Alert: SB 6813 - WDFW Elimination

[whacker1]

Unfortunately from what I understand, a bill is never completely dead, they can be brought back to life, even in following years.

totally correct, but I only meant dead for the remainder of this short 60 day session. 

Bob Morton responded to see that he was testiying on a bill he sponsored elsewhere on campus and was not able to attend this committee meeting.  However, he did instruct his staff to respond with the outcome of this meeting, so I will share when I get more info.

[bearpaw]

Morton is from my district and does a great job for us, if we had a few more Morton's we would be in much better shape.

[whacker1]

I got a response from the leg staffer from that committee, which was a link to the TVW broadcast of the committee hearing. 
http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010020125&TYPE=V&CFID=5349421&CFTOKEN=79982902&bhcp=1

The goal is to consolidate resources in land management, because parks, dnr, and wdfw manage land.  Reduction in Duplicity in government is the goal to this bill.    I listened to the 1 and 40 minute hearing, and the end result was -
Senator Rodney Tom - Prime sponsor of the bill explained that they are looking for ways to conolidate government
Miranda wecker, wdfw commissioner, spoke in opposition to the bill -
park commissioner Joe Pollard (spelling?) - spoke in opposition to the bill, short time, bad timing, park
Director of Parks, Rex ______? - spoke in opposition, - no plan, no actual fiscal note, short time line, bad timing, already cohabitating offices
senator Bob Morton - was in attendance for part of the meeting - and asked questions of director of parks regarding maintaining parks with convicts.
Lenny Young - DNR employee - supported the bill, but asked for extension on the implementation and planning protion of the bill.
Presiding senator - Ken Jacobsen identified to Lenny Young that it has been roughly 15 years since they merged fish & wildlife, and it is just now starting to take hold.  Lenny Young responded with if it is handled well then that won't happen, but if it is not approached in the right way then it could "haunt us for decades"
Mark Quinn - president of the washington wildlife federation, retired fish & wildlife employee - opposed the bill and gave history, and importance of department
Howard Briggs - snowmobile association, testified in opposition to dnr, because of dnr's operating procedure, He also stated that DNR's mission & operating procedure contradicts that of parks.  Senator Ken Jacobsen commented that these departments don't currently work well
Tim Young - washington federation of state employees - wdfw employee - concerned over the consolidation and reduction in workforce, and cost of consolidation
Senator Kevin Ranker - is looking for reduction in GIS & mapping resources across DOE, WDFW, DNR, Parks, etc.  Tim Young answered some of the questions in using the other departments resources for their own research on specific tasks
Another employee of Washington Federation of State Employees - technical changes about the barganing units to better protect the employees during transfer
Bill Robinson - The Nature Conservancy - supported
phil rigdin - yakima nation - concerned about combination of roles, and losing existing working relationships, short timeline, etc.
Doug Levy - Washington Recreation & parks association - opposed
- mission conflicts, recreation being put as a lower priority, resource management vs. protection of resources, urban outdoor recreation, timeline, compared department of commerce, cted, dted, and the various mergers involved in that department taking on too much.
Senator Kevin Ranker is asking question - rhetorical in nature, can't cut anything, so what can be consolidated, specifically administration, what can be said yes too.  It was directed at the department heads parks, wdfw, and dnr giving feedback on consolidation.  Response - trying to consolidate office space across the state
Senator James Hargrove - asked questions on permitting - suggests consolidation of the duplicity of permitting between the three departments.  Response was that they are looking at how they put people on the ground.
Senator Kevin Ranker asked a question about timelines and deadlines and the governor's executive order on review.  Response was timelines on 20 aspects come due in July through the 10 -15 months following July.

Meeting sucked - no outcome,which is good and means that there will be more debate on the subject.


 

[bearpaw]

thanks for the info whacker1, we will have to keep an eye on this....

[whacker1]

I don't see where I posted it, but she did clarify that bills related to the budget aren't dead until the close of session or passage, so yes "we will definitely have to keep an eye on it".

[bearpaw]

From what a longtime lobbyist told me...

Bills are never completely dead, they can even be brought back up in subsequent sessions.

[whacker1]

Yes, and I hate the short sessions, because they automatically take all the bills from the prior session that didn't pass and reintroduce them.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Alert from CCA today............


Reply
 Reply all
 Forward
 |
 
 
 
 Full view
 
Oppose merger of WDFW with the DNR‏
From:  CCA Washington (info@ccapnw.org) 
Sent: Wed 2/24/10 9:13 AM


 


Dear James,
In the morning of February 23rd, the Senate released a version of the 2010 Supplemental Budget that merges the State Parks Department and the State Fish and Wildlife Department with the Department of Natural Resources, creating one large catch-all Natural Resources agency. The budget transfers all WDFW employees and all of its revenue ($334 million), regardless of fund source, to DNR. This would allow the new DNR agency to use your license fees for other purposes.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on this proposed budget at 3:30 this afternoon (Feb. 24) and it will likely go to the floor for a vote this Saturday. We have not identified any savings that will result from the proposed merger. In fact, the merger may result in additional costs. The budget allocates $10 million to accomplish the merger but the source of those funds is not disclosed.  We believe our members should have direct access to fish and wildlife management. Under this merger, stakeholders will not have the kind of access to the DNR that they have with Fish & Wildlife Commissioners under the current process.

CCA strongly opposes this proposal. The merger will not save money and could have a negative impact on the conservation and protection of our marine resources. We urge you to contact your three legislators and the governor now and ask them to OPPOSE the merger of these Departments.

Please click on the link below to send a message to your legislator, or call 1-800-562-6000 to voice your concern.

Sincerely,
Your CCA Washington Government Relations Committee

 
 
 

[Special T]

I don't know but the people that are "concerned" about the meager are mostly responsible for mis-managing our opportunities in the first place.... I actually think this COULD be a great thing... I am sceptical that they would execute a merger right, like s-caning Lots of the "managers" of the WDFW.... I'm not sure i care if they don't use our licence money the way it "should be". That implies that they are doing it correctly now..  I think this is a great opportunity, but fear it is rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. 

[whacker1]

I looked at the agenda for the 3:30 meeting in ways and means and did not see these bills included on the agenda.  Neither senate bill 6813 or the actual budget bill.  I saw other bills related to budget, but none included the attached language to accomplish a merger.

I hate budgets, because it takes a ton of research to determine what is buried in the budget.  That is why I love the dedicated fund accounts, because they are easy for everyone to understand and limit either parties ability to move funds without lots of public visibility on the issue.  Both parties like general fund budgets where they can shift funds, re-allocate, and the general public (media) never puts the effort into figuring out what was cut, added, limited, maximized, etc.   Prior budget writer for the house hated dedicated funds, because it took her control away.

[Special T]

You are absolutely correct

[Elkaholic daWg]

  I have already seen the kind of damage the DNR has done up on the colockum . I would like to see them more restricted,not expanded to include MANAGING our wildlife as well

[whacker1]

Consolidating would require a shift in the priorities of DNR to both focus on wildlife, fish, parks, and state land timber, and others I am sure that I missed, but the shift in priorities will likely be dictated by which has the largest budget within dnr.

Further bureacracy scares the crap out of me.  They don't actually know whether this will cost more money or save money.  They haven't done the feasibility study.  Just impulsive decision making to make it appear that they have made big changes and let some other legislative session years from now clean it up.

If they wanted to save money they would actually split fish from wildlife and get rid of a layer of management and bureacracy.  Usually combinging governement entities makes them less efficient with labor and management and priorities all wrapped up in a pretty little package.
 

[Shootmoore]

Consolidating would require a shift in the priorities of DNR to both focus on wildlife, fish, parks, and state land timber, and others I am sure that I missed, but the shift in priorities will likely be dictated by which has the largest budget within dnr.

Further bureacracy scares the crap out of me.  They don't actually know whether this will cost more money or save money.  They haven't done the feasibility study.  Just impulsive decision making to make it appear that they have made big changes and let some other legislative session years from now clean it up.

If they wanted to save money they would actually split fish from wildlife and get rid of a layer of management and bureacracy.  Usually combinging governement entities makes them less efficient with labor and management and priorities all wrapped up in a pretty little package.
 

 

The grass is not always greener on the other side.  I am guessing that this merger will make it #1 more expensive #2 listen to the sportsman and fishermen less. #3 less priority towards fish and game management.  #4 Less power by the commission.

Back in the day when it was Department of Game, and Department of Fisheries, it was smaller, with better management.  The merger between the two has been the slow demise of quality with the growth of the management end and shrinking of the actual boots on the ground.  I would imagine looking at history of the mergers that we could expect more of the same.

Shootmoore

[whacker1]

Your #4 -----the commision would no longer exist based on the current form of the bill from what I read in senate bill 6813

If you want to look at Mergers in state government - look no further than the department of Commerce.  The legislature has changed their name, duties, etc at least 5 times in the last 20 years, and is considering it again this legislative session.