The “Government Reorganization and Efficiency Act,” aka Senate Bill 10 — part of which would change appointments of N.C. Wildlife Resources Commissioners — passed a Senate vote Feb. 7 and awaits House approval before the bill is sent to Governor Pat McCrory’s desk.
Offered Jan. 31, 2012, the bill was rewritten a few days later, and then six amendments were added. The bill, which reorganized 26 state boards (including the Commission) and eliminated many appointed positions, received criticism and praise.
Main sponsor Bill Rabon (R-Southport) offered an amendment to change the terms of office of wildlife commissioners, forcing them to resign on June 30. Originally written to have all 19 new commissioners start two-year terms on July 1, the bill would have ended those terms at the same time.
To fix that problem, Rabon’s amendment allows the governor to appoint commissioners from Wildlife Districts 1 through 9 to four-year terms. However, half those appointments — those from even-numbered districts — initially would serve two-year terms. After their two-year terms ended, commissioners from those districts would serve four-year terms.
The legislature will still appoint commissioners to two-year terms — leaders of the House and Senate get five each — and will enjoy majority control over the Commission, 10 to nine.
As complicated as this process seems, it’s not much more than card shuffling and power brokering by the legislature.
Unfortunately, SB 10 still didn’t address the elephant in the living room: an oversized number of commissioners — the most in the United States — for a state with only nine wildlife districts.
Additions to 1947’s original nine commissioners (one for each district) began during the administrations of Republican Gov. Jim Martin in the early 1980s. Gov. Jim Hunt later expanded the number of seats to the current 19.
A main reason to grow appointees to a bulky total seems apparent, in the wake of 2009 revelations that 18 of 19 seats apparently were obtained by donations to then-Gov. Mike Easley’s re-election campaign or to the Democrat party. The “pay-to-play” scheme, brought to light in an influence-peddling investigation of Easley, didn’t produce any reforms.
It’s disconcerting that the now-in-power Republican party has retained a 19-member Commission while making only cosmetic tenure changes. Will interested parties who want to serve beginning on July 1 have to ante up to get in the game?
Excellent candidates to become commissioners exist, but few make donations to political parties — and they’re the kind of sportsmen/sportswomen the state needs.
A good first step to show Republicans value our natural resources above political influence would be a return to nine commissioners while disavowing donations by candidates.
Be the first to comment