have the agency mandate and constituent interest first, whereas the Governor and the Legislature always have politics first, and resource and citizen interests second. The Governor and the legislators know that they serve politics first, because that's the only way they can get elected, but they wouldn't and couldn't publicly admit that.

Having a citizen Fish & Wildlife Commission that hires the Director is the mechanism by which the role of politics ruling the agency is reduced - never eliminated of course - but at least held to a lesser role than when the Director serves at the pleasure of the Governor. Just compare with any of the Governor's Cabinet agencies whose Directors are appointed by her.

Another reason I'm not keen on the proposed merger is that the economy of scale seems to work well, up to a point. Mergers that create "super-agencies" have invariably produced the least efficient agencies in terms of government services to the "people" per dollar spent. WDFW is large enough to benefit from its size without being so large that it's irretrievably inefficient.

Sg

Just more of the same. Cut, cut, cut after spend, spend, spend. Has been that way in this state since Locke, maybe before that. Nothing is ever done the way it would work in the long run.

You can't plug a leak with $90, spend $110 later and not expect to get soaked.

I believe this buget "crisis" is being used to circumvent the law. Create a new agency, the law is moot.

I find it interesting that last year they wanted WDFW to merge with DNR.

This year, they want to merge WDFW with Parks and Recreation. One dept brings in revenue and affects the local business. Parks is a black hole with continuous funding issues.

Did they ever look at merging Parks and DNR by themselves? They are both based on land use, are they not? Perhaps they are looking at managing people rather than land, or wildlife.

DNR manages the land? ie Seabed and they never tried to clean up any ghostnets. The closest agency to the problem, was the dept of ecology.

Lets not forget, whatever dept are combined, the legislative committees will adjust accordingly and the same politics will probably resume.

When WDF and WDW were merged, the Gov appointed the Director. The Initiative changed that. No reason not to go that route again, and again, and again. I believ it was an Initiative that set up the original WDG.

Perhaps one could go out a limb with the Initiative and make the agency funded only by license fees, landing tax, etc. Limit management action to those species and habitats supported by license sales. Other species could be managed by DNR out of the General Fund.

Knowing that the Gov and Leg don't have the resources interest at heart, start now to develop the Initiative and Agency Model that is wanted.

Yup, when fish and wildlife were combined the saltwater license fees were sent to the General Fund. A crude payback for making steelhead a gamefish.

If you want to hear their perspective their union testified during the last commission meeting: Dec 2-3-4 commission meeting audio transcripts click on this link and scroll down to ITEM #21, the open public comment period. They are the 1st people to testify.
Sounds like they are tired of being underpaid

This by Aunty.
So, fire them all and let the tribes have the remaining fish and shellfish, including the management costs. It would probably serve us right, and would definately serve the non-tribal commercials right.

Interesting?

Rivrguy posted an interesting observation from a former Senator:

"...the agency used the Commission as a shield for not only political accountability but by controlling the information to the Commission prevented rational change."

My comments:

1. Not sure that the agency "used" the Commission as a shield from political accountability. I would prefer to view this as the Commission being the buffer between politicos and the agency. In short, probably what we wanted when we voted on Initiative 45 to create the Commission.

2. As to preventing "rationale" change I am always concerned when words like "rationale" and "reasonable" are used as they so often are commentator specific. In other words, an opinion.....
However, I do agree that various individuals within the agency do, in fact, control processes and information toward their own or agency agendas (if not the biologist then his boss or his boss's boss). It is this manipulation that we have the opportunity to challenge during the public process and before the Commission. Absent that public process/Commission review will the agency stop slanting their data? I doubt it!

I think I would interpret the Senator's comments this way, and with these comments...

1. The "political shield" means that the Senator can't fire them for not doing what he/she wants...which, incidentally, is EXACTLY why the people of the State voted for Ref. 45.

2. The "rational change" is most likely politico-speak for "won't do what I want"...and please refer to #1.

Fish on...

Todd

Hmm .......... ah well yes and maybe no. He was a rather high up D Senator and his comments were directed toward the inability to address issues brought forward by the public. At the time If I recall correctly it involved ESA stocks / harvest and the lack of equality between Sports and Commercial harvest, in particular in river terminal. Might add that he supported bringing the Commission back but in the end felt it created a situation that stonewalling became acceptable.

Did not say I agreed but if one wants to maintain the Commission structure one should get a feel for what some feel is a short coming that is seldom discussed. He lamented the fact that the lack of consensus amoung sport fishers really undermined efforts to move their issues forward as the commercial interest ( including tribal ) were in lock step. It was a interesting conversation to say the least, bit of a eye opener for this opinionated old goat.

Our state has been run by 1 party for 2+ decades. Anyone on this board who wants to start the name calling because some of see down the middle rather than far to one side or the other should look in the mirror first.

Calling everyone else a tool 'cause we're not willing to jump off the cliff quietly definitely helps nararow the divide.

According to Her the voters are all uninformed because we finally said get your lips off the bottle.

This isn't only about the WDFW.

Failure to provide a consolidated front is an acknowledged weakness among sport interest groups here and elsewhere but is something that we have been working to overcome.

Todd, you have captured the essence of the Senator's political perspective (or at least my perspective of his perspective...) which is probably common - if not universal - where politicians do not have ALL of the control.

Again, whether I or others have always gotten everything we have wanted at least we can have an audience with the decision makers who are pretty knowledgeable folks as a body.

As far as accountability what has occurred with the heads of the agencies responsible for recent debacles such as the ferries (not) serving Pt. Townsend/Keystone? Or the $1MM rework of the not yet completed Highway 16 ramp in Tacoma? Or the Ft. Flagler Park sewer system repairs? I really don't even want to mention the Dept. of Social and Health Services - a mega agency. Nothing! Given that track record of failed accoutability at agencies where the Director is appointed by the Governor it is hard to accept that this reorg would be an improvement upon a Commission whose members the Governor appoints and the Senate may confirm.

Would our (sport) interests have fared better in recent years under the proposed system? If so, then why have the commercials been trying to undermine the Commission during that same period?

Its not just govt agncy mergers that fail. Business merger do not always survive and many of the have been unwound.

Time Warner and AOL
Snapple and Quaker Oats
All the subsidiaries that ford and GM owned in part or whole.

And plenty of companies that are taken private by private equity firms end up selling them over and over. If you cannot have success combining two seattle newspapers, then you know its not easy.

I think that some folks putting forth testimony about their own reductions in wages and benefits is going to put the spotlight on the state agencies.

Gregoire announce a 3% cut on the union contracts and thats not even close to what the private sector has experience. Watch them try and give themselves raises in 2012.