Casper Star-Tribune from Casper, Wyoming • 37

Opioion Oisjxt StartTribune Sunday, March 22, 1998 170 Star lane, Ifc.x 80. ('iuiht, WV HMVi UHttOfWH) The Caspf Hiily Trihune: KM. (N t. IMIH by K. Ilanwity; The Caspar Star Eat.

In 1H4I1 i Jlitm, Slur Tribune Huh HurlfHt, I'ubliilu'r I'hviiI IIim hiiiun, Kditiir Forum Lottcrs STAR-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL WHAT IF WE 5 5 REMOVE THEIR A. JKr, BACKBONES, SO THEY fF'M WILL NEVER TAX US ENOUGH TO PROPERLY FUND EDUCATION iJfs' Bravo to all who take part in public debate Heartbeat of any community measured by citizen participation Governor wins power struggle We fool fortunate to live in a state that has such a high degree of citizen participation. People in Wyoming make a difference. We may be one of the few places in the United States where public policy is still conducted on a human scale rather than an institutional one. We saw it manifest in the number of residents who packed into the meeting sponsored by Wyoming Game and Fish Commission in Casper, Thursday.

We saw it in the people who attended the U.S. Forest Service open house in Casper the same day. Statewide, we see it in the number of citizens who volunteer for public service on committees, councils, organizations and action groups. We see it in the percentage of our citizens who vote each general election. Wyoming has been consistently near the top of the nation in voter participation.

Wyoming people don't just watch, they do. It is difficult to feel politically disenfranchised when the spirit of the state encourages, even demands, face-to-face discussions with our elected and appointed officials concerning public issues no matter the level of office. Participation creates a sense of responsibility for and an awareness of the direction taken by our communities and our state. These citizens often work for the common good. In our minds, these elements are the essence of citizenship.

35 Joan Barron STAR-TRIBUNE CHEYENNE The governor is ahead 2-0 in the ongoing tug of war over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. First, the Legislature lost its lawsuit before the Wyoming Supreme Court for a clarification of Gov. Jim Geringer's constitutional line-item veto authority. The lawsuit, filed by the Legislative Management Council, stemmed from Geringer's veto last spring of parts of the school finance bill. The lawmakers said Geringer went over the line with those vetoes by knocking out not only appropriations but substantive sections of the proposed new law passed by the Legislature.

After the court ruled in favor of the governor, legislative leaders re-grouped and sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment to limit the governor's line-item veto power to appropriations bills. The resolution sailed through the House 53-7, and the Senate 300 only to be vetoed by Geringer. In his veto message, Geringer said the chief executive needs broad veto powers to be an effective check on the Legislature the balance of powers thing. In a strange twist and despite appropriations or budget bill. Because of this strategy, the budget bill this year is a mighty big bill.

One question that arose during the discussions is whether the governor can veto a proposed constitutional amendment. Attorney General Bill Hill said he could, obviously, and so, according to Hinchey, did Kick Miller, director of the Legislative Service Office. Other lawyers, including Sen. Vince Picard of Laramie, disagree. This is why: Article 20, Section 1 of the Constitution says of constitutional amendments, it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such amendment or amendments to the electors of the state at the next general election But Article 4, Section 8 says, "Every bill which has passed the legislature shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor." Hill says he doesn't believe there is a contradiction and that the Article 20, Section 1 isn't controlling.

The failure of the vetoover-ride skews the balance of powers further in favor of the executive branch. Hinchey says the lawmakers will look at veto constitutional amendment language during the interim. But the House's failure to override Geringer's veto shows the lawmakers do not share the view of Sen. Tom Kinnison of Sheridan that the veto situation poses a "constitutional crisis." Gubernatorial vetoes aren't new. but, as Hinchey pointed out.

veto overrides are rare. The first in Wyoming history came in 1991 when the Legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Mike Sullivan bill that allowed tax exemptions for wildcat oil drilling. Given the inability of the oil industry to produce evidence the tax break was responsible for increased production, Sullivan was right and the Legislature should have let the veto stand. Watching the developments this session in dismay was a former state senator, John Patton, a Sheridan Republican and advocate of a strong legislative branch.

Patton, who worked four years for the Conference on State Legislatures, said a strong Legislature begats a strong governor. But he doesn't foresee a legislative push to convene a constitutional convention, which is another way to change the constitution. The legislative branch was and is the weak link among the three branches of state government, he said, and not only in Wyoming. the urging of House Speaker Bruce Hinchey, the bill's prime sponsor, the House failed to override the governor's veto on a 31-28 vote with one excused. Somewhere the bill lost 22 votes.

The will of the House evaporated. "Obviously I wasn't persuasive enough," Hinchey said. Hinchey said the proposed constitutional amendment was carefully drafted using language that other states have adopted. The Legislature, he said, was trying to follow the recommendations in the Attorney General's brief to the Supreme Court to ask the people to change the Constitution to limit the governor's line-item veto authority rather than the court. The Legislature is left in the position of still having to lump all appropriations in the big "J- CAM EXPUKlNi Congress plays politics with endangered species Now there's a forward-looking approach.

Sell off public lands to agri-interests, to timber conglomerates in order to finance the protection of species that are endangered by development. Charles Levendosky STAR TRIBUNE an attempt to try to take the funding from the sale of BLM (Bureau of Land Management) lands. They want to sell off our public lands, where we're asking federal agencies to do some good things for endangered species." Now there's a forward-looking approach. Sell off public lands to agri-interests, to timber conglomerates in order to finance the protection of species that are endangered by development. Sell the public lands from under our wildlife and soon nearly every species will be endangered.

Another irony was pointed out by Weiner. "The money that they would raise would not go toward the implementation of the ESA, it would go toward the landowner incentives," she said. "It would go right back to the corporate landowner. It's not actually going to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help them enforce the act or implement the act or come up with recovery plans.

It's going straight to the private landowners." If agreements between landowners and the federal government go awry? The CRS report states succinctly that S. 11X0 would "probably not make citizen (law)suits available to enforce conservation agreements." The House bill expressly allows such citizen lawsuits. Bill Snape, legal director of Defenders of Wildlife, doesn't expect any real movement on the Senate bill until after Easter recess. "The huge, thousand xnind gorilla on the back of this bill is that not one environmental group in the country supports it. Not one.

Until that occurs, it's unlikely Earlier this month, the Senate's proposed version of the Endangered Species Recovery Act (S. 11X0) received a stinging critique from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. The House version (II.R. 2351) fared much better in the report. CRS researchers are not paid by special interest groups to arrive at some predetermined outcome.

They work for Congress and are paid to be as objective as humanly possible in order to help that body decide about legislation. The CRS analysis should lay to rest any thought that the Senate bill balances environmental and industry concerns. The bill doesn't. In an interview Friday, Heather Weiner of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund said the CRS report pointed out some aspects of the Senate bill she had missed. "The worst points of S.

11X0 are the way it removes both judicial and public review of government activities. What it says is 'trust, the government' And that's great when you have a friendly administration we're talking about species protection but that's not great for future administrations." As if it weren't bad enough, Sen. Trent Lott, has demanded that two pro-industry amendments be attached to the bill. Lott wants to remove the bill's requirement to implement recovery plans for threatened or endangered species. Irtt's other amendment would allow a private landowner once there has been an agreement with the federal The Miller bill focuses directly on the recovery of species by setting up definite standards and procedures.

The Senate bill, according to Snape, "plays lip service to recovery, but what they're really talking about is survival." However, not everyone is happy with the Miller bill. In February, a letter from the presidents of 1 1 professional scientific societies specializing in plant and animal biology was sent to Congress and the Clinton administration. The letter condemns both House and Senate bills for allowing habitat destruction under conservation agreements. The Miller bill may not have the unified support of the environmental and conservation communities, but it clearly does more for the recovery of endangered species. Don't expect either bill to pass during this session of Congress.

Neither one will. These two bills, however, have defined the terms of discourse regarding endangered species. And this critical environmental issue will undoubtedly be a part of the public debate during election campaigns. It will have an influence on the outcome of some congressional races in the West. that Republicans will want to reinforce their anti-environmental message, particularly the Senate Majority Leader (Trent Lott) as they head into the November elections." The machinations of Congress it may be that Lott is really attempting to kill the Senate bill with his amendments while looking cozy to his corporate donors.

The House version of the Endangered Species Recovery Act. introduced by Rep. George Miller, now has 102 co-sponsors. According to Snape, it won't move until the Senate bill passes or dies. There are three major differences between the House and Senate ESA bills: The Miller bill gives landowners assurances that conservation agreements will stand, but requires landowners to post performance bonds to make certain they live up to the requirements of minimizing the impact on threatened or endangered species.

The Senate bill has no such bonding provisions. The Miller bill would improve habitat protection on federal lands, while the Senate bill creates more loopholes to ignore impacts that put endangered and threatened species at risk. government to minimize the impact on an endangered species found on the landowner's property to ignore harm any species that might be listed in the future as threatened or endangered. From 1991 to 1996, Lott received in campaign funds from the oil and gas industry, forestry and forest products industries, and mining companies. That's a hefty piece of change.

Call these amendments payback. I)tt's proposed amendments helped stall the bill. They would kill any pretense that the legislation helps the recovery of endangered species. Inadequate funding for the Senate version of the ESA re-authorization also brought it to a halt. But last week, folks in the Senate Budget Committee put their shoulders to it.

Something is moving. Weiner said, "This bill is really starting to catch some momentum now as they're finding ways to deal with the budget issues in the bill. There was Opinion Editor Charles Iz-vemlosky. For information, questions and comments almut this page, call (307) 2o6-0il9 or (800) email etlitorial4trib.com: fax (307).