Game Commission Terms Are Not Staggered

 

 

On December 13, 2000, Governor Ridge removed George Venesky from the Game Commission.  On January 8, 2002, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Venesky vs. Ridge that:

 

-         “it is the staggered terms that preclude (the) appointing power from removing an appointed official at will.”

-         “the staggered terms ended when the General Assembly enacted the current Game and Wildlife Code, which simultaneously repealed the former game law and the section of the administrative code under which game commissioners were formerly appointed.

-         “As of July 1, 1987 effective date of the Game and Wildlife Code . . . the Governor could have appointed successors for all eight commissioners at the same time.”

-         “In the absence of statutory language governing the removal of game commissioners or from which we might infer legislative intent to limit the power of removal, the Governor as the appointing power, may remove game commissioners at will.”

 

What the Court said, in effect, is that we no longer have an independent agency, but now have one subject to a political agenda, where a sitting Governor is able to fire all eight commissioners and appoint new ones, at his pleasure.  Beyond that, a Governor is able to theoretically hold the Game Commission hostage, by firing all the commissioners and appointing no replacements.

 

It is also inferred that this same condition exists with the Fish and Boat Commission, since their code has been similarly re-written.

 

This defect is not being addressed, and must be rectified.

 

The Supreme Court, in its decision, has pointed out how to fix the problem.  Staggered terms must be re-established.

 

The ACSL is advocating legislation to re-establish staggered terms, and to set conditions for removing a commissioner from office.  This legislation is solely aimed at making the Game Commission independent again.