Four Missouri bills target makeup of Mo. Conservation Commission
Traveler isn’t up there with the Washington Post or even the Jefferson City News-Tribune in keeping up with the antics of legislative bodies and persons who aim to legislate the proper use, regulation, misuse or even permissive freedoms pertaining to natural resources. But even we couldn’t help
Photo from Panoramio.com
By Jo Schaper
The Missouri Constitution outlines the makeup of the Missouri Conservation Commission thus:
“Conservation commission, members, qualifications, terms, how appointed–duties of commission–expenses of members.
Section 40(a). The control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the bird, fish, game, forestry and all wildlife resources of the state, including hatcheries, sanctuaries, refuges, reservations and all other property owned, acquired or used for such purposes and the acquisition and establishment thereof, and the administration of all laws pertaining thereto, shall be vested in a conservation commission consisting of four members appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, not more than two of whom shall be of the same political party. The members shall have knowledge of and interest in wildlife conservation. The members shall hold office for terms of six years beginning on the first day of July of consecutive odd years. Two of the terms shall be concurrent; one shall begin two years before and one two years after the concurrent terms. If the governor fails to fill a vacancy within thirty days, the remaining members shall fill the vacancy for the unexpired term. The members shall receive no salary or other compensation for their services as members, but shall receive their necessary traveling and other expenses incurred while actually engaged in the discharge of their official duties.”
This section has been the status quo since November 3, 1936 (with a little minor amending in August, 1972.)
As the old truism goes, “When the legislature is in session, no one is safe.” No fewer than one Missouri House bill (HB1178), two House joint resolutions (HJR48 and HJR51) and one Senate joint resolution seek to amend the paragraph above. All proposals would amend the constitution, and as such, be subject to a statewide vote. Some highlights follow; please read the original documents to find the tiny details.
- HB1178, primarily sponsored by Don Phillips, (R) representing House District 62 (Stone and Taney) counties would increase the Commission from four to seven. Three members would serve concurrent terms, with two members staggered ahead, and two members behind. No more than four could be of the same political party. One would represent Kansas City, one St. Louis and the other five (one each) from the southwest, southeast, northeast, northwest and central part of the state.
- SJR27, sponsored by Sen. Brian Munzlinger (R) District 18 (Bowling Green area) would increase the number of Commissioners from four to eight, restricted to one commissioner from eight different regions of the state. This proposal would stagger terms so that Two of the terms shall be concurrent; one shall begin two years before and
14 one two years after the concurrent terms, and no more than three end in the same year for 6 year terms. An individual would be limited to two terms, or twelve years of service. - An alternative, HJR48 proposed as a constitutional amendment by Reps. Phillips and Jay Houghton (R) Bowling Green would set the number, qualifications and terms of the commissioners by law, rather than the constitution, with the provision than no more than one-half plus one could be of the same political party.
- And finally, Don Ruzicka, (R) District 132, Monett/Mount Vernon proposes HJR51, which increases the number to eight Commissioners, not more that four of one political party, no more than three terms ending in the same year, and term limited to two terms or 12 years’ service.
What do you think? Should geographical residency be a more important factor than qualification? Is four commissioners enough? Do we need six, or eight, or a dozen? Is it time for a change? Does what we have work? Carry on the conversation!
Loading ...
Missourians should not allow any political change occur, with political inbalance will come political movement, which was by design even numbers require someone to move with the groups sense and the benefit of wildlife or nothing changes. That is how it should be if the understanding is not there then dont fix it! Intentions maybe good for these attempts but, real danger could jeoperdize long fought and proven works.
You can be sure these proposals will only lead to MORE political control, or else the legislators wouldn’t be proposing them. What is the justification for creating more positions? More favors in return? And there are reasons why the Conservation Commission was set up under the Constitution, not the Legislature. The primary reason was to keep politicians from monkeying with it.