The state Assembly's Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a bill that would return the appointment of the Department of Natural Resources' secretary to a seven-member Natural Resources Board. That's where the responsibility rested until 1995, when Gov. Tommy Thompson persuaded the Legislature to give that power to the governor. A stated intention of the proposed change is to remove politics from the DNR.
The argument simply doesn't hold.
Returning appointment power to the board wouldn't take politics out the department, and it only would reduce public accountability.
The Legislature should resist the change. The Natural Resources Board itself is a product of politics. Its members are appointed by the governor.
While it is hoped, and expected, that members of the board are selected because of merit and expertise, the fact remains that politics can prevail in appointments to the board just as they can with the choosing of the DNR secretary. Placing the DNR secretary decision in the hands of the board would not at all remove the potential for political influence. Having that decision under the control of the governor, who is directly accountable to the people through election, remains the best answer.
A governor is elected as the people's affirmation and approval of a candidate's promises on policies, including those dealing with hunting and conservation issues. The DNR secretary is appointed to carry out those policies.
If the people ultimately disagree with those policies, they can remove the governor.
The DNR is part of the executive branch. It makes sense that the head of the state's executive branch, the governor, would appoint the DNR secretary, as well as other department chiefs.
DNR Secretary Matt Frank was correct when he said in committee testimony, "Accountability starts at the top. It is too easy for a governor to be let off the hook when he can say he is not responsible for agency actions because he does not appoint the secretary. When the governor appoints the DNR secretary, it makes him directly accountable for the conservation and environmental decisions made by the DNR."
The Legislature got it right 14 years ago. There's no good reason to change the law.
The argument simply doesn't hold.
Returning appointment power to the board wouldn't take politics out the department, and it only would reduce public accountability.
The Legislature should resist the change. The Natural Resources Board itself is a product of politics. Its members are appointed by the governor.
While it is hoped, and expected, that members of the board are selected because of merit and expertise, the fact remains that politics can prevail in appointments to the board just as they can with the choosing of the DNR secretary. Placing the DNR secretary decision in the hands of the board would not at all remove the potential for political influence. Having that decision under the control of the governor, who is directly accountable to the people through election, remains the best answer.
A governor is elected as the people's affirmation and approval of a candidate's promises on policies, including those dealing with hunting and conservation issues. The DNR secretary is appointed to carry out those policies.
If the people ultimately disagree with those policies, they can remove the governor.
The DNR is part of the executive branch. It makes sense that the head of the state's executive branch, the governor, would appoint the DNR secretary, as well as other department chiefs.
DNR Secretary Matt Frank was correct when he said in committee testimony, "Accountability starts at the top. It is too easy for a governor to be let off the hook when he can say he is not responsible for agency actions because he does not appoint the secretary. When the governor appoints the DNR secretary, it makes him directly accountable for the conservation and environmental decisions made by the DNR."
The Legislature got it right 14 years ago. There's no good reason to change the law.
