(Olympia, WA) The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is under scrutiny after a report last month found the organization’s structure was “dysfunctional” and needed reforms.
The report by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center at Washington State University and the University of Washington is sparking conversation among lawmakers about the effectiveness of the commission’s structure and what can be done to improve it — including potentially dissolving the citizen-led panel altogether.
“I don’t think that we’ve settled on a path,” House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle, said. “I don’t think it’s necessary that this be the year that we reform the governance structure of Fish and Wildlife, but I do think it is something our members are thinking about.”
Based on interviews with more than 100 people who have knowledge and experience with the commission, the report assessed the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s structure, funding, transparency, communication with the public, and ability to deal with climate change and biodiversity loss.
The Fish and Wildlife Commission oversees the Department of Fish and Wildlife and helps establish policy for wildlife management. The commission consists of nine citizen members appointed by the governor to six-year terms. The members must include three west of the Cascades, three east of the Cascades, and three who can be from anywhere in the state.
The report found that there was significant confusion around the scope of the department’s work, its finances and how it communicates with tribes and the public. It also said there’s murkiness surrounding the department’s legal mandate.
When it came to the commission, many described it as “dysfunctional, politically polarized and caught up in conflict,” according to the report. The biggest concerns included the governor-led appointment process, the commission’s makeup, limited accountability, and a lack of clarity over the commission’s relationship with tribes.
Lawmakers taking a look
Many of the proposed fixes to the department would require legislative action.
One recommendation from the report is to keep the commission but overhaul it extensively. This would require buy-in from lawmakers and the governor, according to the report, and without it, would not be a viable choice.
One example of a reform would be to add more support staff for the commission. Currently, the commission uses the same staff as the agency and its director.
Fitzgibbon said adding staff to the commission has been discussed before, but doing so would create new costs and is unlikely with this year’s tight budget outlook.
Another option would be to give the state Senate a more engaged role in appointing commission members and possibly creating a bipartisan panel to fill seats if they are left open longer than a certain length of time.
The next, more drastic alternative, would be to dissolve the commission and turn the department into a cabinet agency, which would answer directly to the governor.
“If the Legislature wants to improve the governing structure without all the reforms to the Commission, then the optimum choice, even considering potential tradeoffs, would be to establish WDFW as a cabinet agency,” the report read.
Fitzgibbon said there would likely be a bill this session to make the commission a cabinet agency but the odds of it passing aren’t clear yet.
Although some people interviewed for the report recommended making the department a cabinet agency, many acknowledged that the commission structure has benefits, including greater stability during leadership changes in the governor’s office, minimizing partisan politics, and having independence to come up with budget requests.
“There was substantial interest in having a commission, but overwhelmingly interviewees stated that there were significant issues with the structure, if it were to continue,” Phyllis Shulman, senior facilitator of the report and assistant professor at the Washington State University Extension, told a House agriculture committee earlier this week.
Sen. Shelly Short, R-Addy, said she’s received hundreds of comments from people across the state urging lawmakers to keep the commission separate from the executive branch. She said she is considering what changes could be made to the appointment process and commission structure instead of dissolving it completely.
“We’re taking comments and seeing what other ideas are out there,” she said. “I’m not sure whether or not there will be something this session.”
House Minority Leader Drew Stokesbary, R-Auburn, said he doesn’t know the right answer at this point but something needs to change.
“I’m surprised it took a report for people to realize there’s dysfunction at the DFW commission,” Stokesbary said. “For folks who want to interact with the environment, it’s been a disaster.”
‘A check on ourselves’
While lawmakers debate what can be done, members of the Fish and Wildlife Commission are trying to figure out their next moves.
“I think it behooves us to step back and take a look at it,” Vice Chair Tim Ragen told commissioners at a Jan. 10 meeting. “It is an opportunity to do a check on ourselves and I think nothing more.”
Many said the report highlighted issues and concerns that they knew about, though they didn’t agree with everything in it.
Commissioner Melanie Rowland rejected the allegations of dysfunction.
What might appear as dysfunction, she said, is actually members grappling with how to make decisions that are consistent with what’s been done in the past but reflect a desire to modernize the state’s approach to wildlife management.
“We do need to make significant changes to adapt to the world in which we are now living in,” Rowland said.
Commissioner Steve Parker said there have been times when abolishing the commission has had some appeal to him, but he said he does not believe that is in the best interest of the state.
The commission set aside time at a February meeting to talk more about the findings in the report and likely draft a letter to the Legislature outlining what they will do to address concerns.
This story first appeared on Washington State Standard.
