DFG/Related Entities Reorganization....

[Darian]

Recently, jbird started a thread titled "Lounge" to see if anyone was interested in participating in a FORUM not necessarily related to fly fishing. I'm interested in seeing whether most members of this board could carry it off. So, with that in mind, I'd like to suggest a topic:

Should the California DFG, F&G Commission and the Wildlife Conservation Board be reorganized and, if so, how :?:

Following is a high level description of these entities:

The Fish & Game Comm has 5 appointed commissioners. None are elected. The commission is responsible for review/approval of proposed regs, permits, licenses, mgmt policies, etc. It is an independent body.

Dept of F&G is headed by a single political appointee and is part of the state Resources Agency.

A third entity involved is the Wildlife Conservation Board. Members of this board (3) include the Director, DFG, the President of the F&G Commission and the Director of the Dept of Finance. This entity administers the capital outlay program for wildlife conservation and public recreation (acquisition and development).

As I see it, any change from appointee status to elected official would require a state constitutional amendment. Most likely, whichever party is in power at the time would oppose any attempt to create another elected official as, in general, constitutional officers see themselves as independent of the administration and may not choose to obey executive directives. Especially in budget matters as our current controller recently did on state pay issues.

Further, consolidation may be possible but I don't see the state giving up the Wildlife Conservation Board as it has it's fingers on the purse strings thru the Director of Finance (can you say control???). That leaves the F&G Commission and DFG. F&G Commission independence is the only check on political power over F&G (as little as that is). If the two were consolidated, I'm assuming that would leave DFG which we all acknowledge is racked with competing agendas (conservation, recreation, commercial), part of the Resources Agency and subservient to the wishes of Department of Water Resources. Leaves what to do with the commissioners unanswered. Abolished :?:

I know there's a lot of emotion out there about DFG. However, I challenge participants to keep a lid on it and tell us why a reorganzation would be good and to make a suggestion(s) about what you would propose as a reorg. Your turn.... :-I

[Darian]

Wow!!! The lack of interest in this subject is amazing, given the noise level and number of complaints made about DFG and related agencies on this BB.... :confused:

Probably just as well.... Legislation was passed last year (AB 2376) that mandates the "....Secretary of the Resources Agency convene a committee....to develop a strategic vision for the Department and the Commision...." This committee will have a "....membership as prescribed,...." There are potentially 7 members of the committee (5 state and 2 federal) of the committee. The 5 state members are all agency/department/heads and a UC representative. The federal members are voluntary participants. 8-)

Here's where we fit in. The Guv or "....the committee shall appoint a 'blue ribbon' citizen commission or task force, a stakeholder advisory group, and any other group the governor or the committee deems necessary or desireable...." Wanna be part of one of these groups :?: :?: Whateverrrr,.... The document is to be submitted to the Guv and the Legislature before 7/1/12.

Seems to me that there's a bunch of guys on this BB that have been quite vocal on this subject (including me). Here's your chance to particpate.... Call DFG or the office of the Secretary of the Resources Agency and ask how to sign up.... This is a good opportunity to learn how government actually tries to carry out the visioning/planning process.... :rolleyes:

[David Lee]

Re-org is a great idea -

We should start by looking to other States , picking the ones that have had good results , and adopting their methods .

And take all the folks in there now that are political appointees and exile them to the Farallons .

Nope , not kidding .

D.~

[Darian]

:lol: :lol: That was a good one. I'm not sure the Feds would like to find California appointees on the islands with them tho.... :lol:

Unfortunately, the new law doesn't ask for reorganization of the DFG and/or the Commission. Which, in mind, is what should be done. This law asks for development of a strategic vision. I'm not sure what a strategic vision for a dysfunctional department is or what it would change. :confused: During my time in state service I participated in a couple of strategic planning efforts that turned out planning documents and methodologies. They resulted in little, if any, real change. :-| Maybe this legislation was a recognition that the effort to reorganize would be too expensive/extensive/risky (requires a constitutional amendment to do anything to the commission). :-|

Regardless, I wonder why a commission that approves regulations for DFG is necessary while all proposed regulations must be approved (prior to submission to the commission) by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). :confused: Sounds a bit duplicative to me. Over many years, the F&G Commission has been embroiled in several scandals and is a very political body. One of their responsibilities is oversight of management practices at DFG. I'm fairly sure that they've been highly unsuccessful at that effort or maybe they're not competent to perform that activity.... I vote for elimination of the commission as a first step (but I wouldn't send the commissioners to the Farralones :p ) 8)

BTW,.... There's an interesting article in the current issue of the California Fly Fisher on this subject and more....