I am more than proud to be able to send this Press Release out to the internet lists. Rep. Jim Buck (R-24) of Washington State has brought forth an issue and a term I had not heard of until approx. one week ago. I did a net search on the word, Enlibra, and had to hold my chin up off the floor. Please forward this to your lists and your media people. A copy to your legislators wouldn't hurt either.
I will post this to the W.G.E.N. messageboard today.
Jackie Juntti
This is the text of his speech and the links for background on Enlibra.
http://www.westgov.org/wga/policy/98001.htm [Also available on uhuh.com]
http://wga-internet.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/enlibra.htm [Also available on uhuh.com]
ENLIBRA
Representative Buck's Remarks to the Western Governor Association - Phoenix, AZ 12/4/98
I first became aware of the Enlibra doctrine when I attended the Council of State Governments West meeting in Anchorage last September. Although the effort seems well-intended and includes some positive proposals, I have serious concerns with certain aspects of the doctrine and I want to take a few minutes to explain why.
In his written remarks to the association on June 29, Gov. Leavitt emphasized the need for collaboration, not polarization. In that regard, true collaboration requires an open process that recognizes existing laws and authority. The major deficiency of this proposal is that it fails to recognize or seek to engage state legislatures in the process of developing collaborative policy to resolve environmental problems.
Let me share some historical perspective to illustrate my concerns.
The drafters of the Constitution intended the state constitutions to be in harmony with one another and, most important, ..."not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
In 1889, the people of Washington Territory voted to adopt our state constitution and join the union. The state Constitution makes it clear that, "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."
Article II, Section I says, "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature consisting of a senate and a house of representatives. . ."
How does all of this relate to Enlibra. Although I cannot speak about the enabling acts or the constitutions of the other Western states, I believe Enlibra could seriously threaten these fundamental founding principles and I will tell you why.
- Section B 1 of the Governor's Policy Position states, "Based on extensive regional experience, the Western Governors commit to a new doctrine to guide natural resource and environmental policy development and decision-making in the West."
While no one will challenge a governor's ability to exercise leadership in solving a problem it is clear in our constitution that the legislative branch makes the policy and the executive branch implements the policy. It is also clear that although the governor or legislature may lead there is no requirement for the people follow.
Section A 4 states, ". . . we must find new ways to vest our citizens with policies that both protect the heritage and traditions in the West that are valued and advance the kind of development that will maintain the region's extraordinary quality of life."
The section implies the Governors may have a more enlightened outlook on what policies, types of development and traditions are best for the people. We must remember that "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." The section also implies that once the governors decide on a policy it is only a question of finding a way to "vest" the citizens into accepting the policy. We must remember the people are responsible for making the decisions that determine their quality of life.
In my view, the reliance of sections B2 and C1 on the stakeholders - identified in Policy Resolution 98-001 - ignores the state legislative process and further undermines the republican form of government required by our state constitutions by substituting so-called "stakeholders" for constituents and "regions" for states.
I will soon start my third term as a state legislator, charged with representing the people of the 24th District in the State of Washington. I consider each of them to be a stakeholder in the affairs of the legal entity recognized and known as the sovereign state of Washington. The implication that a "regional" group representing a special interest is more important than my constituents in the decision making process --- which I am elected to perform --- undermines the foundations of our representative form of government.
This troubles me greatly because achieving the will of the constituents - the ultimate stakeholders - should be the ultimate goal of the process.
Section B1 of Enlibra implies that our political system does not work and introduces a new process of "collaborative decision making." Our republican process calls for the people to freely elect their representatives and for the interests of the people to be defended and promoted by their elected representatives in the legislative process. While elected officials can and should try to reach a consensus on an issue prior to taking a vote it is clearly a case of majority rules when the final decision is to be made. This means more reaching out. It also means looking within and constantly reassessing processes and procedures.
Please forgive me if I seem a little skeptical about the wording in this proposal. I represent a large legislative district in the northwest and coastal part of Washington state --- a district economically savaged by environmental laws, and subsequent business failures and unemployment. My district has had its fill of good deals like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. We now have laws which keep us from controlling seal populations which impact our endangered salmon, threaten the viability of our industries without regard to cost and require local water systems to test for an insecticide used only on pineapple plantations in Hawaii. These laws all had laudable goals when they were written but now have serious unforeseen impacts. They are not easily changed. If you suggest a new doctrine and it is to work it must accurately spell out exactly what the doctrine intends to do and how it intends to do it so it does not become a program with similar unforeseen impacts.
I must tell you that there are concepts in the shared environmental doctrine --- which I view as a work in progress --- that have considerable merit:
Reward results - not programs
The use of markets before mandates
The use of science for facts - process for priorities
The recognition of cost benefit analysis
I would encourage the governors to revisit the doctrine. In some ways it appears to be an effort to develop legislation and coordinate efforts between the states. In other ways it comes out and says it is an effort to make multi-state policy which avoids the legislative process. A clearly stated mission statement along with a well thought out plan for how the mission will be accomplished within the context of our constitutions is needed. This re-examination would be a great opportunity to reinforce our political system by stressing the need for active participation by constituents and legislators in our constitutional process.
I appreciate the goals you've set out to accomplish and recognize the thought and hard work that has brought the proposal to this point. I believe, however, its long range potential as a viable tool is severely limited by the exclusion of legislative process.
To conclude my thoughts today:
Any effort to resolve increasingly complex environmental issues must include the involvement of state legislatures --- the citizen lawmakers elected by their constituents to research, debate and forge policy on their behalf. Eliminating this fundamental element in developing environmental policy could foster a sense that Enlibra deliberately bypasses this most basic level of representative government. This is not acceptable to those of us who have been sent to our state capitals, entrusted by our constituents to do the business of the people we represent.
****************end remarks***************
** uhuh ** The President said he is reducing taxes.
uhuh.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com