|
Inside Governor Thompson's DNR Research Report No. 7
State Workers Demand:
Survey of DNR Employees Calls for
Read the Press Release
Politics override scientific evaluations and fair permit decisions, compromising our state's environmental oversight process, according to the results of a survey of all employees of Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The survey, conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), found overwhelming support for removing the Governor's power to appoint the DNR Secretary and for reestablishing the Public Interveners Office which was abolished by Governor Tommy Thompson in the 1995 Budget. This is the 7th in a series of reports discussing Governor Thompson's political control over Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources. Each report in this series explores a specific example of negative changes which have occurred within the DNR since the Governor's takeover in 1995. Prior DNR Watch reports can be viewed in detail online at: www.wsn.org. This past December, PEER mailed out surveys to all of the 3,073 employees of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The survey consisted of questions written by employees. More than half (1,537 individuals) answered, a very respectable response rate. According to survey results, a strong plurality of employees registered concerns about political influence within the agency: * Nearly half of respondents (738 employees) feel that scientific evaluations are influenced by political considerations with less than a third in disagreement. * More than half do not trust DNR administrators "to stand up to political pressure in protecting the environment." (830 employees) * More than two in five think that business "has undue influence on DNR decision- making." (569 staff) * Overall, nearly half of the survey respondents agree that Wisconsin's environment is not better protected now than it was five years ago while little more than a third disagree. (737 employees) The PEER survey also asked employees to write comments that identify and explain the "biggest problem facing the DNR." By far the most consistent answer, from more than one third of all respondents, was political interference and the role of the Governor. As one employee wrote: "Big business now runs the Wisconsin DNR. Our governor has done tremendous damage to Wisconsin's reputation as an environmental leader." On agency structure, employee sentiment was even more definitive: * More than nine out of ten think that the DNR Secretary should not be appointed by the Governor with more than eight in ten favoring the return of this appointment power to the Natural Resources Board. (1,399 staff) * More than two-thirds of respondents (1,061 employees) want the Public Intervener's Office restored while less than one in ten disagree. "DNR employees themselves are doubtful about their effectiveness in preserving Wisconsin's natural heritage," stated PEER national Field Director Eric Wingerter. "Many employees are angry and frustrated from what they perceive to be political interests obstructing sound science and environmental stewardship." The survey asked employees to assess conditions within the agency: * Nearly two-thirds believe that DNR lacks "sufficient resources to adequately perform its environmental mission." (999 employees) * Three-fourths say employee morale is poor. (1,153 employees) * More than one in six fear retaliation or know of instances of reprisal against employees who advocate stronger environmental protection. (277 employees) A majority of survey respondents agreed that Secretary Meyer was doing a "good job" but similar percentages raised doubts about the performances of other top agency administrators. "Employees believe that Secretary Meyer is holding up under tremendous pressure," said Wingerter, citing another employee response which read: "The biggest problem is to 'free George Meyer' by letting the Natural Resources Board appoint the Secretary and restoring the Public Intervener's Office. This will give George Meyer all his 'teeth' back." For more information, contact Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, (PEER) 2001 S Street, NW, Suite 570, Washington DC 20009 Tel:(202) 265-7337 Fax (202) 265-4192 info@peer.org Webpage: www.peer.org Summary of a Survey of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Employees Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national nonprofit alliance of state and federal resource professionals working to promote environmental ethics and government accountability. PEER is surveying all Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) employees on issues concerning the state of environmental affairs at the agency. These questions were developed by your colleagues. Please take a few moments to fill out this survey and mail it back. As with all contact with PEER, survey responses will be strictly confidential. PEER will tabulate and publish the survey results and make them available to you. (1,537 DNR Employees responded) 1. The DNR has sufficient resources to adequately perform its
environmental mission.
2. DNR efficiently uses the resources available to it.
3. Wisconsin's environment is better protected now by DNR than
it was five years ago.
4. DNR administration does not allow the needs of individuals
and businesses seeking permits to take precedence over serving the general
public and the resource.
5. In my experience, scientific evaluations are influenced by
political considerations at DNR.
6. The regulated community has undue influence on DNR decision-making.
7. The DNR Secretary should continue to be appointed by the Governor.
8. The DNR Secretary should be appointed by the Natural Resources
Board.
9. The Public Intervener's Office should be re-established.
10. DNR administration is committed to enforcement of environmental
laws.
11. I think that DNR law enforcement tends to focus disproportionately
on small violators, rather than large
12. I have been directed by a superior to overlook environmental
violations.
13. I trust DNR's top administrators to stand up against political
pressure in protecting the environment.
14. George Meyer has done a good job as DNR Secretary.
15. At DNR, administrators are selected on who they know rather
than what they know.
16. Employee morale at DNR is good.
17. I know of a situation in which a DNR superior has retaliated
against a staffer for doing his or her job "too well" on a controversial
project.
18. I fear job-related retaliation for openly advocating enforcement
of environmental regulations.
The following are typical responses to the question: "In my opinion, the biggest problem facing the DNR is . . ." Note: This is an abbreviated summary of responses. For a more complete listing, contact PEER above. Political Influence From Governor Thompson
"Governor 'Toxic Tommy' Thompson. Gov. Thompson has a long resume of opposing efforts to clean up and protect the environment except when there is political benefit to him personally." "I grew up in Michigan and chose to work for the Wisconsin DNR 25 years ago because it was and has been one of the best environmental agencies in the US. That is changing now, negatively. Governor Thompson is very shrewd and makes far-reaching decision out of the public eye and with his extreme budget veto power, often completely reversing legislative intent." "Undue influence of the Governor's office to benefit his friends --- state budget and services in this state are for sale if you have the money, i.e. the Ashley Furniture deal!" The Governor built a major, unneeded hatchery and named it for himself. In the process, wetlands were filled, wastewater permitting not followed, and forest areas not meant to be cut for 50 years were clear cut and paved." "The Governor is so supportive of business that the DNR is not allowed to deny easements and permits." "The Governor of Wisconsin wields non-scientific influence over the actions of DNR. The Governor told co-workers and a division administrator not to release a mining EIS before the last gubernatorial election, for fear it could cost him votes. (EIS was not complete before then, it turned out.) Fear of criticism by DNR staff of the Dept. of Transportation 20-year road-building plan, which in turn threatens the profits of highway builders, the Governor's campaign contributors, led the DNR Secretary to remove a co-worker from his duties performing environmental impact reviews of highway plans. Political influence at its worst." "Political pressure and lobbying by money to Governor which causes a) losing battle on land use planning/zoning --- destroying natural environment. b) loss of critical sensitive environment areas in the name of job creation when we're already short of workers. Examples: Crandon Mine approved, water bottling company in Mecan River watershed." Inability of a well-meaning honest Secretary (Meyer) to stand up to political pressures from Gov. Thompson and those who contribute financially to Thompson's campaign. Also, FEAR of not doing the right thing politically is causing many good conscientious employees who have no backing from the administration to leave the agency. We have a brain drain and are losing the historic perspective of an honest and integrity-filled DNR. Very, very sad for the state." "We are dead in the water as an agency --- exactly where the Governor and his business supporters want us." Influence From the Legislature (40 responses) "The state legislature is more frequently influencing, or reversing, science-based decisions and/or policies for their own political gain." "Increasing micro-management of the DNR by the legislature. The legislature has eliminated positions or reduced funding of programs at the DNR they disagree with. The elimination of the Lower Wisconsin Riverway coordinator is the best example of this. Eliminating that position was a clear act of retribution by a member of the state Senate." Influence From Big Business (62 responses) "I have seen project after project thwarted, denied, ignored because of monied "interests." Citizens never get the attention that the paper industry and road-builders do. In some cases we are required to get businesses involved in decisions where the public is ignored. Permitting decisions/rules are based on industrial management practices, not the public's or the environment's health." "Political considerations and job-relocation threats by polluters often outweigh environmental concerns. The secretary says he has never vetoed a referral to DOJ for enforcement. He is correct. The next level of management below the secretary has that job." "Politics" in General (135 responses) Political influence and bowing to the changing winds of the day. Good scientific studies with adequate professional peer review are lacking. To sum up my frustration, I will quote you a statement made by my superior: "We don't do science at the DNR."" "Many of us Old Timers (20-30 years of staff) probably wouldn't hire on with today's DNR because when we hired on our mission was to serve the general public and the resources, not the politically influential. Simple math proves the inefficiency of serving the public one at a time vs. collectively." Agency Reorganization (293 Responses) "Our new organizational structure has virtually eliminated program checks and balances, program direction, accountability and leadership at the field level. Instead of "program-based" support at the field level, we now have only non-program-based supervisors and generic "team" support. Resource Management is floundering and the public and resource base are the victims. Over most my 30 year career, Wisconsin DNR has been a leader in Resource Management and research --- in just a few short years that's been reversed!" "Reorganization has done exactly what our Governor wanted --- cripple the DNR, hire spineless management, and let the staff/field workers take the fall. Northeast and Southeast region have the worst management --- especially in the water and waste programs. We are even told, as field staff, that businesses are our customers and we need to please them and keep them happy." "Applicants for permits may as well be asked if they want French fries with their approvals because nothing is ever denied. Working here now is barely tolerable and I'm ashamed to tell anybody that I do. By the way, I'm a manager with [over 20] years of experience." Staffing & Funding (230 responses) "Woefully insufficient number of staff positions committed to civil and criminal environmental enforcement programs. At present, there are (approx.) 15 full-time equivalent environmental enforcement positions statewide dedicated to issuing Notices of Violation, Administrative Orders, or referring cases to Dept. of Justice for litigation/prosecution. There are 7 full-time equivalent environmental warden positions statewide to conduct complex civil/criminal investigations." "It is not uncommon to have positions vacant for a year." Poor Leadership (118 responses) "Although the political pressure is, indeed, great, DNR management itself is shooting staff down whether or not there is political pressure. Retaliation is a major, major concern. Staff who do nothing are considered good employees. Thus, after suffering the slings and arrows of management, and since staff is cannon fodder, I am now the perfect employee because I now do nothing --- no decisions, write few memos or letters, and I haven't conducted an inspection in two years. DNR is morally bankrupt." "The good news: more than half of DNRÕs supervisors and administrators are competent! The bad news: too many are sub-competent." Lack of Support from the Public (31 responses) "In the public's mind DNR is blamed for many many things not within its control or responsibility. The legislature controls budgets and writes all the rules. It's easy for local legislators to "Blame it on the DNR."" "Wisconsin citizens still think the DNR is protecting their interests. Citizens do not realize how political the DNR has become and that DNR policy may not be protecting them or the state resources because of special interest influence through the Governor's Office and the Legislative branch." "A public educated by the news media is the same or worse than uneducated." DNR Takeover and Intervenor Loss As part of the 1995 Budget, with little opportunity for public awareness or input, a party line vote in the legislature gave Governor Thompson direct control over the DNR Secretary, and the ability to appoint top-level DNR administrators. In essence, this turned the DNR into a partisan agency, controlled by the party in power. Previously, the Secretary had answered to an independent 7-member citizen committee called the Natural Resources Board. The citizens were appointed to 6 year staggered terms by the Governor, but once appointed, they could make independent decisions. The old system allowed some political influence, but usually the Board was a mix of people appointed by different governors and were more insulated from daily political pressures. Now, the Governor is directly involved in the DNR's everyday activities, and it shows. For example, the Governor has used the DNR Secretary at political campaign fundraising events, and to pressure Wisconsin tribes in negotiating their gaming compacts, tasks which are clearly not his job. Also in 1995, Gov. Thompson used the budget process to eliminate the Wisconsin Public Intervenor Office, which had two attorneys advocating for public rights in the natural resources of Wisconsin. The Intervenors were watchdogs over state and federal agencies to ensure compliance with environmental laws. For 26 years, thousands of citizens, even legislators, received experienced consultation and referrals through the Intervenors. Now, citizens have no public source of legal advice or assistance for environmental issues. Most citizens or groups can't afford private legal fees. Most private attorneys lack the political stature, experience, and connections which the Intervenors had. The Attorney General can't do the Intervenor's job, because the AG is required to defend the DNR. Only the Intervenors represented true "public rights" in the legal sense. Meanwhile, powerful corporations, wealthy individuals, and government bureaucrats are free to use their political power, and their large financial and legal staff resources against public interests. It's important to recognize that lawsuits were not the main activity of the Intervenors. The Intervenors often brought opponents together to negotiate reasonable compromises. They provided legal and technical comments on proposed regulations. Just their presence prevented many bad proposals from surfacing. Since the Intervenor Office closed, we've seen major increases in bad
rule revisions and permit decisions at the DNR and other government agencies
-- but citizens lack the money, time and technical or legal knowledge to
Downsized, Politicized, Disorganized, Demoralized The DNR has been drasticly reorganized, beginning with the 1995 Budget. The shuffling of personnel cost 450 people their jobs, and relocated many of the remaining 3,037 employees of the department. Many mid-level program supervisory positions were cut, eliminating the DNR's most experienced staff within specialty areas. These people were shifted to different jobs, in charge of issues new to them. Meanwhile, in their old departments, less-experienced staff had to work without clear leadership, and without benefit of old-timers' knowledge and experience. Many files were also moved, to unfamiliar locations. At the same time, many field operations and support budgets were cut --- at a time when Wisconsin's population and business growth has increased the need for careful environmental regulation. The reorganization itself cost millions, and led to many more program reductions. Many of the DNR's best staff left the agency because of frustration. It is symptomatic that the Governor and his Secretary now refer to the DNR offices as "Customer Service Centers" and refer to polluting industries as "clients" or "customers." Political Appointments and Cuts in Enforcement When Governor Thompson took control of the DNR in 1995, he made appointments of political friends to key positions in DNR. One of the worst was David Meier, who previously worked as a Thompson aide, and in the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT). Thompson made Meier the Administrator of DNR's Division of Enforcement and Science, one of the most powerful DNR staff positions, though he had little experience and was unsuited to this job. In fact, when he worked at DOT, he was involved in efforts to exempt DOT from the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act and environmental impact studies. And under Meier, the DOT tried to get an exemption from the endangered species law. Mr. Meier got his jobs without competition against qualified public servants with years of experience. While at DOT, he was only a "Limited Term Employee." As DNR Administrator, Mr. Meier oversees highly sensitive issues, including sign-off on Environmental Impact Statements, endangered species, the Rio Algom Mine, and all enforcement actions by DNR. He also oversees research, environmental analysis, and review. Not surprisingly, DNR law enforcement dropped significantly after Maier's appointment. The number of cases DNR has referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution dropped from 165 and 170 total cases in 1995 and 1996, to only 92 cases in 1997. In addition, the records show polluting industries are much less likely to legally challenge the strictness of their permits. These cases dropped by half. This suggests that new pollution discharge permits are weaker and polluters are more satisfied with their permits. We've been told by several sources within DNR that DNR staff are so demoralized by the lack of enforcement, they no longer bother to gather evidence of violations to help build cases. They know it probably won't be used for proper enforcement. Examples of Political Influence Five DNR Watch reports have been issued by the Natural Resource Accountability Project to document political influence over DNR decision-making. The 6th report was a review of last year's state budget. Report #1 --- Toxic River Pollution --- Gov. Thompson is fighting against holding paper companies accountable to clean up the PCB contaminated sediments in the Fox River and Green Bay --- one of the worst toxic hotspots in the United States and a major health threat to people and wildlife. Under 14 years of influence from the Thompson Administration, the DNR has made little progress on the issue. In 1995, just when the Public Intervenors Office was about to become involved in this issue, the Governor eliminated the office. In 1997, the Governor maneuvered the DNR into a damaging pro-industry contract with the paper industry, undermining federal Superfund and Natural Resource Damage Assessment cases to clean up the river. Even now, the contract continues to seriously weaken the DNR's enforcement of an appropriate state clean up. Between 1991 and 1997, Gov. Thompson received more than $2,933,828 in campaign contributions from the paper industry and their associates. Report #2 --- Shoreland Losses --- After intense pressure from a local politician who is a strong Gov. Thompson ally, and who co-chairs the legislature's Joint Finance Committee, DNR Secy. Meyer reversed staff recommendations and cancelled a legal enforcement action against a wealthy home builder in Brown County who DNR staff had determined to have violated Wisconsin's shoreland zoning variance. Instead of making a fair decision based on the law and sound science, the DNR was forced to circumvent proper procedures on the basis of political pressure. Report #3 --- Sulfide Mining Pollution --- This report cited multiple examples of the DNR's favoritism towards the metallic sulfide mining industry, with the DNR repeatedly bending rules, circumventing established legal procedures, and discounting citizen concerns. Between 1991 and 1997, Gov. Thompson received more than $600,000 in campaign contributions from special interests tied to the mining industry. Report #4 --- Public Access and Shoreland Losses --- Between 1995 and 1999, the DNR administration blatantly overrode staff findings. They allowed significant wetland and other habitat losses, and ignored clear shoreland zoning and public access violations created by the construction of the Whistling Straits Golf Course in Sheboygan County. Special interests tied to the Kohler Company, which built the golf course, donated $83,711 to the Governor's and legislative election campaigns between 1990 and 1998, and were also major donors to national Republican campaigns at a time when Gov. Thompson considered running for national office. Report #5 --- Cranberries and Wetland Losses --- Cranberry operations account for more natural wetland losses than any other activity in Wisconsin, and they receive unusual environmental exemptions under Wisconsin law. To make matters worse, under Gov. Thompson, the DNR recently granted the cranberry industry additional special treatment under wetland protection laws despite overwhelming public opposition. Between 1991 and 1998, campaign contributions from this industry totalled at least $113,169, with 75% contributed to Gov. Thompson's campaigns specifically. Comments from the DNR Secretary When PEER announced its intention to survey his staff, DNR Secretary Meyer sent three e-mails to each of the 3,073 DNR employees in December (and had paper copies of his letters distributed by supervisors) strongly urging staff to respond to the survey. He asked employees to remember the fine quality of their agency and keep in mind all the enforcement actions of the DNR. In essence, Meyer's letters attempted to deflect, pre-empt, and otherwise counter concerns DNR staff might have. When the results were released (he was given 2 weeks advance notice), Meyer was furious and denounced the survey as biased. In news releases, Meyer said the survey was "clearly politically driven," given that PEER released the results shortly before the legislature planned to consider a bill to make the Secretary subject to appointment by the Natural Resources Board, instead of the Governor. Yet, since such a bill proposal has been renewed and pending in the legislature for more than 4 years, it would be impossible to avoid this claim by Meyer. Besides, why wouldn't the DNR Secretary and legislature want to know DNR employees' opinions when they're considering important legislation which impacts the agency? Does Meyer object to the legislature receiving this information? Meyer downplayed the survey by saying 50% of the employees "voted by throwing the survey in the recycling bin." This implies that the 50% who didn't respond agreed with Meyer, disliked the survey, and were not represented at all by the 50% who did take the time and trouble to respond. Yet, there is no basis for Meyer's assumptions. (Please see the section on "Survey Validity" ) At the same time that Meyer denounced the survey as biased, he trumpeted the results which he interpreted as favorable to his leadership and agency. So he gave credence to the results he liked, and dismissed the results he didn't like. (Though he admits that DNR morale is affected by heavy workload, low compensation for some staff, and concerns about the DNR reorganization.) Now, Meyer is insisting on getting copies of the raw survey comments sent by DNR employees, claiming he needs them in order to fix problems at the agency. Meyer promises confidentiality, but PEER understandably refuses to comply, to protect DNR employees from job retribution and to keep PEERÕs promise of absolute confidentiality. Assembly Representative DuWayne Johnsrud (R), Assembly Natural Resources Committee Chairman, stated in a press release that the survey results were "one-track, politically motivated," "contrived and misleading," and that, "Apparently, 85% of the employees are okay with the way the environment is being protected because 50% of the employees didn't even bother to respond to this special interest survey and only 15% of those who did respond felt strongly that the environment was not protected better now than it was 5 years ago." [Note: In fact, 48%, not 15%, of survey respondents, or 737 DNR employees, felt the environment was not protected better.] Actually, Rep. Johnsrud has been in the forefront of this issue, expressing his deep concern over DNR morale and its effectiveness since reorganization. He was one of the last Republican legislators to agree to the original transfer of the Secretary's appointment to the Governor. This past summer he held several hearings around the state taking testimony from many groups and individuals about the same concerns expressed in this survey. Johnsrud, as Committee Chairman, has the opportunity to embrace the PEER survey findings, and bring proposed bill SB 27 to the floor of the Assembly where it can have free and open debate, and be voted on. State Senator Dale Schultz (R) stated that the PEER survey was "make believe" and a "half-baked fraud that hurts DNR morale," and called it "a deceptive attempt by political interest groups in Wisconsin to further their partisan agenda." He added that, "This bogus survey smears the DNR workforce in its entirety and cynically adds to morale concerns. It is a disgrace and embarrassment to those behind it." Two other legislators, Rep. Spencer Black (D) and Rep. Lee Meyerhofer (D), have each issued press releases which called for legislative response to the concerns raised by the survey. Both called for restoration of the DNR and Public Intervenor to pre-1995 conditions. A total of 1,537 DNR employees responded to the PEER survey. These are educated professional men and women, many with decades of fine service to the agency. It would be an insult to their intelligence to claim they were somehow misled or confused by clear questions. To ignore their concerns would be shortsighted. In fact, only a handful of DNR respondents (just 6 people, or less than 1/2 of one percent) added comments indicating the survey was "biased." Fully half of the survey questions led with a pro-status quo approach, such as the simple statement "Employee morale at DNR is good." A resounding 75% of the respondents disagreed with this supposedly "biased" statement. Only 18% agreed, and only 1% strongly. Clearly, the employees weren't following the "bias" of the questions. And "bias" can't explain away the hundreds of heartfelt handwritten detailed comments DNR employees wrote at the bottoms of their surveys. Many turned in additional pages of handwritten comments. Most of the PEER survey questions were carefully written by existing and former Wisconsin DNR staff, after several steps of consideration and broad feedback. Because the PEER survey has been criticized for its "low 51% response rate" we called two professional survey centers to get their expert opinions. Linda Penaloza, Director of the Wisconsin Survey Research Lab at the University of Wisconsin - Extension in Madison, stated that a 40-55% response rate to an employee satisfaction survey is considered adequate and not unusual. Penaloza added, "To throw out the results based on a 51% response rate would be very much over-reacting. The survey is still representing a majority and the attitudes of those 1,537 people who did respond." Delia Kundin, Assistant Director of the Survey Center of St. Norbert College, had similar thoughts. "Typically, this is what we see in our survey research business. A 40-45% response is considered acceptable .... not bad for mail surveys." This allows for a 5-7% margin of error. She considered a 50% response rate "very good." The professionals said timing of the survey could also be a factor. The PEER Survey was sent out to the DNR employees in mid-December during the holiday season, and had to be returned within a month. Penaloza said, "This is a bad time to get survey's completed. We try not to do surveys in December." When told that only one copy of the survey was mailed once to DNR employees, Penaloza expressed surprise and said under the circumstances that a 51% response was a "very good response rate." Ordinarily, professional surveyors send 1 initial and 2 follow-up copies of the survey to ensure an adequate response. Neither expert was able to address concerns about bias, because they hadn't seen the questions, but Kundin commented that when it comes to questions, "All questions are biased. They have to come from somewhere." The Wisconsin Survey Research Center in Madison has 40 years of experience in this field, and is highly regarded for its professionalism. The Survey Center at St. Norbert College is similarly respected, and has 15 years of experience. It is unfortunate that the protection of Wisconsin's natural resources, which belong to everyone, is being characterized by some as a partisan battle. To dismiss as "partisan" the serious concerns of the DNR's own employees would be a disservice to those employees and to the citizens of Wisconsin who depend on them. The fact that SB 27 passed with broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and that the Assembly bill also has Republican co-signers demonstrates that the time is ripe for correcting the misguided 1995 effort at DNR reform. 1) Restore the Natural Resource Board Appointed DNR Secretary These survey results highlight the need to reverse the politicization of the DNR, now that the DNR Secretary is under direct control of the Governor. Wisconsin legislators need to restore the Department to pre-1995 budget conditions, where the DNR Secretary answered to the 7 independent citizens appointed to serve on the Natural Resources Board --- to help insulate the Department from political influence and favoritism. A proposed legislative bill, SB 27, which would restore the DNR Secretary, passed the Senate last fall with an 18-to-15 bipartisan vote. The Assembly version of this bill, introduced by legislators from both parties, now sits in the Natural Resources Committee, chaired by State Representative DuWayne Johnsrud, awaiting their approval to bring it to the floor for a fair vote. 2) Restore the Public Intervenor Office Before Gov. Thompson and Republicans in the legislature eliminated the Public Intervenor Office in 1995, the Intervenors were part of a carefully crafted check and balance system in Wisconsin designed to correct political pressures. The Intervenors must be restored to protect Wisconsin's natural resource base, tourism industry and quality of life. A proposed legislative bill, SB 72, also passed the Senate in the 1999 session, and has broad political support in the Assembly. It also awaits committee approval. The political influence described in the survey by DNR employees points to a need for campaign finance reform to protect WisconsinÕs natural resources. Wisconsinites who value a clean, healthful environment must demand an electoral system that pays more attention to public good than it does to private donations. 4) Investigate Potential Illegal Influence The Attorney General or another impartial legal office needs to investigate potential cases of illegal influence over DNR decision-making. Hundreds of DNR employees said they were ordered to overlook violations of Wisconsin laws, or they feared retaliation if they enforced the law. This is an outrage. A frightening 18% of the survey respondents (277 employees of the DNR) agreed or strongly agreed that "I know of a situation in which a DNR superior has retaliated against a staffer for doing his or her job "too well" on a controversial project." In addition, 15% (230 employees) agreed or strongly agreed that "I fear job-related retaliation for openly advocating enforcement of environmental regulations." Furthermore, 8% (123 employees) agreed or strongly agreed that "I have been directed by a superior to overlook environmental violations." These numbers point to serious systematic and widespread problems with enforcement in the DNR. We don't need to see a majority response in these numbers for Wisconsin citizens to be concerned. We, the following citizen organizations, are extremely concerned about political influence over DNR decision-making, as highlighted in the recent PEER survey. We strongly urge the Wisconsin Legislature to pass SB 27, to restore DNR Secretary appointment authority to the Natural Resources Board, and SB 72, to restore the Wisconsin Public Intervenors Office. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance for a Sustainable Earth
Natural Resource Accountability Project Citizens for a Better Environment
|