please help defeat hb1352 in committee

imported post

Please email the members of the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and natural Resources and voice your displeasure with HB 1352 and request that it be killed in committee. They can be found here:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+com+H01

The language of the Bill can be found here:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=081&typ=bil&val=HB1352

This is a bad bill as it seeks to politicize the process of choosing members of the Board of directors for the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Many of us are sportsmen and hunters as well as open carriers and i would hope that you will see that politicizing the boards membershipwould be bad for us. The Dept itself does not seek this change.



thanks,



Joe

imported post

Please elaborate on how this is bad?

imported post

I think you are looking at this all wrong. The only thing this bill does is reduces the size of the board by changing where membership comes from (Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries Districts vice Congressional Districts)and who appoints them. If anything it actually un-politices the process slightly by giving folks other then the Governor appointment power.



Am I missing something Joe?

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

I think you are looking at this all wrong. The only thing this bill does is reduces the size of the board by changing where membership comes from (Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries Districts vice Congressional Districts)and who appoints them. If anything it actually un-politices the process slightly by giving folks other then the Governor appointment power.



Am I missing something Joe

Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't unpoliticize the appointments. As it stands now the Govenor appoints the membership but one Govenor does not appoint all the members at once.

did you read the whole text of the bill or just the excerpt.

here is the whole text:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+HB1352

The bill will dismiss the Board as it stands today. The legislative branch is seeking to appoint members of a Board under the umbrella of the executive branch not just approve them this to me seems like a checks and balances issue. The third reason is i was informed that this bill is aimed at the board by an individual with some connections that did not get what he wanted from the board in regards to hound hunting.

imported post

I read the full text of the bill and everything associated with it....have you? How does the new language in 29.1-102.1 differ from the text currently included in 29.1-102???

If you want us to help kill it, please explain to us what changes to "politicize the process of choosing members of the Board of directors for the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries."

imported post

I sent Delegate Ware an email asking questions about this bill:

What is the rationale for reconstituting the Board of the Game and Inland Fisheries? Are the major issues with the current process to appoint members besides allowing non-hunters or non-fishers on the board?

Click to expand...

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

I read the full text of the bill and everything associated with it....have you? How does the new language in 29.1-102.1 differ from the text currently included in 29.1-102???

If you want us to help kill it, please explain to us what changes to "politicize the process of choosing members of the Board of directors for the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries."

Click to expand...

Touchy there aren't we, I merely asked the question to make sure you had indeed read the whole text and not just the innocuous summary.

there are a couple of major differences in 29.1-102 and 29.1-102.1

1. Representation of the State as a whole is better guaranteed under the current system where one member of the board is appointed from each congressional district. Under the proposed bill committee members are to be chosen from DGIF districts with a max of 3 members from each district.I think this is where the politicalization of the board will occur. the potential to load up the board with a majority of members from a single geographic area or legislators cirlcle of croniesis too great under this proposal.

2. DGIF is under the umbrella of the Executive Branch, this proposal violates checks and balances by going beyond approval of nominees by the legislative branch and giving them the power to submit their own nominees. Do we really want the legislative branch to actually be given the power of nomination(think judges here). Do you really think the legislature is going to turn down any of their hand picked nominees. Under the proposed law the speaker of the house of delegates chooses 4 the senate rules committee chooses two and the govenor chooses 5. Govenors generally get elected by a majority of the electorate across the state Speakers of the house get elected by the party in power at the time and generally would not do well in a wide election(think Nancy Pelosi). The Speakers position is more often influenced by political idealogy than those who run for statewide office(again think Pelosi or if you prefer Oneil or Gingrich). The senate rules committee is also appointed by the political party in power at any given time. We know that through gerrymandering by both sides House and Senate Majorities are hard to change.

3. the Proposed law does not allow for the removal of board members.Existing law allows them to be dismissedby the govenor. do you want political cronies on a board that cannot be removed for bad service. As it stands now you can be removed for not showing up for meetings. under the proposed bill you're on the board until your 4 years is up whether you show up or not.

The board as it is composedis not broken why try and fix it. The Board as it is composed is not alocation for political cronies nor should it be allowed to be. The Board should not be a political tool and is not being used asonecurrently so ask yourself why would a proposal be made to make the board more of a haven for political appointees?

imported post

Now thats a good reply!!! I gotta dig int your second point some but my general feelings have definitely shifted somewhat since you explained it a little better!! Sorry my original response had an air of touchiness in it...my apologies!!

imported post

just checked on this bill and it was defeated twice on the house floor.

imported post

rlh2005 wrote:

I sent Delegate Ware an email asking questions about this bill:

What is the rationale for reconstituting the Board of the Game and Inland Fisheries? [What] are the major issues with the current process to appoint members besides allowing non-hunters or non-fishers on the board?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

FWIW, Delegate Ware never replied to my question. Absent information on why the current method is flawed, I'm glad it was shotdown.