DCR Stewardship Council considers changes to its enabling statute
Doug Pizzi | September 29, 2020
The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Stewardship Council is considering proposing changes to its enabling statute (Massachusetts General Law Chapter 21) enacted in 2003. The Council conducted a detailed, lengthy discussion on proposed changes at its virtual meeting on Thursday, July 9, and again on September 10. There was no meeting in August.
Chapter 21, written in conjunction with merging the former Metropolitan District Commission and the Department of Environmental Management, set up the Council as board of directors for the new agency. In practice, many of the provisions, especially Section 2, have never been the reality in terms of how the Council operates. It reads: “The department shall be under the control of a stewardship council, which shall consist of 13 persons to be appointed by the governor in the manner provided in section 2A for terms of seven years.”
While the Council provides valuable input on DCR operations, particularly when it exercises its role to foster public comment on DCR issues, no one would argue that DCR is “under the control of” the Council to the extent outlined in the enabling legislation. The enabling statute says the council shall approve the Commissioner’s proposed budget before it is sent to the state Department of Administration and Finance; that the council must approve the Commissioner’s choices on certain DCR department heads; and that the council can appoint an interim Commissioner if the position becomes vacant. The Council has not historically exercised any of those prerogatives.
Section 2A also bears little resemblance to how the membership of the Council has developed over time. It reads:
“The governor shall appoint 11 members of the stewardship council with due regard to geographical distribution, provided that five members shall reside within the urban parks district defined in section 33 of chapter 92, at least one of whom shall be a resident of the city of Boston, and one of whom shall be a resident of Berkshire county. Of these members, no more than one may come from the same county except as provided herein.
The commissioner shall request each of the boards of trustees or directors of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Massachusetts Chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Trust for Public Land, the Environmental League of Massachusetts and the Trustees of Reservations, to nominate six candidates for the remaining two members of the council. From the nominations received from the several boards of such organizations, the commissioner shall select six candidates whom he shall recommend to the governor. The governor shall appoint the remaining two members of the council from among the candidates recommended by the commissioner.”
The Council as currently comprised, has members from the same county, and the environmental NGOs responsible for providing a list for the remaining two seats, the so-called “environmental seats,” both of which are open, recently provided a list to the governor, after a considerable delay, with four names on it.
Which brings us to a major issue the Council has with Chapter 21, it sets a length of term for each councilor at seven years, with no term staggering. The lack of staggered terms, combined with the fact that many councilors serve beyond the dates when their terms expire, means it is theoretically possible for any governor to literally wipe out all of the councilors at once for any reason, political or otherwise, and in doing so destroy the institutional knowledge its members bring to the table.
To be sure, that is not what the Baker Administration has done with the seven recent appointments to the Council. The councilors the Administration appointed are competent, caring, hard-working people who take their role seriously.
As its deliberations continue, the Council will consider proposing reducing term length to five years with a two-term limit on appointees’ tenure, setting up a system that will stagger the terms, and limiting the successive terms any one councilor can serve as chairperson. There is also discussion around the one county, one councilor provision, no longer the reality, and broadening the number of agencies responsible for proposing the environmental seats or eliminating the provision for NGOs to find candidates.
Though actual proposed legislation has yet to be drafted, the council will continue its deliberations on these matters. But if past practice is any indication of future action, the Council will diligently pursue this matter to a logical conclusion. Watch this space for updates as this issue progresses.
Doug Pizzi is the executive director of Massachusetts Conservation Voters