Post by melody on Mar 26, 2014 20:09:22 GMT -5
Legislative Budget and Finance Committee
3/19/13, 10:00 a.m., Hearing Room #3, North Office Building
By Jeff Cox, PLS
The committee considered the report An Update on the Feasibility of a Combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for Pennsylvania, which was unanimously approved.
Patricia Berger, Project Manager, told the committee members the report was done pursuant to HR 129. She explained that the committee was also asked to include an analysis of the cost of combining solely the law enforcement functions of the Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) and the Game Commission (PGC) with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). She pointed out that this is the third study conducted by the committee regarding a merger of the PFBC and the PGC. Berger also noted, "Pennsylvania remains the only state with separate and organizationally independent agencies managing its fish and wildlife resources."
Berger commented, "Since we were asked to update our 2003 report, we used the organizational structure from that report and adjusted it as necessary to address the current circumstances of the two commissions." She explained that the organizational chart "is only a suggested framework for a merged agency and our staffing analysis is only an estimate." According to Berger, "We did not eliminate any functional areas within the two agencies and we assume any new Commission would be given considerable flexibility to make adjustments as necessary within the new structure.
Berger then discussed some of the significant features of a new commission, including:
- Eliminating several upper-level management positions at both the headquarters and the regions.
- Creating a new Bureau of Non-Game Species to address biodiversity and non-game species.
- Reducing the number of law enforcement officers without reducing field coverage through reassignment of the officers' non-law enforcement responsibilities.
- Continuing current staffing and operational levels in all key program areas.
- Utilizing both existing headquarters buildings and consolidating regional offices.
Berger also highlighted some of the report's other findings, including:
- Several legal, regulatory, and administrative matters would need to be addressed in a merged agency.
- Game Fund revenues have increased markedly since 2009 while Fish and Boat Fund revenues have remained largely flat.
- Many states supplement traditional funding of their fish and wildlife agencies with general tax revenues and other alternative funding sources.
- Merging law enforcement functions into DCNR may improve coverage but costs would increase.
PFBC Executive Director John Arway and PGC Executive Director Matt Hough were offered the opportunity to respond to the report. Arway noted that last April the PFBC Board of Commissioners unanimously reaffirmed its past positions "in support of agency independence." He pointed out that the committee's report states "compared to other states' expenditures per license we reviewed, the PFBC and PGC combined expenditure per license is lower than average, suggesting that significant savings in a merger may be limited." According to Arway, the report shows the PFBC has the lowest expenditures per license and the second-lowest revenues received per license. He told committee members, "We do a lot with a little compared to other agencies across the country and our customers and the resources we are entrusted to protect, conserve, and enhance would be best served by retaining the existing agency structure."Arway argued that the report "overstates the relatively small potential annual savings of a merged agency." He said it his understanding the report "looked at budgeted expenses rather than actual expenditures at least in part to have a common frame of reference with which to compare our spending with the Game Commission." Arway continued, "In reality, if the analysis had looked at our actual expenditures, the report would show that we are operating with annual surpluses for both the Fish Fund and the Boat Fund." He asserted, "This trend will continue under my leadership since I have made it clear that our agency will not spend more than we earn in any fiscal year."
Hough told committee members, "The Pennsylvania Game Commission is an extremely efficient organization which provides the best value to our hunting and fur taking license buyers while responding to the many needs of the public." He commented, "We are confident that a complete analysis of the startup costs of merging the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission would show little if any return on investment in either the short or midterm of any such action." According to Hough, "Out of two agencies with a combined budget of over $150 million the best case scenario cost savings would be less than $5 million." He pointed out that "this cost savings does not take into account personnel bargaining rights, cross training, union contracts, and IT integration costs which were beyond the scope of the study." Hough added, "Our biggest criticism of the projected savings is that it does not take into account the practical implications that would result in reducing personnel but increasing workload."
Hough argued, "We steadfastly maintain that having a combined agency would provide no benefit to the general public, our sportsmen and sportswomen and, most importantly, the fish and wildlife resources of the Commonwealth." He said the agencies in other states he has spoken to have expressed regret that their states "copied the large super agency model." Hough asserted, "A merged agency is inefficient and ineffective and the result of the merger is to comingle funds, dilute areas of expertise, cause loss of direction and lower staff morale." He described the PGC and the PFBC as "national role models in wildlife and fish management."
Rep. Godshall explained that when the last study was done in 2003 he sent letters to all 50 states asking them about the advantages of having two separate agencies versus having just one. Rep. Godshall reported he received about 25 responses and he received telephone calls from New Jersey and Ohio who told him that they received letters from the Game Commission asking them to not respond to his letter. Rep. Godshall told the committee when the states were asked if they would have two separate agencies they said "we wouldn't do it here." He read excerpts from letter received from New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Virginia, South Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, Nevada and Idaho.
Rep. Godshall expressed concern with a case in Juniata County last fall when two hunters were cited by the Game Commission for shooting two bears after they had been advised by a Fish Commission officer that it was ok to be hunting in the area.
Arway responded that he knows the heads of those agencies in the other states and that they assumed their positions when the agencies were already combined. He observed, "It is very difficult for them to understand the difference between a separate and a merged agency." Arway suggested following the lead of former Gov. Tom Ridge who proposed splitting the Department of Environmental Resources into the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Protection. Arway argued that the split made the departments "more effective." Rep. Godshall argued that there is no reason that law enforcement should not be under one agency.
Hough asked Rep. Godshall about his comments about a Game Commission letter being sent to New Jersey and Ohio. He asked if the letter was done in 2003, Godshall responded that it was in 2003 and he described the letter as "unethical." Hough replied, "I agree."
Sen. Brewster recounted his experience in the banking business and his involvement in a major merger. He commented that he found "bigger wasn't better." Sen. Brewster told the committee, "I don't subscribe to the argument that other states do it better." He described the two commissions as doing "a good job." Sen. Brewster did recommend the PFBC and the PGC improve their communications with the members of the legislature.
Noting the study's suggestion of reducing the number of law enforcement officers, Rep. Mundy asked if the commissions are overstaffed. Berger responded, "No." She then explained the methodology utilized by the staff in coming up with that number.
Chairman Mensch commented that the word "efficiency" is used frequently in the Capitol. He said, "Size has nothing to do with efficiency." Chairman Mensch added that "efficiency is determined by how things are managed." He described the comments from the commissions as "internal" in that they reflected the impact on the agencies whereas the committee's response is to the taxpayers.
Arway pointed out his agency does not receive any tax dollars and the agency is careful how it spends money from licensees.
3/19/13, 10:00 a.m., Hearing Room #3, North Office Building
By Jeff Cox, PLS
The committee considered the report An Update on the Feasibility of a Combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for Pennsylvania, which was unanimously approved.
Patricia Berger, Project Manager, told the committee members the report was done pursuant to HR 129. She explained that the committee was also asked to include an analysis of the cost of combining solely the law enforcement functions of the Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) and the Game Commission (PGC) with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). She pointed out that this is the third study conducted by the committee regarding a merger of the PFBC and the PGC. Berger also noted, "Pennsylvania remains the only state with separate and organizationally independent agencies managing its fish and wildlife resources."
Berger commented, "Since we were asked to update our 2003 report, we used the organizational structure from that report and adjusted it as necessary to address the current circumstances of the two commissions." She explained that the organizational chart "is only a suggested framework for a merged agency and our staffing analysis is only an estimate." According to Berger, "We did not eliminate any functional areas within the two agencies and we assume any new Commission would be given considerable flexibility to make adjustments as necessary within the new structure.
Berger then discussed some of the significant features of a new commission, including:
- Eliminating several upper-level management positions at both the headquarters and the regions.
- Creating a new Bureau of Non-Game Species to address biodiversity and non-game species.
- Reducing the number of law enforcement officers without reducing field coverage through reassignment of the officers' non-law enforcement responsibilities.
- Continuing current staffing and operational levels in all key program areas.
- Utilizing both existing headquarters buildings and consolidating regional offices.
Berger also highlighted some of the report's other findings, including:
- Several legal, regulatory, and administrative matters would need to be addressed in a merged agency.
- Game Fund revenues have increased markedly since 2009 while Fish and Boat Fund revenues have remained largely flat.
- Many states supplement traditional funding of their fish and wildlife agencies with general tax revenues and other alternative funding sources.
- Merging law enforcement functions into DCNR may improve coverage but costs would increase.
PFBC Executive Director John Arway and PGC Executive Director Matt Hough were offered the opportunity to respond to the report. Arway noted that last April the PFBC Board of Commissioners unanimously reaffirmed its past positions "in support of agency independence." He pointed out that the committee's report states "compared to other states' expenditures per license we reviewed, the PFBC and PGC combined expenditure per license is lower than average, suggesting that significant savings in a merger may be limited." According to Arway, the report shows the PFBC has the lowest expenditures per license and the second-lowest revenues received per license. He told committee members, "We do a lot with a little compared to other agencies across the country and our customers and the resources we are entrusted to protect, conserve, and enhance would be best served by retaining the existing agency structure."Arway argued that the report "overstates the relatively small potential annual savings of a merged agency." He said it his understanding the report "looked at budgeted expenses rather than actual expenditures at least in part to have a common frame of reference with which to compare our spending with the Game Commission." Arway continued, "In reality, if the analysis had looked at our actual expenditures, the report would show that we are operating with annual surpluses for both the Fish Fund and the Boat Fund." He asserted, "This trend will continue under my leadership since I have made it clear that our agency will not spend more than we earn in any fiscal year."
Hough told committee members, "The Pennsylvania Game Commission is an extremely efficient organization which provides the best value to our hunting and fur taking license buyers while responding to the many needs of the public." He commented, "We are confident that a complete analysis of the startup costs of merging the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission would show little if any return on investment in either the short or midterm of any such action." According to Hough, "Out of two agencies with a combined budget of over $150 million the best case scenario cost savings would be less than $5 million." He pointed out that "this cost savings does not take into account personnel bargaining rights, cross training, union contracts, and IT integration costs which were beyond the scope of the study." Hough added, "Our biggest criticism of the projected savings is that it does not take into account the practical implications that would result in reducing personnel but increasing workload."
Hough argued, "We steadfastly maintain that having a combined agency would provide no benefit to the general public, our sportsmen and sportswomen and, most importantly, the fish and wildlife resources of the Commonwealth." He said the agencies in other states he has spoken to have expressed regret that their states "copied the large super agency model." Hough asserted, "A merged agency is inefficient and ineffective and the result of the merger is to comingle funds, dilute areas of expertise, cause loss of direction and lower staff morale." He described the PGC and the PFBC as "national role models in wildlife and fish management."
Rep. Godshall explained that when the last study was done in 2003 he sent letters to all 50 states asking them about the advantages of having two separate agencies versus having just one. Rep. Godshall reported he received about 25 responses and he received telephone calls from New Jersey and Ohio who told him that they received letters from the Game Commission asking them to not respond to his letter. Rep. Godshall told the committee when the states were asked if they would have two separate agencies they said "we wouldn't do it here." He read excerpts from letter received from New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Virginia, South Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, Nevada and Idaho.
Rep. Godshall expressed concern with a case in Juniata County last fall when two hunters were cited by the Game Commission for shooting two bears after they had been advised by a Fish Commission officer that it was ok to be hunting in the area.
Arway responded that he knows the heads of those agencies in the other states and that they assumed their positions when the agencies were already combined. He observed, "It is very difficult for them to understand the difference between a separate and a merged agency." Arway suggested following the lead of former Gov. Tom Ridge who proposed splitting the Department of Environmental Resources into the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Protection. Arway argued that the split made the departments "more effective." Rep. Godshall argued that there is no reason that law enforcement should not be under one agency.
Hough asked Rep. Godshall about his comments about a Game Commission letter being sent to New Jersey and Ohio. He asked if the letter was done in 2003, Godshall responded that it was in 2003 and he described the letter as "unethical." Hough replied, "I agree."
Sen. Brewster recounted his experience in the banking business and his involvement in a major merger. He commented that he found "bigger wasn't better." Sen. Brewster told the committee, "I don't subscribe to the argument that other states do it better." He described the two commissions as doing "a good job." Sen. Brewster did recommend the PFBC and the PGC improve their communications with the members of the legislature.
Noting the study's suggestion of reducing the number of law enforcement officers, Rep. Mundy asked if the commissions are overstaffed. Berger responded, "No." She then explained the methodology utilized by the staff in coming up with that number.
Chairman Mensch commented that the word "efficiency" is used frequently in the Capitol. He said, "Size has nothing to do with efficiency." Chairman Mensch added that "efficiency is determined by how things are managed." He described the comments from the commissions as "internal" in that they reflected the impact on the agencies whereas the committee's response is to the taxpayers.
Arway pointed out his agency does not receive any tax dollars and the agency is careful how it spends money from licensees.