Douglas Ignored Legislative Intent

from vtdigger

Lawmakers decried the Douglas administration’s decision to eliminate a conservation position in the Department of Fish and Wildlife at a press conference Wednesday.

Bartlett sees the administration’s decision as a matter of priorities. “This is a continuation of this administration not being supportive of conservation and/or planning,” Bartlett said.



 
The position was written into the budget bill that passed in the last legislative session. Legislative leaders said Gov. Jim Douglas violated lawmakers’ intent and negotiated in bad faith when he signed the budget bill and then shortly afterward allowed administrative officials to ignore language in the bill. That wording was designed to protect a staff wildlife biologist who provides technical assistance for towns engaged in conservation planning to protect wildlife habitat.
 
Sen. Susan Bartlett and Sen. Peter Shumlin (both Democratic candidates in the gubernatorial primary) and House Speaker Shap Smith said the Legislature saw the position as an essential component of the department’s conservation policy.
 
Douglas administration officials say the executive branch has the right to decide the fate of individual employees and positions. David Corriell, Douglas’ spokesman, accused lawmakers of trying to micromanage personnel.
 
“On the one hand, the Legislature through Challenges for Change wants the government to run more efficiently, and on the other hand, they’re running government as inefficiently as possible by dictating the way the administration is managing government,” Corriell said.
Observers say the stalemate over the language in the law could lead to a constitutional showdown between legislators and the administration. At issue is whether the administration is obliged to uphold language in the law that it deems unacceptable, and conversely whether the Legislature has the right to insist that it do so.
 
It’s too early to say if the question will become a constitutional issue, according to Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who, as of yesterday, had not been asked by legislative leaders or the administration to weigh in.
 
Smith said there are no plans yet to sue the administration over the elimination of the position. He called the decision a “breach of the good faith that we all contributed towards in reaching a budget compromise.”
 
“When we passed the budget document, we expected it to be followed,” Smith said. “It’s not merely guidance – it is the law of the state of Vermont. This year we worked very diligently with the administration to put together a budget that could be signed by the governor and was the result of many compromises, and to then have the governor sign the budget, and then ignore the language of the budget, really cuts against the spirit of the compromising that we did to get to a budget we could all leave the building with, without the repeat of the veto and override scenario that happened last year.”
 
Jonathon Wood, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, said in a recent interview that there is no constitutional problem. “Those powers are clear and absolute,” Wood said. “The administration has the authority to do this. We have to manage the budget and the Legislature sets the budget. They fund certain programs and we manage the positions.”
Bartlett said the administration is choosing to ignore “what the budget said.”
 
“If the budget’s a guideline, and you don’t need to pay attention to it, maybe you just need one branch of government,” Bartlett said.
 
The position, Fish and Wildlife Scientist II, was held by Jens Hawkins-Hilke, who worked with 50 to 80 towns a year to help them identify and map habitat. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife grant paid for half of Hawkins-Hilke’s salary, which was roughly $22 an hour. He was laid off recently and has filed a grievance with the union. According to the legislative letter of intent, his position would have cost the state roughly $16,000.
 
He provided technical support for towns, as well as helped local community members understand the scientific concepts behind conservation, such as habitat protection. Often this meant helping towns identify what kinds of habitat they valued for recreation, hunting, fishing and other wildlife, he said. Some towns are focused on deer yards; others are interested in protecting salamanders.
 
Hawkins-Hilke said in an interview that he was No. 4 on the reduction-in-force list at ANR last year. He survived the first round of cuts, but in February he was told his position would be eliminated. Town planning commission and conservation commission officials canvassed lawmakers about the RIF and pressured the Legislature to retain the position. By mid-June it was clear the administration had gone ahead with its original plan.
 
Wood called it a “limited service position” that wasn’t “meant to be a full-time job” and he said the agency will continue to offer services to local communities through its district offices.
 
“The position provides planning assistance to towns and municipalities — just assistance to conservation commissions and town plans on the types of things in towns that could be done to protect wildlife habitat,” Wood said. “That type of thing has been done by the department for many years.”
 
Mike Hedges, a member of the Waterbury Conservation Commission, said he is not confident ANR will help his group finish mapping for new subdivision regulations. Nor is he counting on help from officials from the agency with plans for protecting a moose crossing corridor on Route 100 near Walker Construction. It’s the only place, he said, where the large game animals can pass from the Green Mountains to the Worcester Mountains. Hawkins-Hilke identified the crossing for the commission and was going to help them develop a plan for protecting the area.
 
“It’s hard for others to take up those extra duties,” Hedges said.
 
Wood said the agency is responding to constant downward budget pressures.
 
“There aren’t any more paper clips to cut,” Wood said. “We’ve been into significant cutting of positions for a while now. There isn’t any choice.”
 
Wood said game wardens, however, continue to be fully funded by the Department of Fish and Wildlife because they “are a high priority.”
 
“I have not tried to cut game wardens, though the Legislature has cut their overtime,” Wood said.
 
Since the recession began in 2007, the agency has eliminated 100 positions, many of which were federally funded, according to Wood.
 
Corriell said the state faces an uncertain revenue outlook in the current fiscal year and a $100 million deficit in fiscal year 2012. He said small amounts add up to “real money” in the budget and that government leaders have to make hard decisions.
 
“This is a very challenging time, and as a state government there need to be priorities,” Corriell said. “What we need to do is focus on growing our economy. It’s short-sighted to focus on one position.”
 
Bartlett also sees the administration’s decision as a matter of priorities. “This is a continuation of this administration not being supportive of conservation and/or planning,” Bartlett said.