Assembly Fails to Override Veto
This is a good thing.
Gov. Jim Doyle won a major victory on Tuesday when the Assembly failed to override his veto of a bill that would have weakened the governor’s control over the Department of Natural Resources.
The Assembly fell short of a two-thirds majority when it voted 58-38 and was unable to muster the 66 votes to reject a veto of a bill to give the Natural Resources Board authority to appoint the secretary of the agency.
The vote kept the governor’s power intact over the vast agency, which is one of the most controversial in state government because of its oversight on matters as varied as hunting and fishing and environmental regulation.
I heard today that they could have passed the two bills on the make up of the NRB and garnered a few R votes and made it happen. But chose to let it fail and use it against the Rs in the next election.
NastyPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2035 hrs
I’m not sure why this is good or bad.
The Natural Resources Board was responsible for this for many years and the DNR didn’t seem to be doing better or worse because of it. Why is it good to concentrate power in the governor?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2109 hrs
Well, the vote today was not on a bill, but rather to sustain or override the veto of the Governor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2110 hrs
I asked badly. Why is it good to keep the power concentrated in the governor’s office? Is there a problem with the Natural Resources Board?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2144 hrs
Ceding this much power to an un-elected board is not a good thing (reference MMSD). Accountability is always a good thing in Gov’t. When the DNR does something stupid, it is a good thing to know who to complain to, even if you don’t believe it will do much good. Would you have any idea how to contact the board, or even who is on this board? Didn’t think so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2213 hrs
I got mixed feelings about this as there are excellent arguments to be made for both sides of the issue.
I spend tons of time in the woods and on the water hunting and fishing. The resources I hunt and fish don’t have a voice. All the moneyed interests have a strong voice.
I’ve tired of elected knuckleheads and appointed lawyers making resource management decisions.
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 23, 2010 at 2220 hrs
If I remember correctly, didn’t the DNR a couple years back want to stop people from putting in piers on Lakes? So they came up with some pretty drastic rules. There was great outcry and people appealed to Doyle and Doyle got the DNR to back off a bit. It seemed to be a really good idea to have Doyle be responsible to the electorate and make the DNR somewhat accountable.
Am I recalling that story correctly?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2232 hrs
Free Lunch, and anyone else, here’s a simple test as to why keeping it with the Governor is necessary.
Off the top of your head, name all 7 members of the Natural Resources Board. 5? 3? 1??
There’s your answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2315 hrs
Steve A: Yes, the NR Board approved some very heavy handed rules regarding piers. But it was the Legislature that stepped in and put a stop to it.
However, the Governor was integral in negotiating a compromise position between the two branches of government. The NR Board rules were cast aside in favor of a more workable plan, but the matter was resolved between lawmakers and the Governor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2318 hrs
The DNR in Wisconsin is FAAAAR too powerful, maybe more powerful than the EPA nationally. Keeping the appointment power in the hands of the governor at least allows for a single elected official to be held accountable for the decisions of that agency. In reality the DNR needs to be stripped of much of its power, especially where they conflict with the rights of property owners (like the magician in the dells that they practically bankrupted after the Delton flood).
In reality, the DNR board should probably be elected by district, for 2 year terms, like the legislature. The Secretary could then be appointed by the elected board to a three or four year term… Since the only people interested in those positions would be sportsmen, who’s interests lie in conservation rather than environmentalism, we would make strides towards loosening the iron fist of that agency, while making its leadership far more accountable to the people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 0736 hrs
I’m not sure why this is good or bad.
The Natural Resources Board was responsible for this for many years and the DNR didn’t seem to be doing better or worse because of it. Why is it good to concentrate power in the governor?
I agree. It is probably not a good thing to concentrate this power in the office of the governor. However, that is how we deal with it nationally as well, as the secretary of the EPA is appointed by the executive. I believe our current one is a Miss Carol Browner…. Do you also believe the president should be stripped of that power?
As I said above, I think the board positions should be elected by district… What is your solution to our out of control DNR?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 0739 hrs
From what I’ve read, the Gov’s veto was allowed to stand because the State Senate amended the bill from what it originally was. When it was changed to require State Senate confirmation of the DNR Secretary many in the legislature saw it as being just as political as having the Gov appoint the Secretary, but without the accountability of the Gov’s office.
I guess I can follow that logic, and in this case would support the veto.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 0844 hrs
Thanks for all the answers.
I would support election of NR Board members, even though I’m not certain that we would always get a majority of sensible people on the board.
I know that some states have statewide elections for some of their agency heads. Sometimes it works out okay, sometimes not so well. It’s a bit like the problems with electing judges. It’s a lot easier to see the problems with the current system than anticipate all of the problems with the proposed solution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 0857 hrs
It is really a non-issue because the Gov. appoints the NR board. So he can either appoint the NR board who appoints the Sec. or he can appoint the NR and the Sec. Not much of a difference.
Please let’s not make the dang NR board elected. The issues faced by the NR board are important but they must be balanced with other issues that impact the state’s land use policies and just all other state issues. Thus, they should be governed over by a single executive. Also, how do you not then make every other administrative body elected? Where does it end?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 0953 hrs
Please let’s not make the dang NR board elected. The issues faced by the NR board are important but they must be balanced with other issues that impact the state’s land use policies and just all other state issues. Thus, they should be governed over by a single executive. Also, how do you not then make every other administrative body elected? Where does it end?
No other administrative body has this much power, including police power. County Sherriff’s are elected.
I agree more or less with Jim Ott on this subject, which is that the DNR’s powers should be split between two separate agencies. Once agency would regulate fish and game licencing, while the other would handle the environmental and land use issues. I’m not sure I believe the DNR should have any police power at all, it seems to me that we would be better served by providing counties or municipalities with the resources to police their own water/woods.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1037 hrs
This is a bad thing. PETA, insurance companies win. Sportsmen lose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1051 hrs
I believe the issue with the NRB and the DNR is many. The DNR is not required to have a search warrent to enter any property. They are allowed to spy on the citizens of this state with no reason, approval, or rational. They are an armed branch that also is currently performing in a manner that is diametrically opposed to the 2nd ammendment. They have powers over all things in this state. Their actions determine the the business climate, prices for products, living conditions, and recreational practices in this state. They have more power than any other branch of govt in this state.
The NRB is on a spending spree for land like no other branch. If you think that this is a good thing because that allows the common man who may not be able to have land the opportunity to play outdoors think again. There is a battle going on because the good folks at the NRB are not sure they are keen on hunting and other loud sports. They have recently been convinced that the millions of acres the state has purchased and continues to purchase should be open to uses other than bird watching and flower growing. See the latest attack to the second amendment has been to use state money to buy land and then ban the shooting sports on it. That is the standard proceedure in many counties. buy the land and make it off limits till a review board can deem it safe. This process can take years even if it was legal and safe to hunt before the purchase. Then to add insult to injury, up until recently, you could be living next to such a land and not know it because the results of these decisions were not required to be published. There was no record of which properties could be hunted.
I agree that we need a DNR but this is the same DNR that may have introduced VHS to WI, underestimated the bear and wolf population by 50-100%, have significantly overestimated the deer population, and continue to trespass indiscriminately. Our special fuel blends are due to the EPA and the DNR. This is a group with a huge budget and little to answer for. It needs to remain under the control of someone that can be taken out of office.
Posted by fishaddict on February 24, 2010 at 1254 hrs
To tracker, PETA and the Sierra Club and all their ilk currently own the board. Jonathan P. Ela is a retired president of the Sierra Club. There are also a couple of profs, a community activist, and an ex director of public works from milwaukee. Not what I would consider a bunch favorable to business in the northwoods, knowledgeable in the ways of the woods, or happy to have shooting out there. Not as favorable to the sportsman as you think…well maybe to walkers, bird watchers, and happy folks that like to spend my money to buy land and keep me out.
Posted by fishaddict on February 24, 2010 at 1327 hrs
@ 15 - making the NRB elected does nothing to change the powers of the DNR. The agancy needs a fundemental reform - not just a bs change in the way the head of the agency is appointed.
This whole issue - elected v. non-elected is just a distraction to the real issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1610 hrs
@ 15 - making the NRB elected does nothing to change the powers of the DNR. The agancy needs a fundemental reform - not just a bs change in the way the head of the agency is appointed.
This whole issue - elected v. non-elected is just a distraction to the real issue.
Read the post… I said that I wasn’t sure the DNR should have any policing power at all… In fact I didn’t say anything about electing the body in that post…
But, since your brought it up. Yes, having it be an elected body will put some restraint on the behavior of the board. Self preservation will kick in and they will act as all politicians do, to save their own skin, rather than do the bidding of the governor or any special interests.
Having a navigable waterway on my land makes me quite aware of the “real” issues with the DNR, trust me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 0734 hrs
Self preservation will kick in and they will act as all politicians do, to save their own skin, rather than do the bidding of the governor or any special interests.
That should be the quote of the day.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 25, 2010 at 0955 hrs
djmamayek,
From some of the rulings I’ve seen from the DNR, if it rains hard, and you have a puddle in your backyard, it is a “navigable waterway”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1055 hrs
who do you think will fund the elections for the NR board? It will be the special interests. Direct election is not a panacea for malgovernence. Sometime it makes it worse. For an example look at how WEAC dominates school board elections. The NR elections will be dominated by eviro groups.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1454 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134021
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 12:07 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 12:42 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).