Former DNR secretary adds his perspective

Having served as the only DNR secretary appointed by both the Natural Resources Board and by a governor (twice), I bring a unique perspective to the issue of public accountability of board-appointed versus governor-appointed DNR secretaries.
A board-appointed secretary is publicly accountable in many ways. The governor appoints the board, which sets agency direction. The agency budget is approved by the governor and the Legislature. The governor and Department of Administration control the number of agency staff. The Legislature has objection authority over agency policy. The governor and Legislature pass laws setting the broad policy for the agency. And there is an open mike at the monthly board meetings for citizens to critique agency actions.
What a board appointment prevents is the current governor's interference in regulatory, grant and enforcement decisions, which are to be made on a professional and objective basis. Board appointment has prevented revolving door agency leadership and assured leaders have natural resource management experience.
In the words of Aldo Leopold, "Conservation must have continuity of purpose and policy, and freedom from interference by political control or manipulation." State Journal, please return to your prior editorial position on the issue.

-- George Meyer, executive director, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation

Try a compromise for balance at the DNR

A compromise is in order concerning whether the secretary of Department of Natural Resources should be selected by the DNR board or appointed by the governor.
First, the selection process of the Natural Resources Board needs to be reformed. Two members should be appointed by the governor with the approval of the Legislature. Two should be selected by the Legislature, and three should be elected by Wisconsin's voters. This combination would help make the board balanced, democratic and fair. It also would prevent any one person such as the governor, a group such as big business, or an organization such as a political party, from controlling or dominating a board or commission.
All board members would serve for staggered three-year terms. They could be reappointed, reselected or reelected for a second term, but could serve a maximum of six years. After being off for awhile, they could be reappointed, reselected or reelected.
The board should include two environmentalists, a hunter or angler, a forester, a parks and recreation specialist, a resource ecologist and a historic preservationist.
Once selected, the DNR board should submit a list of three nominees to the governor from which to appoint a DNR secretary.

-- Dave Searles, Brodhead

Put experts on board; hire from DNR ranks

The appointment of the DNR secretary has brought us chronic wasting disease, deficit spending and many unhappy sports enthusiasts. The DNR has not had a credible secretary since George Meyer.
Placing a favorite "yes" person as an agency head, not someone who worked their way into the position, has crippled the effectiveness of most state agencies.
The Natural Resources Board option is better than what we have today since cronyism and favoritism manifest themselves in these agency appointments. Do we want someone who is qualified, or a political appointee?
Place fishery and wildlife biologists, foresters and hunters, fisherman and trappers on the board. While we're at it, have a DNR employee interview for the secretary position. If hired, they could be fired if things went bad.
Get the politics out of the science of managing fish, wildlife and natural areas.

-- Mark Paulat, Sun Prairie

Only mandate should be care of resources

The DNR secretary shouldn't be a cabinet member for the governor.
I retired from the DNR after 30 years. I attended many board meetings, testifying and answering questions from members. Members talked to folks back home about issues. They listened and came to meetings with good questions and concerns. Now decisions are made by administrators running to and from the Capitol.
The discussions board members have with the general public much more closely capture what citizens think compared to the messages aides allow to filter to the governor.
The State Journal's recent editorial suggests that switching back to a board appointment would lessen accountability to voters. Are you forgetting who sits on the board? Citizens do. You are also forgetting that the governor appoints them. Having the governor appoint the secretary and then oversee all decisions made puts politics directly into the DNR.
You suggest a governor-appointed secretary will have "a broader mandate gained by a governor." The DNR secretary has but one mandate -- to oversee the natural resources of Wisconsin for its citizens.
The governor initially supported giving appointment authority back to the board. He needs to honor his word and not fight against or veto this measure.

-- Patrick McCutcheon, Madison