MT FWP Change in Public Engagement Process: FYI

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Hi All,

Just a FYI if you didn't know already, that FWP looks to be changing their Public Engagement process.

FWP launches new public engagement process

FWP spokesman Greg Lemon compared the new process to that of the Legislature, which posts bill drafts and requests amendments before meetings.

nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com

s

 

[bigsky2]

This is not good news, I can see a lot of the shit proposals getting passed with this new process. The recent elk proposals would have likely passed if it wasn't for all the backlash between commission meetings.

 

[MTGomer]

Will add transparency… much in the same way that regulation simplification added pages to the reg book would be my guess.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I appreciate that they recognize that their recent approach is problematic and did nothing to engender faith in the new administration, but I'm having a tough time seeing how limiting public involvement does anything to increase transparency.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I like the idea of having amendments written out and given to the public clearly, although maybe it's a lot of reading, lots of people want to see what's going on exactly as written. Like with the last regulation changes, yeah it was confusing that they kept changing but I liked being able to find the changes mostly written out. Even the smaller changes that didn't get much attention in the meetings. But this new process of limiting public engagement is an awful idea. I guess that's a sign that the public are making so much noise that they have to limit it to pass some bad proposals under the radar? Maybe I'm a little bitter but limiting public involvement isn't a good look.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I like the idea of having amendments written out and given to the public clearly, although maybe it's a lot of reading, lots of people want to see what's going on exactly as written. Like with the last regulation changes, yeah it was confusing that they kept changing but I liked being able to find the changes mostly written out. Even the smaller changes that didn't get much attention in the meetings. But this new process of limiting public engagement is an awful idea. I guess that's a sign that the public are making so much noise that they have to limit it to pass some bad proposals under the radar? Maybe I'm a little bitter but limiting public involvement isn't a good look.

It's a recurring theme, unfortunately. The Legislature is a good example, and the methodology of dissuading the public from exercising their constitutional franchise of civic participation is viewed by the political class as simply "streamlining," and "making sure everyone is getting heard." But it really isn't. It's about limiting public involvement in issues that are particularly unpopular so that they don't have to answer for what they are doing.

Again, it's a good idea to generate all proposals from the ground up, and this move partially restores the old process (pre 2021) to a certain extent, but it's going to be up to the Commission to fullfill the constitutional obligation the agency is walking away from here.

HB 161 in 2019 is a good example of what the ruling class thinks of actual public involvement.

 

[Schaaf]

Like the “regulation simplification” Seems like a good opportunity to cater to the dummies that don’t know how the process works and to push bad through.

 

[Sytes]

Again, it's a good idea to generate all proposals from the ground up, and this move partially restores the old process (pre 2021) to a certain extent, but it's going to be up to the Commission to fullfill the constitutional obligation the agency is walking away from here.

How can something with State constitutional obligations be pawned off, diminished, revamped, etc?
What constitutional portions involve the commission to fulfill?
Layman terms will do. Thanks

 

[Ben Lamb]

How can something with State constitutional obligations be pawned off, diminished, revamped, etc?
What constitutional portions involve the commission to fulfill?
Layman terms will do. Thanks

The State has the constitutional obligation to ensure that the public's right to know, and right to participate in government isn't diminished. The agency in this instance is calling for the diminution of the right to participate by limiting commenting like this. For the Commission, their constitutional role is to amend, pass or reject this proposal.

In essence, this approach while somewhat helpful further reduces the public's ability to effect change while putting more authority in the hands of a politically appointed commission and agency director by making the commission more closely aligned to the legislature procedures, which I don't think anyone can say have been helpful or well thought out unless you work in the building (which, you know - makes me conflicted).

So if you have concerns about this, reach out to the commission and politely explain why you think more public engagement and involvement is a good thing, and you question whether or not this achieves it. They will be looking at voting on this at the April 19th meeting.

 

[BuzzH]

Like the “regulation simplification” Seems like a good opportunity to cater to the dummies that don’t know how the process works and to push bad through.

I agree, and I just had a discussion this week with my commissioner here in Wyoming about the same thing.

The local biologists and commission both claim to want the public to attend both meetings. That's the claim, but the reality is, if you show up with a differing idea and you ask too many questions, you're quickly shouted down. People that have been involved the most, are growing tired of wasting our time commenting and asking questions if things are going to be ram-rodded.

There is a stark difference between them "listening" and those commenting actually being heard.

They often complain about the delivery and worry more about that, than they do worrying about the MESSAGE.

IMO, the people that often times have the best advice, know the most about the resource are the people the FWP claims they want to hear from...but the reality is, they would rather you don't show up and ask any hard questions.

They want the support of "bubba" so they can carry out their plans with little to no objection. Someone that agrees with everything they want to do, not somebody that challenges their decisions.

I used to think that Wyoming was a bit different, but lately there has been a shift in that and it appears to me Wyoming may be going the way of Montana.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

So if you have concerns about this, reach out to the commission and politely explain why you think more public engagement and involvement is a good thing, and you question whether or not this achieves it. They will be looking at voting on this at the April 19th meeting.

From past experience I think we all can agree that this is likely just using the guise of "streamlining" to change process so it's easier to slide their agenda through without the messiness of public input.

For actionable suggestions to the commission:
From those with a lot of experience in policy engagement, are there any concrete suggestions on improving the process we can offer or do you recommend keeping the status quo?

Any key talking points we can, en masse, repeat in our own words when contacting commissioners via email/phone?

Thanks,

S

 

[Ben Lamb]

From past experience I think we all can agree that this is likely just using the guise of "streamlining" to change process so it's easier to slide their agenda through without the messiness of public input.

For actionable suggestions to the commission:
From those with a lot of experience in policy engagement, are there any concrete suggestions on improving the process we can offer or do you recommend keeping the status quo?

Any key talking points we can, en masse, repeat in our own words when contacting commissioners via email/phone?

Thanks,

S

The status quo is what the DO changed to for the 2022/2023 season setting process, so absolutely not that mess.

The Good of this is that it allows for better input from citizens on the front end, something that has worked exceedingly well for a long time. That was the biggest change from previous years to this. Going back to that is smart governing as it vets proposals before they can become "firestorms" and ensures healthy, honest debate.

The Bad is that it still keeps people in the dark relative to process: The commission is not the legislature, and acting as such breeds more distrust and contempt for the administration as people expect to be heard, and to have their public servants listen to what they have to say. Changing the rules now to disallow more public comment is shady and doesn't serve the public trust, nor does it build trust with the public.

The Ugly: In an era where the over-politicization of everything is occurring, why would the agency deliberately push forward an proposal that is certain to politicize wildlife management more than they have already? Saying that this more closely resembles the legislature tells many, many people that this is about a distinct lack of transparency, especially when we're all still stinging from the passage of HB 637, etc. The murkiness of a legislative session works great for lobbyists, but it's a circus full of clowns for real people.

The DO & others will attempt to spin this as fixing someone else's problem, but that's false. They got hammered on a bad process that saw a massive influx of upset people, and rather than think about why their actions caused so much problems, their instinct is to limit what people can and cannot do, while trying to call that transparency. After 20 years of dealing with legislators, I can straight up tell you that transparency is a 4 letter word among many of the political class.

Hell, I even was told by a former Chief of Staff for a Wyoming Governor that the best place to be is in the smoky back-room making the deal, as that's where the nut-cutting really happens. He wasn't wrong.

These are off the cuff, I'm sure better, more thoroughly vetted messaging will pop on Monday.

 

[Point Creep]

This sounds like a great 2nd move after realizing the public knows you’re a dirty liar..

 

[WIbiggame]

@Ben Lamb or @BuzzH, as a eastern guy (WI) and obvious NR, are there any points that us NR guys can bring forward?

I feel like while good intentioned we (NR) could've maybe done more harm than good with inserting our opinions into other states affairs. I know with the outfitter bill (forgot the number 434?) and others in MT I sent several emails and made several call, along with many others from this forum. Does the fact that these public servents are getting so many calls from non voters hurt? If so is there anything we can do to make it hurt less for you all as residents?

I think we all want to help but hopefully aren't doing more harm than good.

 

[Spahr]

While I would certainly be excited for more transparency, I have concerns with how well this change will be implemented and maintained.

Releasing tentative proposals to the public, as well as having a deadline on all amendments with the chance to review and provide additional comments, sounds ok on paper. However, I agree with Ben Lambs assessment that this will breed distrust and hurt public opinion on the FWP commission. I'm already wondering why there isn't a deadline for when proposals need to be posted. Are additional amendments going to be made and not updated after the two-week deadline has passed, etc.

Another concern is with FWP's issues with maintaining their website, and keeping things organized, issues with past rollouts, etc. I am concerned that they will have the capacity to maintain this process as promised which of course will continue to hamper our ability to provide comment and stay informed on the issues being addressed.