Performance audit, Commission on the Arizona Environment

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA ENVIRONMENT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
January 1990
90- 1
January 1990 Report No. 90- 1
The O f f i c e of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Commission on the Arizona Environment ( CAE). This performance audit
was conducted i n response to Chapter 311, Subdivision 92 of the 1989
Session Laws which d i r e c t s the Auditor General to prepare an evaluation
of CAE and present conclusions and recommenoations r e i a t i n g t o the
e f f e c t i v e n e s s and need for the agency.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment was established by the
L e g i s l a t u r e i n 1986 and succeeds the Governor's Commission on the Arizona
Environment which was o r i g i n a l l y created by executive order i n 1965. The
commission has 11 members and works w i t h an advisory council c o n s i s t i n g
of State environmental and n a t u r a l resource agency heads as well as
conservation and business groups having an i n t e r e s t i n envi ronmental
a f f a i r s . CAE's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n d i r e c t s i t to make recommendations
on environmental matters and to f a c i l i t a t e the coordination of p u b l i c
awareness of environmental issues. The commission's primary a c t i v i t y
involves a series of q u a r t e r l y workshops on selected t o p i c s .
The Role of the Commission on the Arizona Environment
Should Be Revised or Else the Commission Should
Be Terminated
The need for the commission, as i t c u r r e n t l y functions, i s d i f f i c u l t to
j u s t i f y . The commission's r o l e should be revised to focus on what many
see as i t s primary b e n e f i t - providing forums for discussion of
environmental issues.
Commission s t a t u t e s require the commission to develop recommendations and
to f a c i l i t a t e the c o o r d i n a t i o n of p u b l i c awareness programs. However,
commission recommendations and e f f o r t s to coordinate p u b l i c awareness
have l i m i t e d impact on Arizona environmental p o l i c y . Although the
commission has made 29 recommendations on environmental issues during the
past two years, observers ( i n c l u d i n g key l e g i s l a t o r s , l e g i s l a t i v e s t a f f ,
and heads of State environmental and natural resource agencies) do not
consider the recommendations to be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to
environmental policymaking. Observers also discount CAE e f f o r t s to
coordinate p u b l i c awareness; most indicated t h a t t h e i r organizationst
e f f o r t s took place w i t h o u t i n f l u e n c e by CAE. However, most observers
feel the commission provides b e n e f i t s through i t s workshops. Commission
workshops and meetings provide a forum for discussion, p a r t i c u l a r l y about
emerging environmental issues.
The commission's i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s r e s u l t s from the lack of a c l e a r l y
defined r o l e and inadequate d i r e c t i o n of i t s s t a f f . A f t e r three years as
ac agency, coiiiiiiissisn members are s t i i l t r y i n g to define i t s appropriate
r o l e and f u n c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the commission has not been able to
ensure that i t s major a c t i v i t y - workshops - are relevant and productive
to environmental policymaking i n Arizona or that i t s s t a f f provide
adequate support for workshop a c t i v i t i e s .
I f the L e g i s l a t u r e continues the commission, i t should consider changing
the commission's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n to focus e f f o r t s i n t h i s
d i r e c t i o n . The commission needs t o d e f i n e and j u s t i f y the s t a f f needed
for t h i s purpose and should monitor s t a f f a c t i v i t i e s to ensure that they
are consistent w i t h t h i s purpose.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment Needs to
Improve Its Financial Management
CAE has e x h i b i t e d questionable spending practices o f S t a t e monies, some
of which may v i o l a t e State law. The agency made what appear to be
improper a l l o c a t i o n s to i t s revolving fund to avoid overspending i t s
general fund a p p r o p r i a t i o n during f i s c a l years 1988 and 1989. A review
of selected expenditures during f i s c a l year 1989 i d e n t i f i e d a p a t t e r n of
payments for meals, an o f f i c e p a r t y , and other expenditures that are
questionable, imprudent and may v i o l a t e State law. Other expenditures -
such as the h i r i n g of r e l a t i v e s for small jobs - may not only v i o l a t e the
law but may create the appearance of impropriety. In a d d i t i o n , some
expenditures seem imprudent. For example, the executive d i r e c t o r
traveled to an out- of- state conference two weeks a f t e r being informed
that the agency would be unable to stay w i t h i n i t s f i s c a l year
appropr i a t ion.
Although many of the expendi tures we found are smal I amounts, we be I ieve
the pattern e s t a b l i s h e d i n d i c a t e s a clear need for stronger f i s c a l
controls to ensure b e t t e r f i n a n c i a l management of commission resources.
Needed c o n t r o l s include meaningful review of expenditures by commission
members, s t a t u t o r y r e v i s i o n s to more c l e a r l y specify how the commission's
revolving fund may be used, and a change to a l i n e - i t e m a p p r o p r i a t i o n of
the commission's general funds. The commission concurs w i t h the need for
greater commission oversight of expenditures, and i s c u r r e n t l y r e v i s i n g
i t s procedures.
DOlJGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA J. BLESSING. CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
January 26, 1990
Members of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e
The Honorable Rose Mofford, Governor
Ms. Susan Lofgren, Chai rman
Commission on the Arizona Environment
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor ~ k n e r a l , A Performance
Audit of the Commission on the Arizona Environment. This report i s i n
response to Chapter 311, Subdivision 92 of the 1989 Session Laws which
d i r e c t s the Auditor General to evaluate the effectiveness and need for
the commission.
The report concludes that the need for the Commission on the Arizona
Environment, as i t c u r r e n t l y functions, i s d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y .
Commission recommendations and e f f o r t s to coordinate p u b l i c awareness
have a l i m i t e d impact on Arizona environmental p o l i c y . However, many
policy- makers feel @ that the commissian provides b e n e f i t s through i t s
workshops which provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r persons of diverse backgrounds
and i n t e r e s t s t o discuss environmental issues. i f the L e g i s l a t u r e
continues the commission, i t should consider changing the commission's
enabling l e g i s l a t i o n to focus e f f o r t s toward serving as a forum for
discussion, p a r t i c u l a r l y regarding emerging environmental issues.
We also found that the commission has not managed i t f i s c a l resources i n
a responsible manner. Commission expenditures have been imprudent and,
i n some cases, may have v i o l a t e d State law. This p a t t e r n o f expenditures
c l e a r l y indicates a need for stronger f i s c a l c o n t r o l s .
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o d i s c u s s o r c l a r i f y items i n the r e p o r t .
S- in cerely,
~ o&/ as R. Norton
Auditor General
DRN : I mn
STAFF: William Thomson
Mark Fleming
Anthony James Guarino
Lucy Kennedy Brad ley
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit o f
the Commission on the Arizona Environment ( CAE). This performance audit
was conducted i n response to Chapter 311, Subdivision 92 of the 1989
Session Laws which d i r e c t s the Auditor General to prepare an evaluation
of CAE and present concIusions and recommendations r e l a t i n g to the
effectiveness and need for the agency.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment was established by the
Legislature i n 1986 and succeeds the Governor's Commission on the Arizona
Environment which was o r i g i n a l l y created by executive order i n 1965. The
commission has 11 members and works with an advisory council consisting
o f State environmental and natural resource agency heads as we1 I as
conservation and business groups having an i n t e r e s t i n environmental
a f f a i r s . CAE's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n d i r e c t s i t to make recommendations
on environmental matters and to f a c i l i t a t e the coordination o f public
awareness of environmental issues. The commission's primary a c t i v i t y
involves a series o f q u a r t e r l y workshops on selected topics.
The Role of the Commission on the Arizona Environment
Should Be Revised or Else the Commission Should
Be Terminated ( see pages 7 - 14)
The need for the commission, as i t currently functions, i s d i f f i c u l t to
j u s t i f y . The commission's role should be revised to focus on what many
see as i t s primary benefit - providing forums for discussion of
environmental issues.
Commission statutes require the commission to develop recommendations and
to f a c i l i t a t e the coordination of public awareness programs. However,
commission recommendations and e f f o r t s to coordinate public awareness
have l i m i t e d impact on Arizona environmental p o l i c y . Although the
commission has made 29 recommendations on environmental issues during the
past two years, observers ( including key l e g i s l a t o r s , l e g i s l a t i v e s t a f f ,
and heads of State environmental and natural resource agencies) do not
consider the recommendations to be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o
environmental policymaking. Observers also discount CAE e f f o r t s to
coordinate p u b l i c awareness; most indicated that t h e i r organizations'
e f f o r t s took place without influence by CAE. However, most observers
feel the commission provides b e n e f i t s through i t s workshops. Commission
workshops and meetings provide a forum for discussion, p a r t i c u l a r l y about
emerging environmental issues.
The commission's ineffectiveness r e s u l t s from the lack of a c l e a r l y
defined r o l e and inadequate d i r e c t i o n of i t s s t a f f . After three years as
an agency, commission members are s t i l l t r y i n g to define i t s appropriate
r o l e and function. In a d d i t i o n , the commission has not been a b l e t o
ensure that i t s major a c t i v i t y - workshops - are relevant and productive
to environmental policymaking i n Arizona or that i t s s t a f f provide
adequate support for workshop a c t i v i t i e s .
I f the L e g i s l a t u r e continues the commission, i t should consider changing
the commission's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n to focus e f f o r t s i n t h i s
d i r e c t i o n . The commission needs t o d e f i n e and j u s t i f y the s t a f f needed
for t h i s purpose and should monitor s t a f f a c t i v i t i e s to ensure that they
are consistent w i t h t h i s purpose.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment Needs to
Improve Its Financial Management ( see pages 15 - 20)
CAE has exhibited questionable spending practices o f State monies, some
of which may v i o l a t e State law. The agency made what appear to be
improper a l l o c a t i o n s t o i t s revolving fund to avoid overspending i t s
general fund a p p r o p r i a t i o n d u r i n g f i s c a l years 1988 and 1989. A review
of selected expenditures during f i s c a l year 1989 i d e n t i f i e d a p a t t e r n of
payments for meals, an o f f i c e party, and other expenditures that are
questionable, imprudent and may v i o l a t e State law. Other expenditures -
such as the h i r i n g of r e l a t i v e s for small jobs - may not only v i o l a t e the
law but may create the appearance of impropriety. In a d d i t i o n , some
expenditures seem imprudent. For example, the executive d i r e c t o r
traveled to an out- of- state conference two weeks a f t e r being informed
that the agency would be unable to stay w i t h i n i t s f i s c a l year
appropriation.
Although many of the expenditures we found are small amounts, we believe
the p a t t e r n e s t a b l i s h e d i n d i c a t e s a clear need for stronger f i s c a l
c o n t r o l s t o ensure b e t t e r f i n a n c i a l management of commission resources.
Needed controls include meaningful review of expenditures by commission
members, s t a t u t o r y r e v i s i o n s to more c l e a r l y specify how the commission's
revolving fund may be used, and a change to a l i n e - i t e m a p p r o p r i a t i o n of
the commission's general funds. The commission concurs w i t h the need for
greater commission oversight of expenditures, and i s c u r r e n t l y r e v i s i n g
i t s procedures.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I : THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA
ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE REVISED OR ELSE THE
COMMISSION SHOULD BE TERMINATED . . . . . . . . . . .
Workshops Are Primary Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . .
D
An Unclear Role and Weak Oversight of I t s
S t a f f A c t i v i t i e s < te Impaired the
Commission'sEffe ~ veness. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I f the Commission I s Continued, I t s Role
ShouldBe Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I I : THE COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA
ENVIRONMENT NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CAE Spent State Monies Excessively
and i n Possible V i o l a t i o n of State Law. . . . . . .
Stronger Fiscal Controls Needed to
Control CAE's Excessive Spending . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGENCY RESPONSE
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 Commission on the Arizona Environment
General Fund Statement of FTEs and
Actual and Budgeted Expenditures
F i s c a l Years 1987- 88, 1988- 89,
and 1989- 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 Commission on the Arizona Environment
Revolving Fund Statement of Actual
Expenditures F i s c a l Years 1987- 88
and 1988- 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 3 Travel Claims for State Agency Personnel
Attending CAE Conferences From September
1988 to September 1989. . . . . . . . . .
The O f f i c e of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Commission on the Arizona Environment ( CAE). This performance audit
was conducted i n response to Chapter 311, Subdivision 92 of the 1989
Session Laws which d i r e c t s the Auditor General to prepare an evaluation
of CAE and present concIusions and recommendations r e l a t i n g to the
effectiveness and need for the agency.
The commission was o r i g i n a l l y created by executive order i n 1965 as the
Governor's Commission on Arizona Beauty. The name was l a t e r changed to
the Governor's Commission on the Arizona Environment. Then, i n 1986 the
Commission on the Arizona Environment was established by the
L e g i s l a t u r e . P r i o r to 1986 CAE was housed i n the Arizona Department of
Transportation which also provided the commission with a v a r i e t y of
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support services.
Commission Organization and Activities
The commission consists of 11 members appointed by the Governor.
Commission members are to be appointed based on t h e i r " demonstrated
competence, experience and an i n t e r e s t " i n the Arizona environment.
Commission members are not compensated for t h e i r e f f o r t s .
The commission's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n also establishes an advisory
council " to provide guidance and otherwise assist the commission i n
f u l f i l l i n g i t s d u t i e s . " By law, the advisory council must include
representatives from 11 s p e c i f i e d State agencies. Other council members
are selected by the commission and represent business and professional
organizations, c i t i z e n and conservation groups, the academic community,
and various governmental e n t i t i e s . The council c u r r e n t l y has 106 members
who, l i k e the commissioners, are not compensated for t h e i r e f f o r t s .
The l e g i s l a t i o n creating CAE d i r e c t s the commission t o :
" A c t i v e l y develop and provide recommendations regarding the
s o c i a l , economic, r e c r e a t i o n a l and ecological aspects of the
Arizona environment through p u b l i c education programs.
F a c i l i t a t e the coordination of public awareness programs
regarding the s o c i a l , economic, recreational and ecological
aspects o f the Arizona environment.
Communicate w i t h a broad range of c i t i z e n s o f t h i s s t a t e ,
i n c l u d i n g members o f the business and academic communities, so
that conclusions developed by the Commission represent, as
nearly as possible, a cross section of thought on environmental
i ssues .' I
The commission attempts to f u l f i l l i t s legal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s mainly
through q u a r t e r l y workshops. A t these workshops, the commission
assembles i t s advisory council and i n v i t e s the general p u b l i c to discuss
various environmental issues facing the State. From these discussions,
the advisory council formulates conclusions and makes recommendations to
the commission for t h e i r consideration. Recommendations approved by the
commission are forwarded to the Governor and L e g i s l a t u r e . Issues
discussed at these q u a r t e r l y forums have included: environmental
planning, outdoor recreation, and the impact of urban growth on the
environment.
Operations and Staffing
CAE manages i t s operations through a series of standing committees.
Commission management and general operations are directed by three
committees. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e committee oversees council membership,
staff/ personnel matters, o f f i c e functions, and p o l i c i e s . The operations
committee manages finances, budgets, administrative r u l e s , and operating
g u i d e l i n e s . The program committee selects and implements workshop
t o p i c s , and reviews CAE's goals and objectives each year.
The advisory council p a r t i c i p a t e s i n CAE a c t i v i t i e s p r i m a r i l y through
four resource committees: the growth, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and energy
committee; the s o l i d waste, a i r , and hazardous materials committee; the
land committee; and the water committee. Each committee i s responsible
for addressing workshop topics and f o r t r a c k i n g developments and issues
p e r t a i n i n g t o i t s s p e c i f i c area of concern.
The commission r e t a i n s a s t a f f of three i n c l u d i n g an executive d i r e c t o r .
The s t a f f works w i t h the program committee to assist i n planning,
organizing, and implementing the q u a r t e r l y workshops. In a d d i t i o n , the
executive d i r e c t o r and her s t a f f are responsible for recording the
minutes of commission business meetings, t r a n s m i t t i n g a l l CAE
recommendations and reports to appropriate p a r t i e s , and performing other
tasks as requested by the commission. The executive d i r e c t o r may also
represent the commission at o f f i c i a l functions.
Revenues and Expenditures
CAE operations are funded by general fund appropriations and through a
revolving fund. General fund monies are used to finance CAE s t a f f ,
personal services, and some of the commission's other operating
expenses. For f i s c a l year 1990, $ 111,200 i n general fund monies were
approved ( see Tab l e 1 , page 5 1.
A. R. S. 549- 124 e s t a b l i s h e s a r e v o l v i n g fund which permits CAE to accept
grants and donations, to assess fees for i t s workshops, and to c o l l e c t
monies for p u b l i c a t i o n s . Fund monies are to be used for commission
surveys, studies, p u b l i c a t i o n s , i n t e r n s h i p programs, workshops, and
workshop equipment. Monies c o l l e c t e d are not subject to reversion unless
the fund balance at the end of the f i s c a l year i s greater than $ 25,000.
I f t h i s occurs, monies i n excess of that amount are reverted to the
general fund. During f i s c a l year 1989, the fund had a beginning balance
of $ 944, $ 40,389 was co l l ected , and $ 41,254 was expended ( see Tab l e 2,
page 6 1.
Audit Scope and Purpose
As directed by the Session Law, our audit of the Commission on the
Arizona Environment addressed the need for the commission and i t s
effectiveness i n meeting those needs. I n a d d i t i o n , during the course of
the a u d i t , questions arose which led us to review selected expenditures
made during f i s c a l year 1988- 89 to determine CAE's compliance w i t h
applicable s t a t u t e s and procedures. The a u d i t report presents f i n d i n g s
i n two areas:
The need f o r , and the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f , the commission, and
The level of f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y exercised by the commission over
c e r t a i n expenditures.
In response to a l e g i s l a t i v e request, the r e p o r t a l s o presents
information on the costs of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n CAE a c t i v i t i e s by other
State agencies ( see Other Pertinent Information, page 21).
Much of the information c o l l e c t e d on the need f o r , and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f ,
the commission was gathered through s t r u c t u r e d interviews and a mail
survey. The methodology used for these a c t i v i t i e s i s described i n
Finding I .
This a u d i t was conducted i n accordance w i t h generally accepted
governmental a u d i t i n g standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express a p p r e c i a t i o n to the Commission on
the Arizona Environment, the advisory c o u n c i l , and the commission s t a f f
for t h e i r cooperation and assistance during the a u d i t .
TABLE 1
FTEs
COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL FUND
STATEMENT OF FTEs AND ACTUAL AND BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1987- 88, 1988- 89, AND 1989- 90
1987- 88 1988- 89 1989- 90
( Actual ( Actual) ( Budgeted )
Personal services
Employee- related
P r o f . & outside services
T r a v e l , i n - s t a t e
out- of- state
Equ i pmen t
Other operating
TOTAL
Source : Arizona Financial Information Systems and the State o f
Arizona Appropriations Report for the Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1990
TABLE 2
COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA ENVIRONMENT
RWOLVING FUND
STATEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1987- 88 AND 1988- 89
1987- 88 1988- 89
-( A ctual ) ( Actual )
Personal services
Employee- related
Prof. & outside services
Travel, in- state
out- of- state
Equ i pmen t
Other operating
TOTAL
Source : Arizona Financial Information Systems and the State of
Arizona, Appropriations Report for the Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1990
FINDING I
THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA
ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE REVISED OR ELSE THE COMMISSION
SHOULD BE TERMINATED
The need for the Arizona Commission on the Environment, as i t c u r r e n t l y
functions, i s d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y . Although s t a t u t e s require the
commission to develop recommendations and to f a c i l i t a t e coordination of
public awareness programs, commission e f f o r t s i n these areas have had
l i m i t e d impact. Instead, the b e n e f i t of the commission appears to be i t s
workshops. The workshops are seen as valuable forums for discussing
environmental issues. However, an unclear r o l e and poor d i r e c t i o n of
s t a f f have kept the commission from focusing on these forums. I f the
commission i s continued, i t s r o l e should be revised to focus on the
workshops.
Workshops Are
Primary Benefit
The primary b e n e f i t of CAE i s i t s workshops. Recommendations made by CAE
have l i t t l e impact on l e g i s l a t i o n or the actions of CAE's member
agencies. CAE has also had l i t t l e impact on p u b l i c awareness programs.
However, many persons believe the commission's workshops are a unique
forum for discussion of environmental issues.
Comnission recomnendations - CAE's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n requires the
agency to make recommendations on environmental matters and report
annually to the Governor and L e g i s l a t u r e . To do t h i s , C A E : ' l ) assembles
an advisory council consisting of government o f f i c i a l s , business and
professional i n t e r e s t s , educators, and c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s ; and 2) convenes
q u a r t e r l y workshops to i d e n t i f y and address environmental concerns.
During the past two years, CAE made 29 separate recommendat ions deal ing
w i t h environmental issues such as water t r a n s f e r s , trespass on State
land, off- road v e h i c l e s , a i r q u a l i t y , and n a t i v e p l a n t p r o t e c t i o n .
Implementation o f these recommendations i s l i s t e d as a commission
p r i o r i t y . ( ' ) However, these recommendations generally have not had a
major impact on environmental l e g i s l a t i o n , on the actions taken by
executive branch o f f i c i a l s , or on a c t i v i t i e s of i t s own advisory
counc i l . ( 2)
L e g i s l a t o r s and l e g i s l a t i v e research s t a f f - Key l e g i s l a t o r s d i d not
c r e d i t the CAE recommendations w i t h having a strong impact on
environmental l e g i s l a t i o n . ( 3 ) Only one of the seven l e g i s l a t o r s
interviewed c r e d i t e d the commission w i t h having a s i g n i f i c a n t impact
on l e g i s l a t i o n .
We also reviewed the 29 commission recommendations w i t h l e g i s l a t i v e
s t a f f to assess CAE impact on recent l e g i s l a t i o n . S t a f f members
i d e n t i f i e d very few recommendations t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to
l e g i s l a t i o n . One s t a f f person stated that CAE has not been a c t i v e i n
the discussion o f l e g i s l a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e s , while another described
the commission's input as " worthless."
Executive branch o f f i c i a l s - The consensus among these o f f i c i a l s i s
that most of the CAE's recommendations d i d not c o n t r i b u t e to the
discussion or a f f e c t the outcome of p e r t i n e n t environmental issues.
To assess the impact of CAE recommendations on State agencies, we
reviewed recommendations that s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed the agencies1
areas of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A l l but one of the twelve o f f i c i a l s
interviewed stated that CAE recommendations had l i t t l e or no impact
on decision making. For example, i n November 1987, the commission
made several recommendations r e l a t e d t o water t r a n s f e r issues.
According to the Department of Water Resources' representative on the
commi ss i on's own adv i so ry counc i l , CAE pos i t ions we re " not even
considered" by the agency or other p a r t i c i p a n t s involved i n p o l i c y
discussions o r l e g i s l a t i v e proposals. The commissioner of the State
Land Department described CAE recommendations as having I f l i t t l e
impact" on actions taken by h i s agency.
Advisory council - Only 11 percent of the commission's 62 advisory
counci l members who responded to our survey r e p o r t t h a t CAE
( 1) Minutes of the December 5, 1988 commission meeting s t a t e " The number two p r i o r i t y o f
the Commission w i l l be to f o l l o w up on i t s recommendations t o insure t h a t they are
implemented. As a p a r t of t h i s , s t a f f w i l l track a l l environmental b i l l s through the
Legislature."
( 2) We interviewed the d i r e c t o r s and/ or other high l e v e l o f f i c i a l s of e i g h t executive
agencies i n c l u d i n g the Departments of Envi ronmental Qua1 i t y , Game and Fish, Water
Resources, State Land, Education, Transportation, State Parks, and the Commission of
A g r i c u l t u r e and H o r t i c u l t u r e . A representative from the Governor's O f f i c e was also
interviewed. A mail survey was conducted t o s o l i c i t i n p u t from a l l 106 members o f the
commission's a d v i s o r y c o u n c i l . Sixty- two council members returned the survey f o r a
response r a t e o f 58 percent.
( 3) We contacted the committee chairmen and ranking m i n o r i t y members of House and Senate
environmental and natural resources committees. A t o t a l of 7 l e g i s l a t o r s were
contacted.
8
recommends
a f f i l iated
had a sign
tions had a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on actions taken by t h e i r
groups. In c o n t r a s t , almost 40 percent stated CAE has not
i f i c a n t impact.
There are several reasons why CAE recommendations frequently do not
a f f e c t environmental decision making. Very often the recommendations are
vague, and do not address questions such as how they w i l l be implemented,
by whom, and at what cost. For example, the commission recommended that
p a r t i e s seeking to t r a n s f e r water demonstrate need for the t r a n s f e r and
show that they attempted to conserve e x i s t i n g water s u p p l i e s . The
recommendation, however, did not i d e n t i f y who would be responsible for
evaluating the requests or the basis for the evaluation. In other cases,
CAE recommendations lack value simply because they are already being
acted upon. In 1988 the commission issued a series of recommendations
about a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l s . According to DEQ and ADOT o f f i c i a l s , many of
these proposals were already being implemented, and thus, CAE's
involvement was of no consequence.
Public awareness programs - CAE e f f o r t s to comply w i t h i t s s t a t u t e by
coordinating public awareness programs have had a l i m i t e d impact at
best. Survey respondents report that CAE i s generally not having a wide
e f f e c t on public awareness. Some respondents, however, c r e d i t the agency
for implementing several public awareness programs.
State agency o f f i c i a l s and council members report that CAE i s not having
a wide impact on e f f o r t s to educate the p u b l i c . By law, the commission
i s required to " f a c i I i tate the coordination o f pub1 i c awareness
programs." However, only 24 percent of the council members responding to
our survey report that CAE has played a r o l e i n the programs sponsored by
t h e i r groups. I n a d d i t i o n , only 23 percent report that t h e i r
organization has p a r t i c i p a t e d i n programs sponsored by other groups as a
r e s u l t of encouragement from CAE. A l l of the groups sponsoring p u b l i c
awareness programs ( approximately 60 percent of the respondents) said
that they coordinate t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s w i t h groups other than the
commission. Thus, CAE may not be needed to coordinate p u b l i c awareness
since many of the groups are doing t h i s on t h e i r own.
Some survey respondents c r e d i t e d the commission for conducting the Take
Pride i n America Program ( TPIA). The commission i s the State coordinator
of t h i s federal awards program which recognizes volunteer work performed
on pub1 i c lands. Commission s t a f f encourage t e l e v i s i o n and radio
s t a t i o n s t o a i r p u b l i c service announcements provided by the TPlA
program. The s t a f f also s o l i c i t s and processes a p p l i c a t i o n s for awards.
This year, i n a d d i t i o n to administering the awards program, the
commission organized i t s own TPlA p r o j e c t , a t r a i l - b u i l d i n g event at Lake
Pleasant, as part of " Public Lands Month."
Respondents also i d e n t i f i e d the VANDALS H o t l i n e as a s i g n i f i c a n t CAE
p u b l i c awareness a c t i v i t y . However, t h i s program has provided l i t t l e
b e n e f i t . The VANDALS H o t l i n e i s a t o l l - f r e e number which allows the
p u b l i c t o report acts of vandalism on p u b l i c lands. Although there i s no
way of knowing whether the h o t l i n e has prevented vandalism during f i s c a l
year 1989, only 12 reports of vandalism were received as a r e s u l t of the
h o t l i n e , at a cost to the State of $ 122 per c a l l . According to the
d i r e c t o r o f the Arizona Game and Fish Department, whose s t a f f answer the
phones, the 800- VANDALS l i n e i s not c o s t - e f f e c t i v e .
I n a d d i t i o n , although CAE s t a f f has p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a v a r i e t y o f
workshops, f i e l d t r i p s , and other environmental events to promote p u b l i c
awareness, few of these were l i s t e d by the survey respondents when
discussing b e n e f i t s provided by the commission.
Forums - Although CAE's p o l i c y impacts and p u b l i c awareness programs were
not seen as s i g n i f i c a n t , l e g i s l a t o r s , agency heads and a d v i s o r y c o u n c i l
members d i d note t h a t CAE workshops provide a unique and valuable forum
f o r discussion of environmental concerns. The commission's enabling
l e g i s l a t i o n requires CAE to communicate w i t h a broad range of c i t i z e n s i n
order to discuss environmental issues. Most i n d i v i d u a l s contacted feel
t h a t the q u a r t e r l y workshops provide a forum where people of diverse
i n t e r e s t s and a f f i l i a t i o n s can meet and discuss environmental issues,
p a r t i c u l a r l y emerging issues t h a t a r e not yet major concerns of p u b l i c
agencies.
In a d d i t i o n , workshop p a r t i c i p a n t s report they are able t o e s t a b l i s h
contact w i t h a v a r i e t y o f p u b l i c and p r i v a t e organizations that deal w i t h
environmental issues. Such contacts have lead to the discussion and
r e s o l u t i o n of c o n f l i c t s between various agencies and groups. One
l e g i s l a t o r noted that t h i s b e n e f i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l i n the
l e g i s l a t i v e process because groups can work out d i f f e r e n c e s p r i o r to
coming before the L e g i s l a t u r e , thereby increasing the chances for
successful l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . F i n a l l y , CAE workshops feature speakers,
panel presentations, and discussions that educate p a r t i c i p a n t s and
heighten t h e i r awareness of p a r t i c u l a r environmental issues.
An Unclear Role and Weak Oversight of Its
Staff Activities Have Impaired the
Commission's Effectiveness
Inadequate leadership and the lack of a c l e a r l y defined r o l e have
diminished CAE's e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Although CAE has been an agency since
1986, the commission has thus far f a i l e d to c l e a r l y define i t s r o l e and
function or set up an adequate process to meet i t s workshop o b j e c t i v e s .
In a d d i t i o n , weak oversight of i t s s t a f f ' s a c t i v i t i e s a f f e c t s the
commission's success.
Role and Function - Despite being a State agency for more than three
years, the commission has not yet decided upon an appropriate r o l e .
F i r s t raised at a September 1986 business meeting, the issue of the
commission's r o l e and function was s t i l l being debated a t t h e i r August
and September 1989 business meetings. Both the chairman and
vice- chairman of CAE admitted the agency lacked d i r e c t i o n . Another
commission member added " we d o n ' t know what . . . we are ( o r ) what we' re
supposed to do .' I
Workshops - As noted p r e v i o u s l y , the commission attempts to f u l f i l l i t s
s t a t u t o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s l a r g e l y through i t s workshops. However,
advisory council members and executive agency o f f i c i a l s have commented
that the workshops are not always relevant and productive. These
problems appear t o occur because the commission has f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h
an adequate process for accomplishing workshop objectives as shown i n the
f o l l o w i n g :
Commissioners agree that CAE lacks e f f e c t i v e procedures for
s e l e c t i n g workshop topics and for evaluating the workshops. CAE
has been c r i t i c i z e d f o r s e l e c t i n g topics which lack relevance
for many o f t h e i r membership, and for f a i l i n g to adequately
focus workshops on manageable t o p i c s . Though l e g i s l a t o r s , and
executive agency o f f i c i a l s agreed that CAE could be most
e f f e c t i v e dealing w i t h emerging issues, CAE has selected some
t o p i c s which had already been addressed by other groups. For
example, the 1986 workshop on a i r q u a l i t y may not have been a
productive use of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' time because the issues
discussed had been studied by other groups. The r e s u l t was that
CAE endorsed recommendations previously made by the Governor's
Urban A i r Q u a l i t y Task Force, the Maricopa Association of
Governments, and the Center for Law i n the Public I n t e r e s t .
o The commission has not e f f e c t i v e l y balanced the membership of
i t s advisory c o u n c i l . Membership i s not accurately tracked to
ensure adequate representation o f i n t e r e s t s and geographic
areas. In a d d i t i o n , CAE does not a c t i v e l y r e c r u i t members to
balance the membership.
Oversight of CAE s t a f f - The commission's lack of effectiveness i s also
a t t r i b u t a b l e to i t s f a i lure t o d i r e c t i t s s t a f f . Despite being
i n s t r u c t e d to concentrate t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s on the q u a r t e r l y workshops -
the agency's number one p r i o r i t y - s t a f f continue to focus t h e i r
a t t e n t i o n on other p r o j e c t s . A review of the executive d i r e c t o r ' s
a c t i v i t i e s for the l a s t s i x months indicates that l i t t l e of her time i s
spent on workshop- related a c t i v i t i e s . For example, much of the s t a f f
time i s spent on the p u b l i c awareness programs such as Take Pride i n
America. Public awareness programs are c l e a r l y designated by the
commission as a lower p r i o r i t y than the workshops. The executive
d i r e c t o r also devotes time to a c t i v i t i e s which seem minimally r e l a t e d to
CAE, such as the Arizona/ Mexico Commission. In f a c t , three commissioners
t o l d us the executive d i r e c t o r had been asked to stop p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
t h i s a c t i v i t y .
Because s t a f f are working on a c t i v i t i e s which are not commission
p r i o r i t i e s , they are unable to provide the preparation and follow- up work
needed to ensure e f f e c t i v e workshops and support other commission
a c t i v i t i e s . Some commission members c i t e d a lack of s t a f f support for
commission a c t i v i t i e s as a problem. We also noted instances where s t a f f
support was weak or not evident.
Program committee members had to r e s t a r t the t o p i c s e l e c t i o n
process at the August 1989 meeting because s t a f f f a i led to
prepare summaries of the previous meetings.
Despite volunteer assistance from the C i t y o f Mesa, CAE s t a f f
did not complete the August 1989 workshop report on time.
Two weeks p r i o r to the December 1989 workshop, s t a f f had not
arranged for speakers, prepared business meeting agenda packets,
prepared agendas for the resource committee meeting, o r p a i d f o r
the workshop reception.
Adequate s t a f f support i s c r i t i c a l to the success of commission
a c t i v i t i e s . Commission and council members are unpaid volunteers. Both
the CAE chairman and vice- chairman agree that i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c to expect
these volunteer workers to c o n t r i b u t e the time and e f f o r t necessary to
ensure e f f e c t i v e workshops.
If the Commission Is Continued,
Its Role Should Be Revised
There i s not a strong, apparent need to continue the commission as i t
presently functions. The value of commission a c t i v i t i e s i s derived from
i t s r o l e i n bringing together diverse i n t e r e s t s to explore and discuss
environmental issues. However, these forums have suffered because much
of the commission's l i m i t e d resources have been d i r e c t e d t o other
a c t i v i t i e s .
I f the comission i s continued, i t s s t a t u t o r y r o l e should be more
narrowly focused on serving as a forum for discussion. Although most
observers contacted during the audit f e l t that CAE has not had a
s i g n i f i c a n t impact on environmental pol icy i n Arizona, they see the
commission's workshops as a major b e n e f i t . L e g i s l a t o r s , agency heads and
advisory council members g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d the workshops as a forum
for discussing environmental questions and exchanging ideas. A number of
respondents f e l t that the commission could be p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e i f
i t s workshops addressed emerging issues that were not yet the focus of
p o l i c y or agency a c t i v i t y .
Serving as a forum w i l l require CAE to drop some of i t s current
a c t i v i t i e s that have d i v e r t e d resources from t h i s r o l e . As noted above,
the CAE s t a f f involvement i n p r o j e c t s such as a Take Pride i n America and
the Arizona- Mexico Commission reduced CAE's a b i l i t y to organize and
conduct e f f e c t i v e workshops. Since these other a c t i v i t i e s provide
l i m i t e d b e n e f i t , CAE should c u r t a i I i t s involvement i n them i n order to
focus i t s l i m i t e d resources on conducting workshops
The commission w i l l also need to c l e a r l y define and j u s t i f y the s t a f f and
other resources needed t o e f f e c t i v e l y carry out t h i s r o l e . In recent
years, much of i t s s t a f f time was directed to other a c t i v i t i e s . Although
t h i s would seem to suggest that the commission could function e f f e c t i v e l y
w i t h fewer s t a f f , the concerns about the q u a l i t y of the workshops suggest
that s t a f f time diverted to other a c t i v i t i e s may be needed even i f the
commission's scope i s narrowed.
Recommendations
1. The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider e i t h e r terminating the commission or
r e v i s i n g i t s r o l e to focus on providing forums for discussion of
environmental issues.
2. I f the L e g i s l a t u r e continues the commission w i t h a narrower r o l e , the
L e g i s l a t u r e should review the s t a f f i n g and budget needed to support
the narrower r o l e .
3. I f continued, the Commission on the Arizona Environment should
e s t a b l i s h clear p r i o r i t i e s for s t a f f a c t i v i t i e s . The p r i o r i t i e s
should r e f l e c t the need to present workshops for discussion of
c r i t i c a l environmental p o l i c i e s . The commission should also monitor
s t a f f a c t i v i t i e s to ensure that they are consistent w i t h commission
p r i o r i t i e s .
FINDING II
THE COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA ENVIRONMENT
NEEDS TO IMPROVE
ITS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The Commission on t h e Arizona Environment needs to improve the management
of i t s f i n a n c i a l resources. The agency has e x h i b i t e d questionable
spending p r a c t i c e s o f State monies, some of which may v i o l a t e State law.
Stronger f i s c a l c o n t r o l s are necessary to ensure b e t t e r management of
CAE's resources.
CAE has two funding sources. The agency receives a lump- sum
a p p r o p r i a t i o n from the general fund as well as nonappropriated monies
from a special r e v o l v i n g fund. Most of i t s general fund appropriation
( approximately $ 85,000 out a t o t a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n of $ 111,200 for FY 1990)
i s a l l o c a t e d to personnel costs for the three FTE s t a f f . CAE also has a
special revolving fund established by A. R. S. 549- 124. This fund allows
the commission to use monies c o l l e c t e d from p r i v a t e and p u b l i c sources to
fund costs such as surveys, s t u d i e s , p u b l i c a t i o n s , and workshop- related
a c t i v i t i e s that exceed i t s general fund a p p r o p r i a t i o n . The commission
has wide d i s c r e t i o n i n using these monies. The commission c o l l e c t e d
approximately $ 40,000 during FY 1989 to subsidize i t s a c t i v i t i e s .
CAE Spent State Monies Excessively
and in Possible Violation of State Law
I t appears the commission i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y a l l o c a t e d expenditures to i t s
r e v o l v i n g fund - e i t h e r because i t was confused about or misunderstood
the appropriate a l l o c a t i o n o f expenditures between the general fund
appropriations and the r e v o l v i n g fund. I f the expenditures had been
a p p r o p r i a t e l y a l l o c a t e d , the commission probably would have overspent i t s
a p p r o p r i a t i o n i n two consecutive f i s c a l years. A review of selected
expenditures during FY 1989 shows that imprudent spending of State monies
c o n t r i b u t e d to the overspending.( l)
( 1 ) The l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h i s a u d i t d i r e c t e d the A u d i t o r General t o evaluate the
need f o r and effectiveness o f the commission. Although a review of s p e c i f i c
expenditures was not p a r t of the o r i g i n a l l e g i s l a t i v e charge, we examined selected
expenditures a f t e r questions about CAE expenditures arose during the course of our
a u d i t work.
Fiscal year 1988 - CAE used FY 1989 appropriations to pay expenditures
from the previous f i s c a l year. $ 2,200 i n expenses for FY 1988, such as
the agency's monthly phone b i l l , p r i n t i n g costs, and State Motor Pool
charges were paid w i t h monies appropriated f o r FY 1989 since FY 1988
appropriations had been spent . ( I )
Fiscal year 1989 - Again, $ 2,200 i n expenses from 1989 were paid w i t h FY
1990 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s because the a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r the p r i o r year ( 1989)
had been spent.( 2) Our review also i d e n t i f i e d a s e r i e s of imprudent and
possibly unlawful expenditures as documented by the f o l l o w i n g examples.
Lunches and Dinners
Between Seotember 1988 and March 1989. CAE soent over $ 260 from
i t s revolv'ing fund for s t a f f lunches and din'ners not aksbciated
or i n conjunction w i t h i t s s t a t u t o r i a l l y charged workshops or
conferences. None of these events occurred when agency s t a f f
were on t r a v e l s t a t u s . I n almost a l l of the cases we auestion.
CAE s t a f f paid f o r t h e i r own meals w i t h State monies, and o f t e n
paid for the meals of those w i t h whom they were meeting f o r
lunch or d i n n e r , i n c l u d i n g CAE commissioners, advisory council
members, and State o f f i c i a l s . For example, i n January 1989, the
CAE executive d i r e c t o r used commission funds to buy lunch for
h e r s e l f and the new d i r e c t o r of another State agency.
Comnent: These expenditures are imprudent, at b e s t , and may be
u n l a w f u l . CAE s t a f f should not have paid for most, or for
possibly any, of the meals of those w i t h whom they were meeting
for lunch or dinner. CAE's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n precludes using
State funds for the reimbursement of expenses f o r commissioners
o r a d v i s o r y c o u n c i l members.
( 1 ) These claims a g a i n s t t h e FY 1989 a p p r o p r i a t i o n were processed improper1 y. Expenses
exceeding $ 300 cannot be paid i n t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r ' s a p p r o p r i a t i o n without p r i o r
approval. I n the absence of such approval , a special appropriations i s requi red. CAE
d i d not seek p r i o r approval o f the Department of Administration ( DOA) to pay the FY
1988 expenses w i t h the f o l l o w i n g y e a r ' s a p p r o p r i a t i o n , as required by A. R. S.
535- 191.0, and DOA d i d n o t d e t e c t these improper claims. One of the undetected claims
was a $ 621 expenditure, which according t o DOA could have been approved i f t h e proper
procedures were f o l l o w e d , b u t , under the circumstances should not have been approved.
( 2) OOA authorized payment f o r most of these expenses from CAE's FY 1990 a p p r o p r i a t i o n ,
but refused t o approve an expenditure exceeding $ 300. According t o DOA, CAE should
have sought a supplemental a p p r o p r i a t i o n from the L e g i s l a t u r e t o pay t h i s expense o r
approval p r i o r t o the expenditure. Instead of using e i t h e r process, CAE paid t h i s
expense from funds remaining i n i t s r e v o l v i n g fund. According t o DOA, by t r a n s f e r r i n g
t h i s expense t o i t s r e v o l v i n g fund, CAE bypassed the process.
Coffee, Soda & Snacks
During the course of FY 1989 and continuing i n t o FY 1990, CAE
s t a f f made frequent purchases from the coffee shop located at
i t s headquarters and from local supermarkets for numerous small
items such as coffee, soda, sandwiches, candy, cookies, chips,
and f r u i t . In many cases, these purchases appear to have been
made for agency s t a f f , council members, commissioners, and other
State employees and were not purchased i n conjunction w i t h
workshops or conferences. These purchases t o t a l e d approximately
$ 227 i n State monies.
Comnent: As w i t h the business lunches and dinners, these
purchases appear to be improper, imprudent and may be a
v i o l a t i o n of State law.
Christmas Party
The agency spent over $ 260 from i t s rev0 l v i ng fund for a
Christmas party i n December 1988. Those attending included
commissioners, CAE s t a f f , advisory council members, and various
other State o f f i c i a l s . The CAE chairman stated that the
commission t r a d i t i o n a l l y hosts an annual Christmas party to
thank those who have worked w i t h the commission throughout the
year.
Comnent: While t h i s might have been a thoughtful gesture on
CAE's p a r t , t h i s expenditure i s imprudent and may v i o l a t e State
law. Although CAE has broad a u t h o r i t y i n the permissible use of
i t s revolving fund, CAE's l e g i s l a t i v e mandate does not appear to
authorize expenditures of t h i s type.
The f o l l o w i n g expenditures, while they do not appear to be unlawful, are
i n our opinion imprudent and of questionable judgement.
Workshop Expenses
Agency s t a f f exceeded normal l i m i t a t i o n s i n spending State funds
during a t least two CAE workshops. For example, during a
three- day workshop held i n Mesa i n May 1989, CAE's executive
d i rector was reimbursed $ 72 for expenses incurred on the second
day of the workshop. Personal expenses i n c u r r e d t h a t one day
included almost $ 54 i n meals and $ 9.50 for laundry. ( I f she had
been on t r a v e l s t a t u s , the executive d i r e c t o r ' s per diem that
day wou Id have been $ 14. ) During the same workshop, the
executive d i r e c t o r and a contract employee also charged the
State $ 12 f o r a p a i r of theater t i c k e t s .
Comnent: I r o n i c a l l y , i n these instances CAE s t a f f were able to
exceed normal meal costs and other expenses because they were
not on t r a v e l s t a t u s . Both workshops described above were held
w i t h i n 35 mi les of CAE's duty post, so s t a f f were not e l i g i b l e
to be reimbursed for t r a v e l expenses. Instead, these expenses
were charged to the agency's revolving fund as
conference- re lated expenses.
Ar i zona/ Mex i co Comni ss i on
The a c t i v i t y i n t h i s commission was i d e n t i f i e d as a low agency
p r i o r i t y ( see also page 12 i n Finding 1 ) . However, CAE spent
over $ 1,900 for a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o the Arizona/ Mexico
Commission. These costs included:
- $ 135 f o r one dinner - the c l a i m s t a t e s the purpose as
" e n t e r t a i n e d Arizona/ Mexico exchange program";
- $ 150 for a s t u f f e d q u a i l - as a good w i l l gesture to a
Mexican o f f i c i a l ; and
- $ 879 i n expenses for the executive d i r e c t o r to t r a v e l to
Mexico three times.
The remaining expenses included telephone c a l l s , r e g i s t r a t i o n
fees, membership dues and motor pool charges.
Comnent: To avoid overexpending i t s budget two years i n a row,
the commission needed to cut $ 2,200 from i t s FY 1989 budget.
This a c t i v i t y represents one area that CAE could have cut
s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n order to meet that o b j e c t i v e , without impacting
i t s higher p r i o r i t i e s .
Colorado Trip
The executive d i r e c t o r incurred more than $ 400 for out- of- state
t r a v e l at a time when the agency knew that f i s c a l year
appropriations had been expended. On June 5, 1989, agency s t a f f
c a l c u l a t e d t h a t the CAE would have to limit i t s expenditures to
" nothing but p a y r o l l " and that s t a f f would have to take f i v e
days leave without pay i n order to stay w i t h i n appropriated
l i m i t s . Two weeks l a t e r , however, the executive d i r e c t o r
traveled to Durango, Colorado, to give a presentation to the
American Planning Association on behalf of the CAE Water
Commi t tee.
Comnent: This t r i p represents a questionable use o f commission
funds. The agency was already aware of i t s expenditures and the
t r i p ' s purpose does not appear to have been e s s e n t i a l to the
commission's s t a t u t o r y mandates.
Our review also i d e n t i f i e d other, small expenditures that r e f l e c t a
p a t t e r n of questionable and imprudent f i s c a l actions. For example, the
executive d i r e c t o r h i r e d her son and her nephew for small jobs at the
commission. Although the amounts paid to them are small ($ 21 and $ 124,
r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , both act ions give the appearance of possible impropriety
and h i r i n g the son may v i o l a t e State law.
Stronger Fiscal Controls Needed t o
Control CAE's Excessive Spending
Stronger f i s c a l c o n t r o l s are necessary to ensure b e t t e r f i n a n c i a l
management of commission resources. The lack of responsible management
has three primary causes: lack of commission member oversight of funds
for which CAE i s responsible, vagueness i n the wording of the
commission's revolving fund s t a t u t e , and f a i l u r e by agency s t a f f to
responsibly manage a lump- sum budget.
Comnission oversight - CAE i s c u r r e n t l y r e v i s i n g i t s procedures to
provide greater control over agency finances. Both the chairman and
vice- chairman of the commission agree that CAE has not adequately
monitored agency expenditures in order to ensure they are spent
prudently. Although commission members receive monthly f i n a n c i a l reports
from the s t a f f , neither the chairman nor the vice- chairman was aware of
the agency's overexpenditures during f i s c a l year 1989. The commission
has developed new f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t i n g procedures that require the finance
committee chairman to review agency spending monthly. However, more
s p e c i f i c procedures may be needed to ensure that the review i s a
meaningful one, such as exception r e p o r t i n g t o i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l
problems and proposals for addressing expected s h o r t f a l l s .
Broad special fund a u t h o r i t y - The s t a t u t e creating the commission's
special fund also provides o p p o r t u n i t i e s for excessive spending. A. R. S.
549- 124. B i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s for which the fund may be used
but also allows the funds to be used f o r c a r r y i n g out the various other
broad provisions of the commission's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . Many of the
questionable and p o t e n t i a l l y i l l e g a l expenditures described above were
made from the special fund. Special funds were also used t o bypass
expenditure controls on CAE's FY 1989 budget. This has occurred i n part
because the current law gives the agency broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers i n
using the fund. The L e g i s l a t u r e may wish to more s p e c i f i c a l l y s t i p u l a t e
how the special funds may be used.
Lump- sum budget - Additional l i m i t a t i o n s on the use of the commission's
general fund appropriations may also be i n order. The p a t t e r n of
expenditures described above suggests that the agency has not responsibly
exercised the management d i s c r e t i o n allowed by i t s lump- sum
a p p r o p r i a t i o n . Therefore, the L e g i s l a t u r e may wish to change CAE's
appropriation from a lump- sum a p p r o p r i a t i o n t o a l i n e - i t e m a p p r o p r i a t i o n .
Recommendations
1. The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider:
Amending A. R. S. 949- 124.8 to more c l e a r l y specify the purposes
for which ' the revolving fund may be used.
Changing CAE's general fund appropriation from a lump- sum
a p p r o p r i a t i o n to a l i n e - i t e m appropriation.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment should continue i t s e f f o r t s
to revise procedures to ensure the adequate f i n a n c i a l oversight of
State funds for which i t i s responsible. The procedures should apply
to the agency's general funds and special funds, and should ensure
that commission members receive a) regular reports on the overal l
f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s f o r each source of funding, b ) exception reports for
areas where expendi tures exceed ant i c i pated l e v e l s , and c) proposals
for addressing expected s h o r t f a l l s .
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the course of the a u d i t we were asked by a l e g i s l a t o r to estimate
the costs to the State of CAE a c t i v i t i e s that a r e n o t r e f l e c t e d i n the
commission's budget. S p e c i f i c concern focused on c o s t s i n c u r r e d by State
agencies p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n commission a c t i v i t i e s . To determine these
costs we reviewed requests for reimbursement submitted by agency
personnel attending the four CAE conferences held from September 1988 to
September 1989. We d i d n o t estimate t h e value of the time devoted to the
conferences by the various i n d i v i d u a l s .
Contacts with agency s t a f f i n d i c a t e t h a t agency personnel were reimbursed
almost $ 5,700 f o r conference- related expenses ( see Table 3 ) . This t o t a l
includes $ 1,909 f o r lodging, $ 1,764 f o r conference r e g i s t r a t i o n , $ 1,055
for mileage, $ 851 for meals and $ 7 f o r miscellaneous expenses ($ 113 was
not broken down by category). Although not a l l attendees submitted
t r a v e l claims f o r conference expenses, reimbursement was paid on 43
claims.
TABLE 3
TRAVEL CLAIMS FOR STATE AGENCY PERSONNEL
ATTENDING CAE CONFERENCES FROM
SEPTEMBER 1988 TO SEPTEMBER 1989
Agency
U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona
Arizona State U n i v e r s i t y
Department of Water Resources
Department of Environmental
Qual i t y
Department of Commerce
Northern Arizona U n i v e r s i t y
Department of Transportation
O f f i c e o f Tourism
Game & Fish Department
State Land Department
Department of Mines and
Mineral Resources
Energy Off i ce
State Parks
Department of Health Services
Commission of A g r i c u l t u r e
and H o r t i c u l t u r e
Radiation Regulatory Agency
TOTAL
Claims
Paid Amount Paid
COMMISSION ON THE
ARIZONA ENVIRONMENT
1645 West Jefferson Suite 416 Phoen~ xA, rizona 85007 Phone ( 602) 5 42- 2102
C
January 25, 1990
Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
State of Arizona
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Re : Performance Audit of the Commission on
the Arizona Environment
Dear Mr. Norton:
The Commission on the Arizona Environment has reviewed your audit
report and enclosed is our response to your findings.
It appears that the audit report still reflects a lack of
understanding of the omm mission's legislative mandate and
direction. We feel that our actions to date are in keeping with
the expectations of the legislators who drafted the enabling act
and that your basic conclusions are therefore incorrect.
We do, however, appreciate being made aware of where we can
improve in both our procedures and organizational activities and
have initiated steps to do so.
We request that our response will follow each of your sections--
Summary, Finding 1, Finding 2, Other Pertinent Information.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Sincerely,
Y) (- 1
Sue Lofgren, Chairperson
Commission on the Arizona Environment
Enclosure
SUMMARY
The Role of the Commission on the Arizona Environment
Should Be Revised or Else the Commission Should Be Terminated
The performance audit of the Commission on the Arizona Environment
by the Office of the Auditor General appears to be formulated on
the premise that the Commission's primary legislative mandate is
to impact environmental policy in Arizona. This was reflected in
the interviews and questionnaires on which the audit is based.
The Commission strongly disagrees with the audit's interpretation
of the Commission's legislative mandate. The Commission was
created as a free standing agency in order to continue the
valuable and unique function it had carried out effectively for a
quarter of a century under executive order --- providing a forum
for the discussion of sensitive environmental issues for a broad
segment of interests in Arizona. This has always been its primary
mandate.
The Commission function was never to focus on environmental
policymaking. This was made very clear to the Commission by the
legislators who sponsored the enabling legislation. Our major
focus is on providing the dialogue that will enable more
knowledgeable decisions to be made on environmental issues..
We disagree, therefore, with the first finding. The Commission's
primary role does not need to be revised nor should it be
terminated.
We do agree and have already shifted staff to totally support our
workshop activities.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment Needs to Improve Its
Financial Management
We acknowledge that there has not been sufficient oversight on the
part of the Commissioners in the agency's fiscal management. We
had already begun to put in place more stringent procedures
before the audit began.
The audit process has brought to our attention financial problems
within the Commission which were primarily due to the
misunderstanding of the uses of the revolving fund. The fund was,
by legislative intent, to have been a continuation of the special
fund the Commission maintained under the administration of the
Department of Transportation. It appears now that a revolving
fund is more limiting than the unique fund the Commission
maintained previously.
We do agree with the second finding and, as previously stated,
have already proceeded in establishing appropriate procedures.
Specific Comments ( pp. 7- 21)
FINDING 1
THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE REVISED OR ELSE THE
COMMISSION TERMINATED
1. The Commission provides Arizona a unique opportunity to
have environmental issues examined and discussed in a non-confrontational
arena. This has always been our focus. We take
issue with the conclusion in regard to the commission's impact on
environmental legislation or agencies actions ( pp. 7- 8). Our
legislative mandate does not give us the directive to impact
environmental policy. We are being held accountable for something
that was not communicated as our role. In fact, we were
specifically told not to undertake an advocacy role by the
legislators who drafted our enabling legislation. Our mandate is
to provide recommendations through public education. The law does
not put us in an advisory capacity to the Legislature, the
Governor, or any agency.
Our impact on environmental policy has been limited to
providing the Legislature, the Governor, and State agencies our
recommendations and information which has emerged as a result of
our workshop activities. We do act as a conduit of further
information on those recommendations when feasible.
2. Our recommendations have, however, resulted in some major
policy impacts not noted in the report. For example: the
recommendations on riparian habitat, formulated in the fall of
1988, were subsequently endorsed by the State Parks SCORP process
and the Arizona Riparian Council. The recommendations to the
Governor were implemented almost word for word by her Executive
Order 89- 16. The legislative recommendations were incorporated in
the water transfer legislation that failed for other reasons. At
the same time, the process for discussion of the riparian habitat
issues resulted in significantly increased public awareness of
these issues --- including several TV and radio programs, as well
as a number of news articles on the subject.
3. We agree that on occasion our recommendations may be
viewed as vague. We are taking steps to ensure a form and process
that will strengthen them. However, we disagree that our
recommendations lack value if some type of action is already being
taken by others. In those areas described in the report, the
Commission's efforts actually supported the activities of the
other agencies by ensuring that a large number of people from very
diverse viewpoints discussed the issues and made recommendations.
This process fulfilled both an educational and supportive purpose
for those " actions" to be implemented.
4 , We agree with the audit in regard to the Commission's
limited impact on facilitating public awareness of environmental
issues beyond that resulting from the workshop activities. We do
not have the staff or expertise for an active " out reach" program.
5. The Take Pride in America program ( TPIA) ( p. 10) has been
very effective in enhancing environmental awareness throughout the
state, reaching into the small communities as well as the
metropolitan areas. However, the Commission is presently asking
the Governor to consider delegating this responsibility to another
agency, since the staff time that has been devoted to it has taken
away from staffing for workshop activities.
6. The VANDAL hotline ( p. 10) has probably declined in
utilization this past year due to lack of money available for
continued publicizing of the Hotline. Both state and federal
agencies are funding it this year and there may be sufficient
money in that account for other materials to publicize it. A •
number of agencies are putting the Hotline number on their
literature and posters. The Commission is evaluating the program
and plans to investigate whether another agency can take over this
program, if it is to continue.
7. The audit report has failed to point out a number of
other outreach activities. For example:
- At the request of the Governor's Office, the Commission
coordinated a joint meeting between the natural resources
agencies of Arizona and Sonora, Mexico which resulted in
the first State to State agreement signed by both
governors. Staff also coordinated and drafted the agreement.
- At the request of a major sand and gravel company, the
Commission coordinated and facilitated a meeting between the
company, federal and state natural resources agencies, and
local community leaders.
- At the request of the Governor's Office, the Commission
facilitated the first wildlife exchange between Arizona and
Sonora, Mexico.
AN UNCLEAR ROLE AND WEAK OVERSIGHT OF ITS STAFF ACTIVITIES HAVE
IMPAIRED THE COMMISSION'S EFFECTIVENESS
The Commission through the years has provided Arizona with a
unique forum for discussion of sensitive environmental issues.
This has always been our designated role.
1. The discussions at the August and September meetings
( p. 11) referenced in the report in regard to questioning our
appropriate role centered on how to translate our recommendations
into action. We established an Action Committee to more
effectively convert recommendations to action, keeping in mind the
Commission's mission is primarily to inform and not to lobby.
The quotation, in the report, of a remark of one of the new
Commissioners questioning what the role of the Commission was
reflects the fact that in our 3 years as a Commission we have had
a turnover of 16 Commissioners, appointed by 3 different
governors. We recognize the need for more thorough briefing of
all new members and we are developing a more comprehensive
indoctrination program.
2. Workshops. - The Commission has had difficulty in
selecting viable workshop topics far enough in advance to
adequately prepare for the forums and yet be in the forefront of
emerging issues. For that reason we have developed a format that
was to be tried for a period of time and then evaluated. This
evaluation was to have take place at the Commission's January
meeting.
We have, however, attempted to assure that our forums serve
as an arena for discussion of subjects that would assist the
Legislature, the Governor and State agencies in addressing
environmental issues. We met with the chairs of environmental
committees of both houses to identify topics that they felt needed
to be addressed. We did the same with each of the Governor's
under which we have served. In addition, during our resource
committee meetings, we have provided state agencies the
opportunities to have their priority issues discussed.
The Commission's 1989' s theme topic, " The Impact of Urban
Growth on the Environment", resulted from that legislative input.
The Governor chose our summer conference to deliver her
environmental program for the State. At the Governor's request,
this fall's workshop provided her agencies heads the opportunity
to present their priority environmental legislative needs. It
also provided legislators and public interests, the same
opportunity.
We disagree with the conclusion that just because a topic had
been studied by another group, the Commission should not deal with
it, too. The three studies referenced in the report ( p. 12) had
been done with input from a very limited number of participants
and did not cover the topic to the degree and from the perspective
of the speakers at our workshop. As stated earlier, the value is
in such a large, diverse group of individuals being informed and
discussing the issues and then starting the rippling effect of
sharing that knowledge with others.
We do agree that the commission needs a good process for
evaluating the workshops and will address this as we look at other
organizational restructuring.
3. The Commission has sought at all times for a balance of
membership for what is now the Advisory Council, long before the
Commission was established as a free standing agency. We have
always worked to maintain a balance both geographically and by
interests and look for new members accordingly.
We recognize that we do not have a large a percentage of
public interest/ environmental groups on the Advisory Council. It
causes us continued concern. Most representatives of
environmental or other civic organizations have to take time away
from their regular employment to attend our meetings. This means
a personal sacrifice of time and money, as is true for all members
of the Commission and Council who are not in a salaried position
where their expenses are paid by their organization, something
this report fails to appreciate. This makes it difficult to
maintain as large a representation from these groups as we would
like to have.
4. Oversight of CAE staff, - We agree that there has been a
lack of consistent oversight of staff. As stated earlier, there
has been a considerable change in Commission membership in the
past 3 years. It is difficult to develop and maintain a viable
management organization with this much turnover. We are taking
steps to rectify this problem as indicated by our refocussing all
staff time to the workshops and proceeding to eliminate other
programs.
It should be noted that the Executive Director was never told
by the Chairman or by a vote of the Commission to stop
participating in the Arizona/~ exico Commission, only that it was a
low priority for the Commission.
IF THE COMMISSION IS CONTINUED, ITS ROLE SHOULD BE REVISED
1. We disagree with the audit's conclusion that there is a
need for statutory change to redirect the Commission or that it
should be discontinued. We always have assumed that our primary
role is to provide forums for discussion of environmental issues
and in spite of some deficiencies, have served the state well.
We do agree that the Commission should drop some of its
current activities considering its limited funds and have already
initiated steps to do so. We recognized the need for staff's full
attention to the workshops to ensure that all support services are
available for them. However, we do not agree with the implied
lack of quality of our past workshops.
2. Our primary role has always been to provide forums for
discussion of environmental issues and to expect the Commission to
be able to function with a further reduced budget is to program it
for failure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We disagree that the Commission should be terminated or
that its role needs to be revised.
2. We disagree that we can function with a reduced budget
and staff.
3. We agree that the Commission should establish clear
priorities and we are already taking necessary steps.
FINDING 2
THE COMMISSION ON THE ARIZONA ENVIRONMENT NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Any expenditures made by the Commission on Arizona Environment
were made with the understanding that they were in compliance with
state law.
Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989
We acknowledge that there has not been sufficient oversight
on the part of the Commissioners to prevent expenditures that
appear to be poor fiscal management. We recognized this before
the audit began. Procedures have now been put in place to assure
that the Commission will be kept fully aware of the financial
picture and that deficit spending will not occur.
Staff was not aware that bills for services incurred in June,
that did not become due until July, could not be paid out of the
new fiscal year. The FY 1988 deficit spending was not noted by
DOA and only when the same situation occurred at the end of FY
1989 was it called to staff's attention. Steps have been taken to
assure that FY 1990 will be in keeping with the budget.
Specific Expenditures
Having been made aware by the audit of the problems within
the Commission's financial process, we share the concern expressed
in the audit and have instituted steps to rectify them. If staff
spent funds improperly or in violation of state law, it was
certainly due to misinterpretation and not by intent.
The staff assumed that the revolving fund set up in the
enabling legislation was comparable to the special fund of the
Commission before it became a free standing agency. The need for
continuing the same type of fund was discussed, when the enabling
legislation was drafted, with the Chairman of the Senate
Appropriation Committee and he agreed. He had his staff draft the
language for the fund. It appears now that a revolving fund is
more limiting and to allow for the same types of expenditures as
of the past, a unique fund designation would have been the
approprkate one.
Staff acted under guidance of the Department of
Administration in setting up the present fund structure and
assumed that the same type of expenditures, as allowed when the
Commission was housed in Arizona Department of Transportation,
were appropriate.
It should also be noted that some of the expenses questioned
in the report were incurred in conjunction with planning and
carrying out projects that were part of the omm mission's public
awareness programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We agree that there is a need for clarification relating
the uses of the revolving fund.
We do not see that it would be useful to change the
general fund appropriation to a line- item.
2. We agree and have already incorporated steps to ensure
adequate fiscal oversight.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
We cannot be held accountable for costs to the state by
agencies not mandated to attend our meetings nor can we comment on *
the amounts spent by any agency. Nevertheless, we assume that
agencies view the benefits they derive from the opportunities to
meet with individuals that represent a cross section of the state,
as well as other governmental agencies, well worth the costs
incurred.
0
What information was apparently not requested but should be
included is the fact that the Commissioners, Advisory Council
members and other attendees donate over a quarter of a million
dollars of their time and expenses on behalf of Arizona to enhance
our environment.
STREICHL, ANC, WEEKS6 CARDON
A PROFESSIONAL ASS~ CIATION
A- RNPIS AT U W
2100 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK PLAZA
100 WEST WASHINGTON
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003- 1897
( 602) 229- 5200
TWX: 910 SSI IS04 STRI LANG PHX
FAX: l60U 229S690
HAND- DELIVERED
TUCSON OFFICE
1500 SECURITY PACIFIC BANK PLAZA
3 3 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON. ARIZONA 85701.1413
( 602) 628- 1419
FAX ( 602) 623- 2418
PLEASE REPLY TO PHOENIX OFFICE
WRITER'S DIRECT LINE
January 26, 1990
Mr. Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
State of Arizona
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Re: Comments on Draft Performance Audit of the
Commission on the Arizona Environment
Dear Mr. Norton:
On January 8, 1990, I sent you the enclosed comments on
your office's initial draft of a Performance Audit of the
Commission on the Arizona Environment. In subsequent drafts of
the Performance Audit, my comments were reflected to a limited
degree, but I did not feel my concerns were adequately addressed.
Therefore I would request that my January 8 letter be included in
the final Performance Audit.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours, % 3 d Roger #. Ferland
RKF: slm
Enclosure
2100 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK PLAZA
100 WEST WASHINGTON
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85003- 1897
( 602) 229- 5200
%: 910 951 1504 STRl LANG PUX
FAX 1602) 229- 5690
TUCSON OFFICE
1500 SECURITY PACIFIC BANK PLAZA
33 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON. ARIZONA 85701- 1413
( 602) 6.33- 1419
FAX ( 602) 623- 2418
PLEASE REPLY TO PHOENIX OFFICE
WRITER'S DIRECT UNE
( 602) 229- 5607
January 8, 1990
Mr. Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
State of Arizona
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Re: Comments on Draft Performance Audit of the
Commission on the Arizona Environment
Dear Mr. Norton:
This is written in response to your letter of December
20, 1989 soliciting comments on the draft performance audit of the
Commission on the Arizona Environment ( " CAE" ) performed by your
agency. I am a member of the Commission and responded to your
earlier questionnaire on the Commission's activities.
Before examining the contents of the performance audit,
I would briefly note my qualifications to comment on the work your
staff has done.
Although I have been a member of the CAE less than two
years, I have worked with the CAE or its predecessor entity for
the last eight years. Therefore, I think I have an intimate
knowledge of the Commission's strengths and shortcomings.
Moreover, I have been practicing environmental law for about
thirteen years. About half of that time was spent as a state
employee with the Attorney General's office and the other half has
been spent in private practice. I am a primary author of the
state's Environmental Quality Act and Administrative Procedure Act
as well as most of the State's air pollution control regulations.
I am currently Chairperson of the State Water Quality Advisory
Council and Arizona Chamber of Commerce Air Quality Subcommittee.
I was the private sector representative on the screening committee
to select the current Director of the Department of Environmental
Quality. I also belong to a number of professional organizations
STREICHL, A NC, WEEKS8 CARDON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page Two
connected with environmental matters. In short, I feel I know how
environmental decisionmaking occurs in this state and my evalua-tion
of the effectiveness of the CAE and your analysis of that
effectiveness is based upon that knowledge.
My comments on the draft performance are limited to
Finding I. I lack the expertise to determine the validity of the
CAE's current financial management procedures and practices.
FINDING I.
A. General Observations.
The draft performance audit concludes that the CAE " has
not effectively carried out its statutory mandate." The audit
bases that conclusion on what are, in effect, two findings:
1. The CAE has only a limited impact on
environmental policy; and
2. The CAE has only a limited impact on
public awareness of environmental issues.
I have bifurcated what the audit classifies as a single
finding because that finding is really two entirely separate
findings and only the second finding directly relates to the CAE's
statutory mandate. Under A. R. S. 549- 121. G, the CAE is given three
substantive duties. Only the first of those duties relatesl to the
impact of the CAE recommendation on environmental policy. That
impact is, however, limited by statute to seeking action on CAE
recommendations by a single means -- " through public education
programs. " The other two substantive duties given the CAE are
similarly limited to implementation through public education.
The fact that the statute authorizes the CAE to seek
implementation of its recommendations through the extremely narrow
and inherently only marginally effective means of public education
has not been adequately considered in the audit. The law does not
1 Under A. R. S. 549- 121 . Golf the CAE is required to
"(~) ctively develop and provide recommendations regarding the
social, economic, recreational and ecological aspects of the
Arizona environment throuqh public education programs." ( emphasis
added) .
STREICHL, A NC, WEEKS8 CARDON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Paqe Three
authorize the CAE to lobby for implementation of its recommenda-tions
with either the legislative or executive branches of
government. Nor does the law cast the CAE in even an advisory
capacity to either the Legislature or the Governor on environ-mental
issues. Thus, contrary to the bottom line conclusions of
the audit, the reason the CAE has only a limited impact on
environmental policy is not because of an ineffectiveness in
carrying out its statutory mandate. Rather, CAE's statutory
mandate is so restrictive that the CAE cannot effectively impact
Arizona's environmental policy. In this critical regard I would
contrast the restrictive authority given the CAE with the
authority given similar bodies in other states. In every case of
which I am aware, environmental commissions in other states are
given, at a minimum, formal status as advisory bodies to the
legislature, governor, or both. In other words, the performance
audit has fingered the wrong culprit in rightly concluding that
the CAE had only had a limited impact on environmental policy.
A second general observation is that the limited
effectiveness of the CAE as far as fulfilling public awareness
role is somewhat overstated. In its two- and- a- half year
existence, the CAE has made the public aware of such issues as the
destruction of riparian habitat that are of major environmental
significance but had received little public attention. CAE has,
however, failed to develop the relationship with the press and
education establishment that would have made the Commission a
significantly more effective communicator of the state's
environmental problems and issues.
B. Specific Comments.
1. I would question the weight that should be given
the comments of legislators on the effectiveness of CAE
activities. None of what the audit calls " key legislators" have
been in their capacities as committee chairmen or ranking minority
members of House and Senate environmental and natural committees
for any more than a year. Therefore, it is unlikely that these
legislators would have knowledge of the past activities of the CAE
regarding environmental legislation. Moreover, there was
virtually no environmental legislation enacted in 1989, so it is
difficult to believe that group had much influence on
legislation. Also, I would repeat my earlier comment that, since
its enabling legislation provides no authority for the CAE to
lobby on behalf of its recommendations, lack of perceived impact
on the legislation is not surprising.
2. The lack of impact on executive branch decision-making
is similarly predictable. The CAE has no formal advisory
STREICHL, ANC, W EEK8S C ARDON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page Four
function. Therefore, the degree to which the CAE influences the
executive branch's formulation of its environmental agenda is
entirely up to the Governor. This Governor has decided to allow
agency heads to develop her environmental agenda without CAE
input. That is a decision that is certainly within her purview,
but should not to be viewed as a reflection of the ineffectiveness
of the CAE in performing its sole statutory duty, i. e., public
education. Indeed, the Governor chose the CAE'S summer workshop
to declare her overall environmental program for the State and the
CAE's fall workshop to have her agency heads describe their
specific environmental legislative proposals. Thus, at least with
respect to the executive branch, the CAE does fulfill its narrow
legislative mandate and performs the function the Governor wants
it to perform.
3. I absolutely agree with the audit's description of
the CAE's recommendations as being " vague, and do not address
questions such as how they will be implemented, by whom, and at
what cost." Even if its enabling legislation gave the CAE greater
ability to influence the implementation of its recommendations,
the recommendations are so badly articulated that they are
typically close to worthless. There are exceptions. The riparian
habitat recommendations were generally well done and useful. This
was because volunteer staff put the time in to draft them in a
usable format. The current structure of the workshops and the
manner in which the Commission interfaces with the workshop makes
inarticulate recommendations inevitable. Below, I suggest a means
of addressing this problem.
4. I would again emphasize the statements made in the
questionnaire about the workshops -- they are extremely valuable
and the only forum for allowing a wide range of interests to
debate and discuss environmental issues. While I am a member of
the Arizona Academy and strongly advocate the Arizona Town all's
structure for conducting workshops on controversial issues, the
Arizona Academy is viewed as biased toward the private sector,
establishment position on environmental issues and simply cannot
perform the " honest broker of information and debate" function
that the CAE is uniquely qualified to perform.
5. I also agree that the Commission has not done a
particularly good job overseeing Commission staff or providing the
staff with clear direction and priorities. This lack of
leadership on our part is indicated by the comments on pages 11
and 12 of the draft audit regarding the workshops. Those comments
are accurate and perceptive. Below I recommend some changes to
deal with the deficiencies in the current structure.
STREICHL. A NC, WEEKS8 CARDON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Paqe Five
RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. The Commission serves an invaluable and unique role as a
vehicle for discussion of environmental issues. If it is
terminated, the cause of rational environmental decisionmaking in
this State will suffer. On the other hand, the audit is
absolutely correct when it criticizes the ineffectiveness of the
CAE in many respects. Where I partially disagree with the audit
is in its identification of the cause of the CAE's lack of
effectiveness. The law creating the CAE simply does not give the
Commission sufficient authority to have much influence on
environmental decisionmaking. The audit should recommend that the
d om mission's enabling legislation be amended to provide, at a
minimum, that the Commission serve as an advisory body to the
Governor on environmental issues.
2. The audit is right in identifying the area in which the
Commission has been most effective -- its conduct of workshops.
However, the workshop structure and particularly the procedures
for developing recommendations from the workshops should be
substantially revised. In this regard, I would recommend the
following:
A. There should be two workshops, not four, and the
workshops should consider a single, well- defined topic. The model
should be the Arizona Town Hall. The staff of the Arizona Academy
and volunteers prepare for the workshop topic thoroughly before
the workshop. Issues raised by the topic are identified in detail
and in advance for focused discussion at the Town Hall. There is
no reason that the same sort of procedure could not be followed
for CAE proceedings.
B. An advantage to limiting the workshops to two a
year is that this gives the Commission sufficient time between
workshops to adequately plan and structure future workshops and,
perhaps more importantly, provides an adequate opportunity to
identify relevant workshop topics. Identification of topics needs
to be done on a much more systematic basis. State leaders
( political, business and public interest) need to be polled on the
topics on which they feel there is a need for a workshop and
follow- up needs to be done to determine whether the recommenda-tions
that resulted from the workshops adequately address the
identified needs.
C. The process by which the Commission develops its
recommendations is substantially deficient. As a substitute, I
would again recommend the Arizona Town Hall model. The results of
the workshop sessions at the Town Hall are a coherent set of
STREICHL, ANC, WEEKS8 CARDON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page Six
recommendations with a defined procedure for implementation. The
reason the Town Hall produces more usable recommendations is
because its structure ensures that the recommendations are well 0
drafted. Specifically, trained volunteer " reporters" ( usually
lawyers) actually draft the results of the workshop sessions as
they occur and trained discussion leaders move the sessions along
toward issue identification and proposed resolution or at least a
description of issues on which the participants agree to disagree.
On the evening of the workshop the reporters meet to combine and
edit their results for an organized written presentation to the
Arizona Academy the final day of the Town Hall. This same
procedure could be adopted to produce better draft recommendations
for the Commission to work from. The omm mission's job would be to
consider, edit as appropriate, and adopt those recommendations.
The recommendations would then be published and forwarded to the
Governor and the Legislature for consideration as is done now. I
would stress, however, that changing current procedures to produce
more thoughtful, better drafted recommendations, is valueless if
there is no statutory mechanism to ensure that the recommendations
are treated as a formal advisory document that must be considered
by environmental decisionmakers.
3. I would take issue with the audit's suggestions that the
resources available to the CAE be cut. In a time of fiscal
austerity there is always a tendency to target programs that do
not offer direct services to the public for elimination, but such
an action in this case would be short- sighted. The audit rightly
complains about the lack of staff support for CAE workshops. One
of the reasons for that lack of support is simply lack of
resources. The new workshop procedures I have proposed, while
reducing the number of workshops by half, will require signifi-cantly
greater staff advance work to provide the issue identifica-tion,
research papers, training, etc. to make the biannual
workshops successful. Also, the follow- up required to track the
formalization, transmittal and implementation of the recommenda-tions
will necessitate a great deal more staff time. The audit
notes that the members of the Commission are appointees for whom
Commission membership is an extracurricular activity. Therefore,
for the CAE to function, the day- to- day responsibilities must be
carried out by a professional staff that is adequately
compensated.
The foregoing are my thoughts and recommendations
regarding the first finding in your draft performance audit. I
would stress that they are my thoughts alone and do not
necessarily reflect the views of any other Commission member.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding the contents
STREICH. L ANC, WEEK8S C ARDON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page Seven
of this letter or my position on the statements made in the draft
audit, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Roger K. Ferland
RKF: slm
cc: William Fisher