ODFW director, Govenor or Commission

[fishbait]

The bill to allow the Govenor to appoint the director of ODFW has passed the Senate. IF it is to be stopped it is up to the House. I received a reply back from Bruce Starr (only one who responded) asking for more info on my opinion "as he has not made up his mind on this matter" (his words) You can e-mail him at repstarr@brucestarr.org if you wnat to try to get him to oppose this bill. Come-on-guys take 4 min and write the damm e-mail

[fishbait]

Steve:

Thanks for contacting my office. Are there specific reasons why you believe the Commission structure works better?

I have not made a determination either way but I must tell you the momentum in the Capitol is to take the decision away from the Commission.

I would appreciate a rationale from your point of view.

Thanks again for contacting my office.

Sincerely,

Bruce W. Starr
State Representative
District 3

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

If the person is governor appointed, wouldn't an appointment by him/her justify a political favor somewhat? Even if the person is "somewhat" qualified.....

[Phish_on]

If the Gov is going to be held accountable for the Department, the Gov should be able to say who heads the Department.

Doesn't the Gov appoint the Commissioners?
The Governor selects most Agency heads, as the Chief Executive - that makes sense.

fishbait, can we get a bill number on that?

[This message has been edited by Phish_on (edited 01-31-2001).]

[PeterMac]

Phish, it is my opinion that the department is better served , not by a politician appointed by a politician, but rather someone carefully selected by the experts put in place to oversee the rules and regulations of the department. The reason you didn't get to vote on the commissioners is because they are not politicians.

Again, this is MHO. Obviously it is not in agreement with your not so humble opinion, but hey, that is what makes things interesting .

PeterMac

[Phish_on]

Hey now, my opinion's as humble as the next guy's !

I'm just trying to explain what I think the rationale is behind the legislation. The Director should be someone who can effectively operate the bureaucracy, the Commission should guide the policy decisions.
If you were running a business, would you want your most important employees chosen by a "panel of experts" ?

I guess I don't see what the big deal is. Are we down on Dr. K.? The gov understands the fish issues better than any other gov will for many years. He's a river guy.

[PeterMac]

The commisioners are in favor of keeping the task of selecting the dept head. One of their big concerns is that if it is the governer who selects, then the position becomes too political. IMHO, the commisioners are selected based upon their variety of expertise, and are probably best suited to carefully, and thoroughly evaluate each candidates qualifications.

PeterMac

[Phish_on]

SB49, BTW ... http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/mea.../sb0049.a.html

The Commission is appointed by the Governor subject to Senate confirmation. This is typical of State boards and commissions.

How do you say the appointment of the director is "political" but the Commission is selected "based on their variety of expertise" - and somehow NON-politically ???

It makes sense to have the Director accountable directly to the chief executive, who is accountable directly to the voting public. I didn't vote for any ODFW commissioners.

[fishbait]

I agree that our current Gov understands the issues very well. What will happen if the next Gov could care less about fish and has the attitude that the sooner there are no more fish the sooner we can stop wasting money trying to protect/enhance them and also believes that hunting and gun ownership has no place in current day society. Should we let him select the director. If you think it can't happen here, research what is going on in eastern Canada.

[TheRogue]

Leave it as is.....If the director has everyone p.o.'d, he must be doing things right.

Fishbait hits the nail on the head. Gov. K. is in tune with fish and wildlife issues. He is very capable of placing the "right" person in the job. However, lets say that, somehow, a conservative Republican makes it in....wouldn't he likely appoint a director who pushes hard for much more liberal bag limits and seasons on everything, ramping up hatchery production...while taking $$ from habitat restoration, etc.

Or how about a very "anti" governor...Guns are bad, animals are people too, etc. Wouldn't they likely appoint someone who looks at it from their point of view??

Take a look at Bush's appointments for his cabinets. For all of his take of moderation and cooperation, how many of these people are embraced with a cooperative effort amongst Congress? Philosophically, most of them think the same way G.W. does. Well, as V.P. Cheney thinks, because we all know that G.W. doesn't.

1000 points of light, and we got the one dim one.

T.R.

[This message has been edited by TheRogue (edited 02-01-2001).]

[Phish_on]

I need to read the law again to see what powers the Commission has, and what powers the Director has ...

The Commission has the power but can delegate power to the Director. http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/496.html

The "chain of command" seems to go
(People)->Governor->F&W Commission->Director

I remain quite undecided. My legislative reps are dispicable, I know that much! HI-HO

[This message has been edited by Phish_on (edited 02-01-2001).]

[SailCat]

TGF has taken a position against allowing the governor to make such appointments. While we agree that Governer K. would probably make a good selection, we also agree that the next guy may not be so qualified.

We received some valuable input from a very knowledgeable sport angler from California (yeah, I know he’s from California, but this guy is a good one!). Rich Slusher states, “I read your item about the pending legislation to have your Governor appoint the Fish & Game Director. As a California resident, I cannot strike fear into the hearts of your legislators (unless they happen to go fishing with me), but hopefully I can give your subscribers some insight and inspire them to take action. In a nutshell, DO NOT GIVE THE GOVERNOR THE POWER TO APPOINT THE DIRECTOR! In California the Governor has had this power and it has resulted in a series of appointees chosen not for their knowledge of fisheries and wildlife, but in exchange for political and financial services rendered. We have had one incompetent after another running the show resulting in a political "oil spill" just as harmful to the environment as a real one. I am on the board of a local watershed council and know from firsthand experience how difficult it is to deal with agencies that do not have either the expertise or passion to carry out their duties, but have the power to impact your efforts to make things better. I have fished in Oregon for over 40 years and have always admired your dedication to wildlife and fisheries and wish that California would incorporate some of your policies. Please don't take a chapter from our book and allow the Director's position to be a political gift. It will be far easier to prevent this from happening now than to try to overturn it later on. Good luck.”

Email your representatives.

~Michael T.