Joe-
I told you that I would let this go if the groups would earmark the vast majority of the $5 application fees to actual conservation projects and account for the use of those funds. While I am frustrated that we know little about the nearly $10 million raised to date, you are correct that I said I would drop this issue if the groups would fix the problem moving forward.
So tell me Joe, has the problem been fixed? Have the groups committed to using the vast majority of the funds for actual conservation? And have the groups committed to allowing an annual audit of those funds? You stated in your post that ?SFW has agreed, starting in 2017- 2021 to give 100% of the $5 fees to the DWR and have it be accounted for.? What the basis for that statement? Did someone from SFW tell you that? Are those commitments documented in the rule or the contract? Or is that just a commitment from the groups similar to when Don Peay told the public that ?it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground? in order to get the tags approved?
I am asking because I honestly don't know. Let's look at what we do know. SFW and MDF released the following statements regarding the Expo Tag application fees:
?
One dollar and fifty-cents of each $5 application fee is retained for the Utah Division of Wildlife and its wildlife conservation programs, and $3.50 evenly split between SFW and MDF, all of which is used to bolster wildlife conservation throughout the state of Utah benefiting multiple species. This commitment to utilize 100% of the application fee revenue to support Utah Conservation Initiatives included in the contract that SFW recently signed with the State to distribute expo permits from 2017 to 2021. We will annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife. See
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/23283.html
So what does this mean? According to this statement, there will still be a 70/30 split of the Expo Tag revenue with the DWR receiving $1.50 and the groups retaining $3.50 from each $5 application. How will the 70% be used by the groups? According to the statement, the groups will use 100% of these funds to ?to support Utah Conservation Initiatives.? At first glance, that sounds great. But given the history, any reasonable person would ask what is a ?Utah Conservation Initiative?? Once again, according to this statement, the term ?Utah Conservation Initiative? is apparently spelled out in the contract between the DWR and SFW. Finally, according to this statement, SFW states that the groups ?will annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife.? So what does this mean? Will the DWR perform an annual audit like they do with conservation permit funds? Or will the groups prepare their own report? Will the report address both the 30% turned over to the DWR for its wildlife conservation programs and the 70% retained by the groups to support ?Utah Conservation Initiatives?? The statement is silent on those issues.
Let's look at the contract to see if it addresses these questions. The DWR released a signed copy of the Expo Tag contract, which can be found at the following link:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf
So what does the contract say about use of the Expo Tag revenues? Pursuant to Section 7.b, 30% of the revenues will be used for Division approved projects that benefit protected wildlife. I like that language a lot. I just wish it was more than 30% -- like 90 or 100%.
So what does the contract say about the 70% that is supposedly retained by the groups for ?Utah Conservation Initiative?? Pursuant to Section 7.c, those revenues must be used for ?
policies, programs, projects and personnel that support wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah.? What does that mean? SFW/MDF can obviously use some of that money to fund projects. Can the SFW/MDF pay salaries to SFW/MDF ?personnel? with that money? Can they lobby with that money in an effort to affect ?policies?? Did the parties simply draft a provision that authorizes them to do what they were already doing? So tell me Joe, what exactly is a ?wildlife conservation initiative?? Why didn't the parties define that term in the contract? As a lawyer, I always define critical contract terms unless I am purposefully trying to leave the term ambiguous. I am guessing that is what happened here. I have asked for some clarification from some of my contacts but I have not heard back yet. Do you know what that term means? Does anybody know what this means?
It is also critical to point out that there is no audit provision for the 70% -- or for the 30% for that matter. And the annual report to be provided by the groups to the DWR only covers the 30% that has to be spent on approved projects. See Contract, Section 7.e. The groups have issued statement stating that they will "annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife" and the DWR's FAQ's states that "SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife." However, I don't see anything in the rule or the contract that requires any accountability or transparency with the 70% retained by the groups.
Given the history on this issue, I guess you could say that I am a little leery of believing that the money is going to be used for actual conservation projects and accounted for. If that was intended, then why didn't the groups and the DWR simply spell that out in the contract? Why isn't there an audit provision or even a reporting provision for the full 100% of the revenues in the contract? The public has been burned before by getting statements promising accountability or transparency without documenting those commitments in the rule or the contract. Perhaps we should all email the DWR and the groups and ask: (1) What exactly was agreed to by the parties? (2) What portion of the money will be earmarked for actual conservation projects? (3) What is a ?wildlife conservation initiative?? (4) Why didn't the DWR and SFW define that term in the contract? (5) What portion of the application revenues will be audited by the DWR or reported on by the groups? I am happy to listen to any information or clarifications that help answer these questions.
So returning to your original question Joe, I will drop this issue just as soon as the problem is fixed. As it stands right now, I don't see how the latest contract and statements by the groups fix the problem. If I am missing something, please let me know. Reach out to your contacts within SFW and see if they can answer these questions. You are correct that I would rather spend my time on family, work and hunting. But as you know, I am committed to seeing this issue through until it is resolved.
-Hawkeye-
