2lumpy
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,989
Allow The Utah DWR To Operate Without A Wildlife Board? Really?
Sounds like a lesson in government/business is necessary. I'm a lousy one to try but seeing as how nobody else seems to be stepping forward, I'll give it a go.
When stock holders or public funds are involved the world, not just the USA, uses a tried, tested, and proven system to manage their holdings. I didn't say it was a perfect system but It's morphed, over the centuries into a checks and balance system that even one outside countries under a dictatorship live by.
The system is set up on an employees and a Board of Directors system. The Board of Directors, or equivalent (Governors, or other high level elected representatives) hire the management Director, the Director or CEO (in Business) then hire the rest of the management employees and their staffs)
The Director (CEO) and the rest of the employees run the agency (business) based on the philosophy and the policy and practices established by the Board of Directors. The Director (CEO) always, always, always work at the pleasure of the Board of Directors or in the case of government, at the pleasure of the Governor or which ever elected officer hired him/her. The other employees have more "rights to work" based on union or association agreements which have been contracted with their Board of Directors.
The rules of the system are this: the Board of Directors set and establish the entities mission and the policies that bring the mission of the organization to fruition. The Director (CEO) establishes an organization of managers and their staffs to create practices and procedures that accomplish the objectives of the mission. If the mission of the organization is being met, based on the opinions of Board of Directors, the Director (CEO) are rewarded with continued employment or other negotiated compensation. The employees like wise. If the mission is not being met, based on the opinions of the Board of Directors, the Director (CEO) is pressured to change the organizations practices and procedures. This generally means the Director CEO must pressure the other employees to do the same, i.e.: change what they are doing. If the Director (CEO) is unsuccessful or unwilling to change the organization's practices and procedures, the Director (CEO) is terminated and replaced by someone the Board of Directors (Governor etc) believes can successfully execute the mission of the organization. Employees of the organization, due to union or association agreements, are generally immune being hired or fired by the Board of Directors. The only way a Board of Directors can get to or remove employees beyond the Director (CEO) is to pressure or threaten the Director (CEO) to move that employee to a different position within the organization or terminate them for proven insubordination which his nearly impossible in any organization but it does happen with lower staff personnel, rarely with high level personnel, especially in government agencies. The organization will often need to remove a "position" across the organization before it can remove an administrative level employee without proven cause. It's a nightmare to pull off and most government organization avoid it like the plague.
To suggest or attempt to establish a different system that would allow the Utah DWR to function without a Board of Directors or equivalent simply means the plotters and planners have little or no knowledge of the real world in which we life and have been living for the last 300 years. No one in government is going to give any State agency a budget of tax payers money, that administers State owned resources, self-governance. It's a naive suggestion and provides a window into the minds of the folks that are attempting such a thing as well as those that support their effort. However, it might serve to keep them pounding sand down the preverbal rat hole while the rest of us are trying to keep our mule deer from continuing to decline.
Hell, I resigned from the Southern Region RAC 7 years ago, 2.5 years before my term was over, because I believed the system was flawed but suggesting that the State will allow the DWR to self-govern is beyond rational logic.
No one will argue with anyone if they believe there is a better or a different way to take public input or influence on how to manage our big game but suggesting that we'll ever have a State agency where the employees are allowed to establish and set their own mission and policies to that end is juvenile and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the world in which we live.
It will be most interesting to see how successful this apparent UWC leadership movement is.
As I recall, the current Director said something like this a Wildlifw Board meeting last year: we (DWR) like our current Board system, every time we tell other States how our system is set up they tell us how lucky we are and wish their State had a system like Utah's. (You call listen to the audio for his exact words)
Was he just blowing smoke?
Times change, Demographics change, Sportsmens desires change, Governors change, Directors change, Boards change, Missions change. Ask the American Indians, the fur traders, the free rangers, the homesteaders, and the public land grazers?
A few dozen guys suffered some change, we get it. They don't like it, we get it. We know they're going to try to go back to what they had, we get it. What's new with that?
We're trying to help mule deer, get it?
We want to hunt as much as they do, we believe the Wildlife Board was responding to that reality and acted responsibly, for a change.
Merry Christmas, school's out for today!
DC
Sounds like a lesson in government/business is necessary. I'm a lousy one to try but seeing as how nobody else seems to be stepping forward, I'll give it a go.
When stock holders or public funds are involved the world, not just the USA, uses a tried, tested, and proven system to manage their holdings. I didn't say it was a perfect system but It's morphed, over the centuries into a checks and balance system that even one outside countries under a dictatorship live by.
The system is set up on an employees and a Board of Directors system. The Board of Directors, or equivalent (Governors, or other high level elected representatives) hire the management Director, the Director or CEO (in Business) then hire the rest of the management employees and their staffs)
The Director (CEO) and the rest of the employees run the agency (business) based on the philosophy and the policy and practices established by the Board of Directors. The Director (CEO) always, always, always work at the pleasure of the Board of Directors or in the case of government, at the pleasure of the Governor or which ever elected officer hired him/her. The other employees have more "rights to work" based on union or association agreements which have been contracted with their Board of Directors.
The rules of the system are this: the Board of Directors set and establish the entities mission and the policies that bring the mission of the organization to fruition. The Director (CEO) establishes an organization of managers and their staffs to create practices and procedures that accomplish the objectives of the mission. If the mission of the organization is being met, based on the opinions of Board of Directors, the Director (CEO) are rewarded with continued employment or other negotiated compensation. The employees like wise. If the mission is not being met, based on the opinions of the Board of Directors, the Director (CEO) is pressured to change the organizations practices and procedures. This generally means the Director CEO must pressure the other employees to do the same, i.e.: change what they are doing. If the Director (CEO) is unsuccessful or unwilling to change the organization's practices and procedures, the Director (CEO) is terminated and replaced by someone the Board of Directors (Governor etc) believes can successfully execute the mission of the organization. Employees of the organization, due to union or association agreements, are generally immune being hired or fired by the Board of Directors. The only way a Board of Directors can get to or remove employees beyond the Director (CEO) is to pressure or threaten the Director (CEO) to move that employee to a different position within the organization or terminate them for proven insubordination which his nearly impossible in any organization but it does happen with lower staff personnel, rarely with high level personnel, especially in government agencies. The organization will often need to remove a "position" across the organization before it can remove an administrative level employee without proven cause. It's a nightmare to pull off and most government organization avoid it like the plague.
To suggest or attempt to establish a different system that would allow the Utah DWR to function without a Board of Directors or equivalent simply means the plotters and planners have little or no knowledge of the real world in which we life and have been living for the last 300 years. No one in government is going to give any State agency a budget of tax payers money, that administers State owned resources, self-governance. It's a naive suggestion and provides a window into the minds of the folks that are attempting such a thing as well as those that support their effort. However, it might serve to keep them pounding sand down the preverbal rat hole while the rest of us are trying to keep our mule deer from continuing to decline.
Hell, I resigned from the Southern Region RAC 7 years ago, 2.5 years before my term was over, because I believed the system was flawed but suggesting that the State will allow the DWR to self-govern is beyond rational logic.
No one will argue with anyone if they believe there is a better or a different way to take public input or influence on how to manage our big game but suggesting that we'll ever have a State agency where the employees are allowed to establish and set their own mission and policies to that end is juvenile and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the world in which we live.
It will be most interesting to see how successful this apparent UWC leadership movement is.
As I recall, the current Director said something like this a Wildlifw Board meeting last year: we (DWR) like our current Board system, every time we tell other States how our system is set up they tell us how lucky we are and wish their State had a system like Utah's. (You call listen to the audio for his exact words)
Was he just blowing smoke?
Times change, Demographics change, Sportsmens desires change, Governors change, Directors change, Boards change, Missions change. Ask the American Indians, the fur traders, the free rangers, the homesteaders, and the public land grazers?
A few dozen guys suffered some change, we get it. They don't like it, we get it. We know they're going to try to go back to what they had, we get it. What's new with that?
We're trying to help mule deer, get it?
We want to hunt as much as they do, we believe the Wildlife Board was responding to that reality and acted responsibly, for a change.
Merry Christmas, school's out for today!
DC
