Should the governor continue to appoint the DNR secretary?

DNR mission to support resources, not economy

Sunday's editorial suggests the big mission of the DNR is to determine how competitive Wisconsin is in the global economy. There are state agencies for economic development, building transportation systems and so on. The mission of DNR is to ensure we have some natural resources left in this state for our descendants to experience to add to their quality of life.
Past decisions for short-term economic gain helped create the budget crisis, and now we have to correct the damage to our water, air and land that resulted. Those short-term gains didn't go to the taxpaying public, but they will be paying the restoration costs.
The DNR needs to be removed from politics because politics do not support long-term decisions, and protecting and enhancing our resources requires science-based, long-term discussion and decisions.
We cannot create more land, water or air, as was recognized by Aldo Leopold and Gaylord Nelson, and a number of past governors of both parties. I urge the State Journal to recognize it also, and support a DNR structure that can achieve the best long-term interests of the citizens and future generations of Wisconsin.

-- Larry A. Larson, executive director, Association of State Floodplain Managers

Unaccountability set up DNR's onerous rep

Kudos to the State Journal for opting for a governor-appointed DNR secretary. People lobbying for a board-appointed secretary obviously cannot or choose not to remember the days when the DNR played a heavy hand all across the state.
Whether it was excessive and expensive water treatment requirements or the ruse of throwing a canoe into an empty drainage ditch and declaring it "navigable water," the DNR acquired a tyrannical reputation of not caring about the people who paid their salaries because they all worked for an unelected DNR board.
Environmental extremism was more important than people's rights or a community's ability to pay to meet DNR mandates. If you had a gripe against the DNR, you probably had to hire an attorney because your legislator or the governor could not do anything for you.
Why is it smart to take the politics (meaning you and me) out of the DNR? If it is good for the DNR to be governed by an unelected board, why not try it in rest of state government as well?
If you substitute the word "democracy" for "politics" on this issue, you'll begin to see what it really is. Take the "democracy" out of DNR management and make them accountable to -- who?

-- Jack Sanderson, Columbus

Long-range planning sacrificed to politics

Appointment of DNR secretary should be put back into the hands of the Natural Resources Board.
When new governors take office, they generally want to make their own appointments. If the DNR head is caught up in this political maneuvering, there is the potential to negatively impact long-term planning for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
When issues emerge, there is the risk of focusing on shortsighted, politically-expedient fixes. Some things, however, are just too important to fall victim to the political will of the moment.
I am reminded of this every time I look at that photograph from the Apollo mission of a lonely sphere of life floating above a dead moon.
It's in our best interests to have a system that best ensures that the basic things sustaining us are not compromised as we confront the issues ahead.

-- John Danielson, Madison

Need citizens' votes to avoid the 'yes men'

Your opinion and that of current DNR Secretary Matt Frank that the governor should continue to appoint the DNR secretary is flawed.
Your statement that the DNR secretary as a gubernatorial appointee, accountable to the governor and voters who elect governors on the promise of their policies, including those affecting natural resources, is exactly the problem. The mess governors get us into -- for example, letting the public sit with virtually useless groundwater extraction regulations -- carries over to his approved "yes men."
It was bad enough when the Natural Resources Board lost authority to select the secretary in 1995 and it became a political appointment. Now with both the Senate, Assembly and governor of one party, there are no longer checks and balances in the statehouse, much less the DNR.
Another problem is that the Natural Resources Board is itself being appointed by governors -- more "yes men" there. Some board members should be appointed by citizens, by vote at an annual meeting conducted by the DNR, based on one's qualifications for the board.
Have a citizens' vote as opposed to a political appointee who knuckles under to the governor's mandates. Past and present DNR employees who've been throttled down know how bad the political process has been for the DNR.

-- Don Schoechert, Montello

Leadership continuity lost in current system

On July 28 the Assembly Natural Resources Committee held a public hearing on AB 138, the bill to restore appointment authority of the DNR secretary back to the Natural Resources Board. The bill was co-sponsored by 68 Assembly representatives and senators. Registering or testifying in favor of the bill were 173 individuals representing over 200 conservation and environmental organizations.
This overwhelming support is easy to understand. First, in the 47-year period from 1954 to 2001, when the secretary was appointed by the DNR Board, only four were appointed. From 1995 to 2010 we've had three secretaries, in just 15 years.
Every time a new governor is elected there's a new DNR secretary. This upheaval in leadership eliminates continuity in program planning, organizational structure, procedures and in many other areas. Let's stop the revolving door at DNR and let the board hire a long-term employee!
And the last two secretaries were attorneys with no experience or education in the field of natural resources. Let's stop appointing attorneys to manage Wisconsin's natural resources department, and let the DNR board hire a qualified person for the job.

-- Don Hammes, Middleton, member, Dane County Conservation League

Hearing results support DNR independence

The assertion in Sunday's editorial that conservationists "expect they can gain more political clout with a DNR secretary appointed by the Natural Resources Board" was a bit odd.
Last summer we convened organizations representing hunters, environmentalists, land trusts and others to select the most important conservation issues to pursue in the Legislature this year. At listening sessions from Minocqua to Milwaukee, hundreds of citizens told us what they care about.
Regaining an independent DNR secretary was a top concern - whether we were in an urban area or a rural community, talking to a local hunting club or a statewide environmental group. There were many arguments for why we need an independent DNR secretary, and not once did anyone suggest it was to gain political clout.
Common reasons included a lack of continuity within the DNR and a concern that DNR decisions were often based on politics, not science, under the current system.
In the end, 85 diverse organizations decided to work together to regain an independent DNR secretary based on the shared belief that natural resources decisions should be based on science, not politics.

-- Kerry Schumann, executive director, Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, Madison

Top issue is to appoint qualified candidates

While I support the Natural Resources Board appointing the DNR secretary, I am more concerned that the right people are appointed. Strong leadership and management skills tied with a basic understanding of natural resources should be the minimum qualifications for the job.
But because some or all those characteristics have not existed in recent appointments, we find the DNR lacking any experience because the long-time, dedicated employees are choosing early retirement or just moving elsewhere.
Our current governor seems to think his cabinet should be made up of lawyers, with law degrees trumping experience. Some of the bone headed decisions made over the past few years are evidence of this.
The State Journal editorial board might want to look at DNR turnover and ask why a decision to stop stocking salmon in Lake Michigan was made. Salmon fishing is a huge tourist business and brings considerable out-of-state dollars to Wisconsin.

-- Rick Lane, Stoughton

DNR decisions too dependent on DATCP

Have you heard of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection? The DNR is responsible for natural resources, but for too many years it has had to fear how its decisions would be viewed "across the street," where the interest was not necessarily in protecting our heritage of land and water resources.
Does the Legislature not enact laws which in turn determine the direction which governmental operating policies take? Are the governor's pre-election promises more important than those of our elected legislative representatives?

-- Ron Poff, Madison

Resource management and politics don't mix

I doubt that those who wrote the DNR editorial have spent time watching the Natural Resources Board in action or talking to field employees.
I worked at DNR from 1971 to 1978 and have watched DNR as an outsider ever since. The change in the agency with a governor-appointed secretary is noticeable -- DNR's concern now is what makes the governor look good.
Listen to the secretary speak and within minutes you'll hear a comment favorable to the governor. It's the same with every governor-appointed state resources agency. In the 1970s Les Voigt never mentioned the governor. Then the agency concentrated solely on natural resources.
Matt Frank is a good administrator. His problem is who he reports to, and a citizen board would be better. Observers soon learns they blend backgrounds. Decisions are based on what is best for natural resources and citizens, not politicians.
I have yet to shoot a Republican pheasant or catch a Democratic musky. Natural resources should not be administered or managed on partisan politics. If your concern is resources for future generations, the citizen board is far superior.

-- Timothy T. Eisele, Madison

Experienced both plans and board choice best

The governor should not continue to appoint the DNR secretary. I worked at DNR for several years under both appointment scenarios. Like many others who work or worked there, I believe the agency functioned better when the secretary was appointed by the DNR board.
Decisions back then were much more likely to be based on science and what was best for the environment. Under the current system, decisions are likely to be based on how much money businesses or individuals contributed to someone's political campaign and the pressure those entities can exert.
Investigate why so many current and former DNR employees, as well as environmental and hunter groups, want to go back to having the Natural Resources Board appoint the secretary.

-- Shirley Haidinger, Madison

Better accountability when board in charge

The photo of an eroded river bank on Sunday's Opinion page implies that the DNR was not accountable for harmful situations like this before 1995, when the agency's secretary was chosen by the Natural Resources Board.
Unfortunately, the blame for not correcting natural resource problems belongs to our political system that requires big campaign contributions and to those powerful elected officials who lose sight of the real prize -- a healthy environment that supports a strong economy.
"We need to maintain accountability" is the latest sound bite used by those who oppose changing the current political system, a system that favors short-term decision making for political gain.
As a DNR employee for 23 years under a board-appointed secretary, I can attest there was more accountability before 1995, accountability to all the elected officials and legislators who crafted laws, approved policy and provided budgets, regardless of political affiliation.
Sadly, visionary decision making no longer exists. DNR administrators used to ask "What will this action mean to the long-term vitality of Wisconsin's natural resources?" Today it's "What will this decision, or more importantly, this non-decision, mean to getting re-elected?"

-- Richard Wedepohl, Madison

Future governors may not be good stewards

In 1925 environmentalist Aldo Leopold established the system where a citizens' board appointed the DNR secretary, who would be relatively independent of political influence. As a result, Wisconsin's DNR was respected nationally.
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson changed this in 1995, giving governors the appointment power.
In the July hearings on the issue, testimony indicated appointments were made by political affiliation over professional qualifications, yet it's vital that decisions be made by staff with proven experience and scientific knowledge.
While Gov. Doyle and DNR Secretary Matt Frank have done well in their stewardship, the next governor may not be as caring -- with long-term negative effects. The political appointment of a DNR secretary is wrong-headed and detrimental to the preservation of our natural resources.

-- Jim Connors, Madison

In this and other issues, let the public decide

I believe that the DNR secretary should not be part of the governor's cabinet. However, the Natural Resources Board is also governor-appointed. Granted, the members are appointed at different times, sometimes by different governors, and could therefore be less politically tied to the current governor.
The best idea is for the public to elect the DNR secretary and that certain prerequisites be met for each candidate. The State Journal says we should have more control over this position. The best way for that is to make it an elected position -- just like voting for state Supreme Court justices.

-- Virginia Foulk, Mazomanie