In one of his first acts as governor, Bob Ferguson pulled back two Inslee administration appointments to the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, adding a new layer of uncertainty for the already troubled citizen panel.
Just two days before Ferguson took office, former Gov. Jay Inslee appointed Lynn O’Connor and reappointed commission vice chair Tim Ragen to the nine-member group, which oversees the Department of Fish and Wildlife and plays a key part in setting wildlife management policy.
A week later, Ferguson sent a letter to the state Senate asking for the nomination process to be halted. He cited “multiple letters, emails and other correspondence from individuals, tribes and other entities expressing a desire for a more extensive process for these appointments.”
The Senate last week unanimously agreed to withdraw the appointments, leaving the commission down two members.
“We are ready and willing to continue our work and get what we need to get done with fewer of us, but that’s not to say that we don’t miss those people and what they provided for us,” Commission Chair Barbara Baker said at a Friday meeting.
It’s just the latest twist in a growing debacle surrounding the commission and its role.
A December report from the William D. Ruckelshaus Center found that many people who interact with the commission consider its current structure “dysfunctional” and in need of reforms, citing concerns about effectiveness, transparency and accountability.
The findings have sparked legislation this session to change the appointment process and even to dissolve the commission altogether.
Brionna Aho, spokesperson for Ferguson, cited the Ruckelshaus report as one reason for calling back the appointments. Aho said Ragen and O’Connor are still eligible for the jobs but will be evaluated along with more than a dozen other individuals who applied.
Ferguson has until April to name new appointees, and his team is now vetting candidates.
The governor appoints all nine of the commission’s members. They are subject to confirmation by the state Senate and serve six-year terms. According to state law, the governor must strive for a balance when selecting members that reflects the different aspects of fish and wildlife management, such as fishing, hunting and conservation.
Claire Loebs Davis, at Washington Wildlife First, said she was disappointed that Ferguson withdrew the appointments but that she understands the governor’s desire for a more transparent process. She added that she hopes Ferguson will seriously consider Ragen and O’Connor.
“We think that when they talk to those candidates, they will be as impressed with them as we have been,” she said.
Those who feel like they were left out of the process under Inslee are hopeful that they will be able to work more with Ferguson.
Dan Wilson, co-chair of the Washington chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said Inslee’s final commission appointments “abandoned any semblance of transparency and stakeholder input.” He called Ferguson’s decision to reopen the process “a really positive sign.”
“I am hopeful that transparency and engaging with stakeholders will be something that we see brought to the forefront in his decision making,” Wilson said.
Lawmakers hunt for solutions
The lack of transparency and accountability in the appointment process was a top concern among those interviewed for the Ruckelshaus report.
Two bills recently introduced in the Legislature are attempting to change the process.
House Bill 1930 would give counties the power to choose who represents them on the commission. Each county legislative authority in the state’s six regions would choose a nominee, and then all counties would get one vote on the region’s final appointment.
The governor would appoint three additional members with at least one from eastern Washington and one from western Washington.
To be eligible for an appointment under the bill, someone must have held a hunting or fishing license in three of the previous five years.
That proposal, sponsored by Republican Rep. Tom Dent, of Moses Lake, is scheduled for a committee hearing next Wednesday.
Another proposal, Senate Bill 5728, would set up a nominating committee to recommend commission nominees to the governor. The committee must include representatives from hunting organizations, fishing organizations, conservation groups, agriculture, outdoor recreation, local governments and tribes. The governor would be required to make appointments based on the group’s recommendations.
An eligible person would have to support science-based management of wildlife, recreational hunting and fishing, have no monetary or lobbying conflicts of interest, and have purchased a valid hunting or fishing license in two of the most recent five years, unless they are a member of a tribe.
That proposal, sponsored by Rep. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro Woolley, is not yet scheduled for a public hearing.
With only one week left until the first deadline for legislation to pass committees, it’s unclear how far those bills might make it this session.
Bigger fish to fry
The appointment debate is just a piece of the conversation over structural changes needed for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Among the recommendations in the Ruckelshaus report was turning the department into a cabinet agency.
A bill introduced by Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland, would do that. The commission would still exist but only to connect with the public and offer guidance to the director, not to set policy.
Washington Wildlife First supports the idea. Under it, Davis said the commission would continue to have an important role but would not require nine volunteers to make decisions about all fish and wildlife policy in Washington.
But many people who interact with the commission do not think it should be stripped of its powers.
“Our communities are better served through a diverse commission than through a singular political appointee,” Wilson said.
Springer’s bill will receive a public hearing on Wednesday, but legislative leaders indicated last month that an overhaul of the department likely won’t happen this session.
Along with structural changes, the Ruckelshaus report indicated that the mandate for the state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission and department may need rethinking. Many people find it confusing. The mandate emphasizes both the need to preserve fish and wildlife while maximizing hunting and fishing opportunities.
Fred Koontz, former Fish and Wildlife commissioner, said commissioners and interest groups tend to interpret the mandate differently, which can lead to polarization and conflicts.
“Little is going to change until the legislative mandate has changed,” Koontz said. “We need to decide what the paramount purpose is and what priority programs the department should focus on in order to protect public wildlife for today and for future generations.”
Those interviewed for the Ruckelshaus report acknowledged that revamping the mandate could be politically challenging.
“Everyone wants to have the conversation, but they don’t know how to go about doing it,” Koontz said.
