Post by melody on Jun 4, 2014 19:04:14 GMT -5
House Game and Fisheries Committee
6/4/14, 9:15 a.m., Room 60 East Wing
By Caleb Sisak, PLS Intern
The committee held an informational meeting on the feasibility of combining the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC).
HR 129 Causer, Martin - (PN 956) Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to investigate the financial feasibility, impact, costs and savings potential of eliminating duplicated duties and services by combining the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to create a new independent agency responsible for managing the fish and wildlife resources of this Commonwealth.
Chairman Causer discussed the purpose of the recently completed study by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) as a means to examine the impact of merging the PFBC and PGC. He observed that efficient, effective management must always be a focus of public agencies.
Rep. Godshall joined the committee to share his past experience with this issue in the General Assembly several years ago when he directed letters to leaders of other states' respective wildlife agencies seeking feedback about the commonwealth's dual agency system. Amongst the 25 responses he received back, Rep. Godshall highlighted a response from Nevada saying that the major disadvantages of a two agency system-like that in Pennsylvania-would be overlapping of jurisdiction and duplication of effort with regards to administrative, education, and enforcement functions. "A state's wildlife needs one voice to represent it, so that no one special interest adversely affects another," he recounted from the letter. As a whole, Rep. Godshall said, "The responses were that there's one resource, and it's got to be handled by an individual agency in order to unify efforts."
In addition to the standard responses, Rep. Godshall discussed hearing from several states that the PGC informed them not to respond to his request. He explained that the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs put out a four-page brochure lambasting him for his actions, which resulted in over 500 letters from constituents in his district. Rep. Godshall eventually sued them for the defamatory, inaccurate comments; however, he submitted that this is an example of impassioned resistance to unifying these agencies in Pennsylvania. Rep. Godshall asserted that he has hunted throughout the world, and every place has had a single, unified fish and game agency. "Whatever you do, you do," he stated. "They tried to hang me. I'm still here, by the way."
Phil Durgin, Executive Director of the LBFC, introduced the office's study, An Update on the Feasibility of a Combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for Pennsylvania, which was released in March.
Patricia Berger, Senior Counsel/Project Manager of the LBFC, discussed the focus of the study not only to assess the feasibility of a combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for the commonwealth, but also evaluate the cost of combining only the law enforcement functions of the PFBC and PGC with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). "This is the third study we have conducted regarding a merger of the PFBC and the PGC," she pointed out. "Pennsylvania remains the only state with separate and organizationally independent agencies managing its fish and wildlife resources." Berger shared that 20 states manage these functions under a stand-alone department or commission, and 29 states manage them within an organizational unit of a larger state agency. She said that the organizational chart developed for the merged agency does not eliminate any functional areas, and it represents only a suggested framework. "Although the management of these resources by a single entity is certainly feasible, the combined expenditure per license of the PFBC and PGC is already lower than the average of other states, suggesting that there may be limited opportunities for significant savings," Berger asserted. "In addition, since our last report, both agencies have seen a decrease in their complements, which also limits the personnel savings that could be achieved in a merger."
Berger detailed the ways that various aspects of the two current agencies would be consolidated under the proposed Fish, Boat, and Wildlife Commission:
• Eliminates several redundant upper-level positions including Executive Director, Press Secretary, Legislative Liaison, and several Regional Office Managers (whilst retaining three Deputy Executive Directors for each resource);
• Creates a Bureau of Species Diversity by combining the Wildlife Diversity Section and Environmental Planning and Habitat Protection Division of the PGC together with the Division of Environmental Services at PFBC;
• Provides for dedicated law enforcement function for renamed Resource Conservation Officers;
• Maintains current staff complement for PGC's Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management and Bureau of Wildlife Management, as well as PFBC's Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Fisheries and Division of Hatcheries;
• Retains both headquarters facilities, as neither is large enough to contain unified agency.
While the proposed organizational structure eliminates a total of 52 positions, Berger reiterated that the present reductions in staff complements diminish the potential savings. Overall, she stated that the average personnel savings would be about $4.8 million annually. Berger detailed several ways that additional costs and savings could be incurred due to resource consolidation, cross-training, IT infrastructure, and unified branding materials. There are also a set of statutory, regulatory and administrative considerations such as codes and funding regulations that would need to be addressed in establishing the merged agency, she added. Berger explained that license and registration fees continue to account for a significant portion of both agencies' funding, though other opportunities may be assessed. Berger put forth, "In addition to these issues, many of the staff of the two agencies we spoke with expressed concern over the possible 'dilution' of the focus of their agencies' mission and expertise if the two were merged."
Regarding the cost effectiveness of merging only the law enforcement functions of the PFBC and the PGC with DCNR, Berger said that there are several difficulties presented by consolidation. Only Alaska and Oregon currently have these law enforcement functions carried out by an agency not responsible for the administration of fish and wildlife programs, she noted. "Also, DCNR reported that the focus of their park and forest rangers is on providing a safe and enjoyable experience for the visiting public, rather than law enforcement," Berger shared. Therefore, she posited that any transition may require supplementary orientation of the agency's approach in addition to administrative and jurisdictional considerations. "We estimated the cost of combining PGC, PFBC, and DCNR law enforcement to be about $5.8 million more than under the existing structures," Berger said. "A combined approach should, however, improve enforcement coverage, as currently officers typically only issue citations for violations relating to their own agencies."
Chairman Causer requested further details about the cost savings set forth within the study. In addition to this, he questioned whether it would be duplicative to maintain all regional facilities of both agencies following a merger. Berger said that the estimated $4.8 annual savings in personnel costs were based on an operational and administrative framework similar to those in other states. "Some of the positions that were eliminated are not currently filled, so there would be not savings with elimination," she explained. Furthermore, the previous studies derived significant cost savings from consolidation of enforcement personnel; however, Berger pointed out that law enforcement personnel in both agencies are fulfilling a more dynamic range of duties today. She clarified that there would be no actual lease savings from facility consolidation as the each commission owns the facilities, and the proximity of the respective buildings is not close enough to ensure efficient operation. Finally, Berger said that the PFBC hatchers are a significant cost driver that was not eliminated.
Chairman Causer inquired about the reasoning being separating law enforcement duties from other administrative functions, since Wildlife Conservation Officers (WCOs) are already cross-functional. Berger responded that they were looking at it from a fiscal perspective, but that would be another option. She pointed out that cross-training requires an additional cost, and also WCOs have a different benefits structure.
"The report projects a $4.8 million annual savings, and the two agencies have said that that is insignificant," Chairman Causer remarked. "But to the people that I represent that is very significant."
Rep. Godshall asked whether the analysis evaluated the ability of the PGC and PFBC to coordinate and maximize federal funding. Berger said that the study did not evaluate the coordination or success of these specific efforts to ensure maximum federal funding.
Chairman Haluska expressed concerns about the effectiveness of a volunteer board working alongside a single executive director to serve and protect the dynamic wildlife needs of the state. "In my mind, I just can't see how we're going to shrink this down to one board, quarterly meetings, and one Executive Director to manage all of these territories," he stated. Berger explained that the size of fish and wildlife boards across other states vary ranging from five in Arizona to 19 in North Carolina. Notably, she shared that many of these boards have multiple advisory bodies. Chairman Haluska interjected that states like Arizona do not have the size and scope of natural resources that Pennsylvania does, especially waterways. "I just don't know how they'd do it," he maintained. Other states do have a separate boat commission, Durgin clarified, but Pennsylvania is alone in separating wildlife management.
Rep. Maloney asked whether the report collected opinions from sportsmen regarding a potential combining of the PGC and the PFBC. Berger answered that this report was focused on cost savings, though the 2003 report distributed questionnaires. Rep. Maloney also asked about how previous reports on issues at the PGC and the PFBC factored into this most analysis. The LBFC had just completed the triennial audits of the PFBC, Berger explained, so they were able to use the broad financial information from this report. Still, she pointed out that they did not conduct a performance audit based on each organization's compliance to their respective strategic plans. Rep. Maloney said that he was "a little troubled" with this methodology, as these are important factors that should be considered in agency decisions.
"I think that the agencies have brought on a lot of controversy in certain things that have been brought up in this committee and the public, and I think this creates some of the push to look at other options," Rep. Maloney commented. "I don't support the merger for a lot of those reasons. I think that if we would have stayed on mission and looked at where we could have saved money, we could have avoided this." Durgin remarked that the report does express some internal concerns about the loss of mission, and he would welcome an opportunity to discuss those at a later time.
Reiterating that nearly $5 million is a significant amount of money, Chairman Causer acknowledged that there are other issues that must be factored into future decisions. He recalled the many hearings held across the state on this topic back in 2003, which provided an opportunity for direct feedback from sportsmen. Although there was very limited support back then, Chairman Causer said that there has been some shift based on the direction that the commissions have recently moved toward. He recognized that Pennsylvania is "very slow" to change, yet argued that unified wildlife management is something that every other state has in place.
Chairman Causer reaffirmed his commitment to this issue moving forward, and he said that any future legislation would carefully consider this analysis and public opinion.
6/4/14, 9:15 a.m., Room 60 East Wing
By Caleb Sisak, PLS Intern
The committee held an informational meeting on the feasibility of combining the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC).
HR 129 Causer, Martin - (PN 956) Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to investigate the financial feasibility, impact, costs and savings potential of eliminating duplicated duties and services by combining the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to create a new independent agency responsible for managing the fish and wildlife resources of this Commonwealth.
Chairman Causer discussed the purpose of the recently completed study by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) as a means to examine the impact of merging the PFBC and PGC. He observed that efficient, effective management must always be a focus of public agencies.
Rep. Godshall joined the committee to share his past experience with this issue in the General Assembly several years ago when he directed letters to leaders of other states' respective wildlife agencies seeking feedback about the commonwealth's dual agency system. Amongst the 25 responses he received back, Rep. Godshall highlighted a response from Nevada saying that the major disadvantages of a two agency system-like that in Pennsylvania-would be overlapping of jurisdiction and duplication of effort with regards to administrative, education, and enforcement functions. "A state's wildlife needs one voice to represent it, so that no one special interest adversely affects another," he recounted from the letter. As a whole, Rep. Godshall said, "The responses were that there's one resource, and it's got to be handled by an individual agency in order to unify efforts."
In addition to the standard responses, Rep. Godshall discussed hearing from several states that the PGC informed them not to respond to his request. He explained that the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs put out a four-page brochure lambasting him for his actions, which resulted in over 500 letters from constituents in his district. Rep. Godshall eventually sued them for the defamatory, inaccurate comments; however, he submitted that this is an example of impassioned resistance to unifying these agencies in Pennsylvania. Rep. Godshall asserted that he has hunted throughout the world, and every place has had a single, unified fish and game agency. "Whatever you do, you do," he stated. "They tried to hang me. I'm still here, by the way."
Phil Durgin, Executive Director of the LBFC, introduced the office's study, An Update on the Feasibility of a Combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for Pennsylvania, which was released in March.
Patricia Berger, Senior Counsel/Project Manager of the LBFC, discussed the focus of the study not only to assess the feasibility of a combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for the commonwealth, but also evaluate the cost of combining only the law enforcement functions of the PFBC and PGC with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). "This is the third study we have conducted regarding a merger of the PFBC and the PGC," she pointed out. "Pennsylvania remains the only state with separate and organizationally independent agencies managing its fish and wildlife resources." Berger shared that 20 states manage these functions under a stand-alone department or commission, and 29 states manage them within an organizational unit of a larger state agency. She said that the organizational chart developed for the merged agency does not eliminate any functional areas, and it represents only a suggested framework. "Although the management of these resources by a single entity is certainly feasible, the combined expenditure per license of the PFBC and PGC is already lower than the average of other states, suggesting that there may be limited opportunities for significant savings," Berger asserted. "In addition, since our last report, both agencies have seen a decrease in their complements, which also limits the personnel savings that could be achieved in a merger."
Berger detailed the ways that various aspects of the two current agencies would be consolidated under the proposed Fish, Boat, and Wildlife Commission:
• Eliminates several redundant upper-level positions including Executive Director, Press Secretary, Legislative Liaison, and several Regional Office Managers (whilst retaining three Deputy Executive Directors for each resource);
• Creates a Bureau of Species Diversity by combining the Wildlife Diversity Section and Environmental Planning and Habitat Protection Division of the PGC together with the Division of Environmental Services at PFBC;
• Provides for dedicated law enforcement function for renamed Resource Conservation Officers;
• Maintains current staff complement for PGC's Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management and Bureau of Wildlife Management, as well as PFBC's Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Fisheries and Division of Hatcheries;
• Retains both headquarters facilities, as neither is large enough to contain unified agency.
While the proposed organizational structure eliminates a total of 52 positions, Berger reiterated that the present reductions in staff complements diminish the potential savings. Overall, she stated that the average personnel savings would be about $4.8 million annually. Berger detailed several ways that additional costs and savings could be incurred due to resource consolidation, cross-training, IT infrastructure, and unified branding materials. There are also a set of statutory, regulatory and administrative considerations such as codes and funding regulations that would need to be addressed in establishing the merged agency, she added. Berger explained that license and registration fees continue to account for a significant portion of both agencies' funding, though other opportunities may be assessed. Berger put forth, "In addition to these issues, many of the staff of the two agencies we spoke with expressed concern over the possible 'dilution' of the focus of their agencies' mission and expertise if the two were merged."
Regarding the cost effectiveness of merging only the law enforcement functions of the PFBC and the PGC with DCNR, Berger said that there are several difficulties presented by consolidation. Only Alaska and Oregon currently have these law enforcement functions carried out by an agency not responsible for the administration of fish and wildlife programs, she noted. "Also, DCNR reported that the focus of their park and forest rangers is on providing a safe and enjoyable experience for the visiting public, rather than law enforcement," Berger shared. Therefore, she posited that any transition may require supplementary orientation of the agency's approach in addition to administrative and jurisdictional considerations. "We estimated the cost of combining PGC, PFBC, and DCNR law enforcement to be about $5.8 million more than under the existing structures," Berger said. "A combined approach should, however, improve enforcement coverage, as currently officers typically only issue citations for violations relating to their own agencies."
Chairman Causer requested further details about the cost savings set forth within the study. In addition to this, he questioned whether it would be duplicative to maintain all regional facilities of both agencies following a merger. Berger said that the estimated $4.8 annual savings in personnel costs were based on an operational and administrative framework similar to those in other states. "Some of the positions that were eliminated are not currently filled, so there would be not savings with elimination," she explained. Furthermore, the previous studies derived significant cost savings from consolidation of enforcement personnel; however, Berger pointed out that law enforcement personnel in both agencies are fulfilling a more dynamic range of duties today. She clarified that there would be no actual lease savings from facility consolidation as the each commission owns the facilities, and the proximity of the respective buildings is not close enough to ensure efficient operation. Finally, Berger said that the PFBC hatchers are a significant cost driver that was not eliminated.
Chairman Causer inquired about the reasoning being separating law enforcement duties from other administrative functions, since Wildlife Conservation Officers (WCOs) are already cross-functional. Berger responded that they were looking at it from a fiscal perspective, but that would be another option. She pointed out that cross-training requires an additional cost, and also WCOs have a different benefits structure.
"The report projects a $4.8 million annual savings, and the two agencies have said that that is insignificant," Chairman Causer remarked. "But to the people that I represent that is very significant."
Rep. Godshall asked whether the analysis evaluated the ability of the PGC and PFBC to coordinate and maximize federal funding. Berger said that the study did not evaluate the coordination or success of these specific efforts to ensure maximum federal funding.
Chairman Haluska expressed concerns about the effectiveness of a volunteer board working alongside a single executive director to serve and protect the dynamic wildlife needs of the state. "In my mind, I just can't see how we're going to shrink this down to one board, quarterly meetings, and one Executive Director to manage all of these territories," he stated. Berger explained that the size of fish and wildlife boards across other states vary ranging from five in Arizona to 19 in North Carolina. Notably, she shared that many of these boards have multiple advisory bodies. Chairman Haluska interjected that states like Arizona do not have the size and scope of natural resources that Pennsylvania does, especially waterways. "I just don't know how they'd do it," he maintained. Other states do have a separate boat commission, Durgin clarified, but Pennsylvania is alone in separating wildlife management.
Rep. Maloney asked whether the report collected opinions from sportsmen regarding a potential combining of the PGC and the PFBC. Berger answered that this report was focused on cost savings, though the 2003 report distributed questionnaires. Rep. Maloney also asked about how previous reports on issues at the PGC and the PFBC factored into this most analysis. The LBFC had just completed the triennial audits of the PFBC, Berger explained, so they were able to use the broad financial information from this report. Still, she pointed out that they did not conduct a performance audit based on each organization's compliance to their respective strategic plans. Rep. Maloney said that he was "a little troubled" with this methodology, as these are important factors that should be considered in agency decisions.
"I think that the agencies have brought on a lot of controversy in certain things that have been brought up in this committee and the public, and I think this creates some of the push to look at other options," Rep. Maloney commented. "I don't support the merger for a lot of those reasons. I think that if we would have stayed on mission and looked at where we could have saved money, we could have avoided this." Durgin remarked that the report does express some internal concerns about the loss of mission, and he would welcome an opportunity to discuss those at a later time.
Reiterating that nearly $5 million is a significant amount of money, Chairman Causer acknowledged that there are other issues that must be factored into future decisions. He recalled the many hearings held across the state on this topic back in 2003, which provided an opportunity for direct feedback from sportsmen. Although there was very limited support back then, Chairman Causer said that there has been some shift based on the direction that the commissions have recently moved toward. He recognized that Pennsylvania is "very slow" to change, yet argued that unified wildlife management is something that every other state has in place.
Chairman Causer reaffirmed his commitment to this issue moving forward, and he said that any future legislation would carefully consider this analysis and public opinion.