Still waiting for one more call but that's just for confirmation so here's what we have...
Wait, before I go on I just want to say again that the amendment was great. Duncan Hunter is great. Richard Pombo is great. This amendment took some long hard thinking and the fact that it wasn't shot down by the democrats is a great indicator that fee demo has enemies on both sides of the land use issue.
In all of the debating here and all of our questioning, not once was anyone tried to say anything contrary.
But we've learned some painful lessons in the last four years and we must be diligent. We need to pay very close attention to everything that comes our way so that we are never again taken by surprise.
Vicki
Full Version: Hunter Amendment Explained
Ok, so what ARE you saying? 
The amendment is complicated and the language is "convoluted" (a direct quote from Hunter's office) for a reason. It is an amendment to the appropriations bill and as such, cannot dictate how money is or is not spent under the fee demo bill.
As an amendment to the appropriations bill, it can only direct the course of appropriations money.
Appropriations money pays the "salaries and expenses" (as mentioned in the amendment) of the employees who are managing our public lands. This amendment relates only to those salaries and expenses.
This amendment does not eliminate fee demo money from being used for species monitoring but baby, it sure restricts it.
Because of this amendment, no employee who is paid through appropriations money (like, for instance, the El Centro Field Office Manager) can use fee demo money "for the costs, in whole or in part, of the biological monitoring for a species…"
In other words, if the El Centro Field Office Manager wants to use fee demo money to monitor the PMV, he'll have to retire and do it as a private citizen because the federal government won't be paying his salary. "He'll either not get paid or will get fired" is how it was explained to me. Can you imagine that manager doing something that would jeopardize his job or his pay?
The amendment does not impact the fee demo legislation or even how fee demo money is spent. But it severely impacts the people who decide where to spend our fee demo money.
Vicki
As an amendment to the appropriations bill, it can only direct the course of appropriations money.
Appropriations money pays the "salaries and expenses" (as mentioned in the amendment) of the employees who are managing our public lands. This amendment relates only to those salaries and expenses.
This amendment does not eliminate fee demo money from being used for species monitoring but baby, it sure restricts it.
Because of this amendment, no employee who is paid through appropriations money (like, for instance, the El Centro Field Office Manager) can use fee demo money "for the costs, in whole or in part, of the biological monitoring for a species…"
In other words, if the El Centro Field Office Manager wants to use fee demo money to monitor the PMV, he'll have to retire and do it as a private citizen because the federal government won't be paying his salary. "He'll either not get paid or will get fired" is how it was explained to me. Can you imagine that manager doing something that would jeopardize his job or his pay?
The amendment does not impact the fee demo legislation or even how fee demo money is spent. But it severely impacts the people who decide where to spend our fee demo money.
Vicki
Sounds good
So basically, the mgr. could decide to buy a buggy for monitoring (or even partially used for monitoring) using fee demo money, but would get fired if he did?
So basically, the mgr. could decide to buy a buggy for monitoring (or even partially used for monitoring) using fee demo money, but would get fired if he did?
Oooops.... 
So it does limit any costs for monitoring coming out of demo fee, just in a roundabout way. Would be better to be able to put direct restrictions on the money, but if this is the only way it can be done it's definitely better than them having the freedom to use our money to help shut us out!
Thanks Vicki for getting it clarified
So it does limit any costs for monitoring coming out of demo fee, just in a roundabout way. Would be better to be able to put direct restrictions on the money, but if this is the only way it can be done it's definitely better than them having the freedom to use our money to help shut us out!
Thanks Vicki for getting it clarified
| QUOTE (bukithed @ Jun 22 2004, 10:31 AM) |
| Sounds good So basically, the mgr. could decide to buy a buggy for monitoring (or even partially used for monitoring) using fee demo money, but would get fired if he did? |
Yes, that's how it was explained to me.
Even his salary for the time spent in shopping for the buggy couldn't be paid for out of appropriations money.
That's quite a restriction.
Now… why is it important to know this distinction?
Because they will absolutely try to find a way around this and they don't even have to go very far.
Hiring someone to be in charge of the species monitoring is in the ISDRA budget, to be paid for by fee demo money. Something like $100,000. They didn't complete the task last year (far as I know) but that doesn't mean they won't try to do it this year. I know that spreadsheet is around here somewhere… I'll have to dig it up.
The salary for this new employee wouldn't be coming from appropriations money. It would be paid through the fee demo, so the new employee would be safe to continue spending fee demo money to complete their tasks.
I believe that we MUST be diligent and do whatever we have to do to keep the BLM from using that money to hire that person.
Seems to me I saw mention of a TRT meeting this week (something else I'll have to dig up)… might be a dandy place to start.
Vicki
| QUOTE (luvdunin @ Jun 22 2004, 10:39 AM) |
| Would be better to be able to put direct restrictions on the money, but if this is the only way it can be done it's definitely better than them having the freedom to use our money to help shut us out! |
You're absolutely right. This was the method at hand and it's what was used.
Now... it would be really great if we could amend the fee demo legislation but since it's only a "temporary" program slated to end soon, I doubt we'll see much movement in that direction.
Vicki
| QUOTE (SailAway @ Jun 22 2004, 11:45 AM) |
| Hiring someone to be in charge of the species monitoring is in the ISDRA budget, to be paid for by fee demo money. Something like $100,000. They didn't complete the task last year (far as I know) but that doesn't mean they won't try to do it this year. I know that spreadsheet is around here somewhere… I'll have to dig it up. |
That position was not filled. It was done through "reassigned duties" of other employees.
The spreadsheet, along with several other documents can be found at ISDRATRT.org specifically in the Document Library. Look for FY04 tracking 041904.xls
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.