text:
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
October 1995
Report # 95- 6
October 19, 1995
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. Steve Wheeler, Chairman
Commission on the Arizona Environment
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Commission on the Arizona Environment. This report is in response to a May 5, 1993,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was
conducted as part of the sunset review set forth in A. R. S. $ 541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
The report recommends that the Legislature consider sunsetting the Commission. The
Commission has hosted several worthwhile conferences on environmental issues;
however, its usefulness to policy makers has been limited, and has not had a significant
impact on policy decisions. We believe, in answer to the sunset criteria, that termination
of the Commission would not pose any significant harm to the public health, safety, or
welfare. If needed, other agencies and the private sector can host conferences, or the
Legislature can establish ad hoc committees for the purpose of receiving input on
specific environmental issues.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on October 20, 1995.
Auditor General
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and sunset review
of the Commission on the Arizona Environment, pursuant to a May 5,1993, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the sunset
review as set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 5541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment was established by the Legislature in 1986
and succeeded the Governor's Commission on the Arizona Environment, which was
originally created by executive order in 1965. The commission has 11 members and
works with an advisory council of approximately 85 representatives of business groups,
conservation organizations, and state environmental and natural resource agencies.
CAE's enabling legislation directs it to make recommendations on environmental matters
and to facilitate the coordination of public awareness programs regarding environmental
issues. The commission develops and hosts two to three environmental conferences per
year as its primary means of addressing its statutory mandates.
The Commission Should Be Sunsetted or
Changes Should Be Made to Improve
Its Impact ( See pages 5 through 11)
Although CAE's strength lies in hosting forums for discussion of environmental issues,
we found continuing the Agency difficult to justify. Most people we interviewed were
pleased with the quality of the conferences held by CAE. Many believe the conferences
provided a forum for people with diverse viewpoints to discuss relevant and timely
environmental issues. However, in considering whether an agency should be continued,
the Sunset Law requires an assessment of " The extent to which the termination of the
agency would significantly harm the public health, safety, or welfare." No such harm
would result if CAE were terminated.
We found CAE should be sunsetted for the following reasons. First, as we found in our
previous audit of the Agency, CAE's activities have not had a significant impact on
environmental policy decisions. While CAE's conferences may provide a forum for
discussion, the discussions produce few, if any, results. Second, although we found no
single other entity that exactly duplicates the functions of CAE, there are numerous
private and public agencies, such as the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
and the Game and Fish Department, that perform functions overlapping the duties of
CAE. Finally, as an alternative to an ongoing, independent agency, the State could use
ad hoc committees, with diverse perspectives represented, to study and develop
recommendations on specific environmental issues on an as- needed basis.
However, if the Legislature decides to keep CAE as an independent agency, changes are
needed to improve its effectiveness. Several changes in the planning and structure of
CAE's conferences, as well as in CAE's follow- up to conferences, might improve its
impact and visibility in environmental policy decisions. I
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Finding I: The Commission Should
Be Sunsetted or Changes Should
Be Made to Improve Its Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CAE Should Be Sunsetted Due to
Lack of Impact, Overlap with Other
Agencies, and Use of Ad Hoc Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
If CAE Is Continued, Operational
Changes Should Be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
SunsetFactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Agency Response
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Commission
on the Arizona Environment ( CAE), pursuant to a May 5, 1993, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the sunset review as
set forth in A. R. S. 5541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
The commission was originally created by executive order in 1965 as the Governor's
Commission on Arizona Beauty. The name was later changed to the Governor's
Commission on the Arizona Environment. In 1986, the Commission on the Arizona
Environment was established by the Legislature.
Commission Organization and Activities
The commission consists of 11 members appointed by the Governor, based on their
" demonstrated competence, experience and an interest" in the Arizona environment. In
addition, the commission's enabling legislation also establishes an advisory council " to
provide guidance and otherwise assist the commission in fulfilling its duties." By law,
the advisory council must include representatives from 11 specified state agencies.( l)
Other council members are selected by the commission and represent business and
professional organizations, citizen and environmental groups, the academic community,
and various governmental entities. The council currently has about 85 members.
The legislation creating CAE directs the commission to:
" Actively develop and provide recommendations regarding the social, economic,
recreational and ecological aspects of the Arizona environment through public education
Facilitate the coordination of public awareness programs regarding the social, economic,
recreational, and ecological aspects of the Arizona environment, ( and)
Communicate with a broad range of the citizens of this state, including members of the
business and academic communities, so that conclusions developed by the commission
represent, as nearly as possible, a cross section of thought on environmental issues."
The following agencies are represented on CAE's advisory council: Department of Education, Game
and Fish Department, Department of Health Services, State Land Department, State Parks Board,
Department of Water Resources, Department of Transportation, Office of Tourism, Commission on
Agriculture and Horticulture, and the Department of Environmental Quality.
The commission attempts to fulfill its statutory mandates primarily through hosting two
to three environmental conferences per year. The commission invites its advisory council,
government and industry representatives, environmental groups, and the general public
to discuss various environmental issues facing the State. From these discussions, the
advisory council formulates conclusions and makes recommendations to the commission
for their consideration. Recommendations approved by the commission are forwarded
to affected parties; for example, the Governor, legislators, or other government agencies.
Issues discussed at CAE's conferences have recently included the future of Arizona's
forests, riparian area conservation, and the role of environmental risk assessment.
Staffing and Budget
The commission retains a staff equivalent to two and a- half full- time employees,
including an executive director. The staff works with committees of advisory council
members to assist in planning, organizing, and implementing the conferences.
CAE operations are funded by general fund appropriations and through a revolving
fund. General fund monies are used to finance CAE staff, and some of the commission's
other operating expenses. For fiscal year 1995, $ 101,200 in general fund monies were
A. R. S. 9949- 124 establishes a revolving fund that permits CAE to accept grants and
donations, to assess fees for its conferences, and to collect monies for publications. Fund
monies are to be used for commission surveys, studies, publications, internship programs,
conferences, and conference equipment. The beginning balance of the revolving fund for
fiscal year 1995 was approximately $ 33,700.
CAE received a general fund appropriation of $ 105,900 in fiscal year 1996. However, the
Legislature has not funded the commission for fiscal year 1997. It is the intent of the
Legislature that " the Auditm General.. . examine.. . ( CAE's) functions and activities, and.. .
compare those with other state agencies to determine any areas of overlap or duplication." The
Legislature may reconsider funding the agency based on its review of this audit report.
Audit Scope and Methodology
Our audit of the Commission on the Arizona Environment presents one finding
addressing the need for the Agency and possible ways to improve its impact on
environmental policy formulation, should the agency not be sunsetted. In addition, we
present a response to the 12 Sunset Factors ( see pages 13 through 15).
Much of the information collected on the need for and effectiveness of the commission
was gathered through interviews of over 70 representatives of the Legislature, Governor's
Office, conservation groups, CAE commissioners, and advisory council members. We also
collected and reviewed documentation from those organizations and agencies regarding
their activities that are similar to CAE's. In addition, we attended and made direct
observations of CAE's last two conferences, and reviewed and analyzed conference
materials and resulting recommendations for eight conferences held between September
1991 and March 1995.
This audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Commission on the Arizona
Environment, the advisory council, and the commission staff for their cooperation and
assistance during the audit.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment ( CAE) is credited with hosting unique
forums for people with various perspectives to discuss environmental issues. Nevertheless,
we believe the Agency should be sunsetted due to its lack of effectiveness and overlap
with other agencies. However, if the Legislature decides to continue the Agency, several
changes could increase CAE's impact and usefulness.
CAE Should Be Sunsetted Due to
Lack of Impact, Overlap with Other
Agencies, and Use of Ad Hoc Committees
The Sunset Law sets forth a stringent test to be used in determining whether an agency
should be continued. The test imposed by the Sunset Law is " The extent to which the
termination of the agency would significantly harm the public health, safety m welfare." This
is a stringent test because it goes beyond determining whether an agency is well managed,
complying with its mandates, or can cite positive accomplishments. Instead, the Sunset
Law asks whether the agency is truly necessary as measured by its impact on public
health, safety or welfare. The Commission on the Arizona Environment does not pass
this test.
Although CAE's strength lies in hosting forums for discussion of environmental issues,
we believe that the Agency should be allowed to expire under the Sunset Law. We found
CAE should be sunsetted because its forums continue to have no significant impact on
environmental policy, its activities overlap with several other public and private entities
within Arizona, and the State could use ad hoc committees to develop policy
recommendations that represent diverse perspectives on environmental issues.
Conferences interesting, but continue to lack results - Most of the people interviewed
during this audit were pleased with the quality of the conferences held by CAE.
Conference participants believe that the CAE director and staff work very hard and
develop good conferences with the resources they are given. In general, many believed
that the conferences involved timely and relevant topics, and presented a variety of
different perspectives on the topics. The conferences are perceived by many as providing
the general public with an opportunity to express their views on environmental issues.
Moreover, these conferences are viewed as a neutral forum for raising the public's
awareness of environmental issues and of the people and agencies involved in these
issues. Some believe that attending the conferences allows them to impact state
environmental policy.
However, as concluded in our previous report in 1990 ( Auditor General Report 90- I),
" the need for the commission, as it currently functions, is difficult to justify." In 1990,
we found that the commission had little impact in its roles of producing policy
recommendations and facilitating and coordinating public awareness programs. This lack
of impact was attributed, in part, to the Agency's failure to focus its activities on what
was then the commission's highest priority - producing environmental conferences. CAE
develops its recommendations through the issues discussed in these conferences. In 1990,
/ I we found no " strong, apparent need to continue the commission ... However, recognizing
the potential value in obtaining diverse input into policy decisions, we recommended
that the Legislature, "... consider either terminating the commission or revising its role
to focus on providing forums for discussion of environmental issues." While the
Legislature did not revise the Agency's mandates, CAE has reduced its activities to
publishing an annual resource directory and hosting conferences.
Although CAE has focused its efforts on providing these forums since 1990, the
conferences have produced relatively few recommendations, and the usefulness of these
to policy makers has been minimal. Our analysis of CAE's recommendations over the
last five years found that CAE produced recommendations from only four of the last nine
conferences.( l) A total of 23 recommendations were produced during this three and one-half
year period. CAE recently stated in its 1995 strategic plan that it has downplayed
its role of developing recommendations because of " difficulties encountered in conducting
this process within the agency." Specifically these difficulties include the lack of a
mechanism for advocacy and dissemination of its recommendations.
Moreover, the recommendations that CAE has produced often revisit issues already
addressed by others or are too broad to be useful. Of the total 23 recommendations
produced, 8 involved an endorsement of the status quo in existing policy, and 9 were
too general to be implementable. For example, one recommendation resulting from a
conference on forestry issues stated that the Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic
Development ( GSPED), Forest Service Research, and the Department of Commerce
" investigate the possibilities of producing non- traditional forest and other industry
products." Legislative analysts and environmental policy makers echoed our conclusion,
stating that the recommendations that resulted from CAE's conferences are not useful,
and that CAE's conferences involve esoteric discussions that rarely result in hard findings
and recommendations.
Some of those interviewed questioned whether public funds should be used to support
an agency whose primary activity is that of putting on conferences. One agency
representative stated that CAE should be self- supported. Another said that even though
According to the CAE director, recommendations for the most recent conference of June 1995 are
currently being developed.
CAE's conferences provide a forum for diverse groups to discuss environmental issues,
the conferences do not accomplish anything. There is no resolution, nor does CAE move
forward on the issues. CAE merely gives the appearance that if different people talk about
an issue then something is being resolved. A representative of a conservation group said
that CAE " doesn't produce anything people rely on." Several of the state agency
representatives that we interviewed also said that the CAE conferences they attended
were not useful to their agencies. A legislator said that CAE is the " pomp and
circumstance" of environmental policy making, and that it is the other environmental
and natural resource agencies with whom the policymakers work on environmental issues.
Overkp with other agencies - Although we found no single other entity that exactly
duplicated the functions of CAE, there are numerous public and private agencies
performing functions that overlap CAE's duties. We interviewed representatives from
35 state agencies, ad hoc committees, private organizations, the academic community,
and national associations, and gathered information regarding their activities that were
similar to those of CAE. Twenty- four of these entities provided environmental education
or awareness programs, 7 coordinated their efforts with other agencies, 20 of the agencies
developed environmental policy recommendations, and 21 held forums for the
presentation and discussion of environmental topics.
There would be little direct consequence if CAE ceased to exist, because all its mandates
would continue to be met through the overlapping activities of these other organizations.
Representatives in the Governor's Office and the Legislature named the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, Game and Fish Department, the Department of
Commerce, the Land Department, the Department of Water Resources, State Parks
Department, and the Agriculture Department as entities having greater impact on
environmental policy decisions. These agencies have an impact either through their
sponsorship of legislation or because they are called upon for their expertise in dealing
with specific environmental issues. In addition to their contributions in environmental
policy, these agencies are also involved in hosting conferences or other discussion forums,
and/ or play a role in raising public awareness on environmental issues. For example:
ADEQ maintains an extensive library of environmental information. In addition, ADEQ
hosts seminars and workshops, and provides opportunities for public input on air,
water, and waste issues. In May 1995 alone, ADEQ hosted at least 21 of these forums.
The Energy Office withn the Department of Commerce produces several publications
focusing on environmental issues related to energy. In addition, this Office hosts
monthly discussion luncheons and an annual conference on issues such as recycling
and air quality.
The Game and Fish Department produces p> ublicationsa nd holds public hearings to
receive public input on the preservation and harvest of wildlife in Arizona.
Other states and the federal government do not elevate CAE's functions to the status of
an independent agency. We interviewed legislative staff in ten randomly selected stated1)
to determine how other states structure the functions performed by CAE. None of the
ten currently have an independent agency performing functions similar to CAE's.( 2)
Instead, these functions were housed within regulatory or health agencies that were
considered to play a lead role in formulating environmental policy. Nine of the ten states
provide state- sponsored conferences and eight provide educational materials on
environmental issues through these regulatory and health agencies.
Use of committees - Finally, there are more direct and effective ways to develop
environmental recommendations based on diverse input. Temporary committees could
be used to study and develop recommendations on specific environmental issues on an
as- needed basis. Ad hoc committees can be structured to provide the benefits of obtaining
input from people with diverse perspectives. For example, the Riparian Area Advisory
Committee ( RAAC) is comprised of 7 environmental and resource agency representatives;
19 governor- appointed representatives of various perspectives, such as counties and
municipalities; an Indian tribe; various industries; conservation organizations in rural and
metropolitan counties; agricultural improvement districts; and a recreational users'
organization. In addition, the statutes for this committee appoint ex- officio members
from eight federal agencies. RAAC was in effect between November 1993 and December
1994. The purpose of the committee was to study and develop recommendations for the
State's riparian area protection program. RAAC's 59- page report, issued December 30,
1994, details an in- depth analysis of policy issues related to riparian area management.
The report also provides legislators and the Governor's Office with 29 pages of specific
recommendations and discussion of issues relating to Arizona's management and
protection of its riparian areas. By contrast, CAE's 1991 conference on riparian area issues
resulted in two recommendations related to riparian areas. The first involved some
wording changes to a document produced by the Governor's Riparian Areas Coordinating
Council. Second, CAE sent a letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
( EPA) recommending that EPA either " include ... Arizona's unique environmental
conditions" in its revisions of a manual regarding wetlands regulations, or else retain the
pre- 1989 regulations.
CAE disagrees with our recommendation that it should be sunsetted. It contends its
productivity is adversely affected by inadequate state funding and by the " unmeasurable"
nature of the impact of much of its work. In addition, CAE argues that with its hundreds
of volunteers it provides " a leveraged resource for the State that can easily be refocused,
but cannot be easily reestablished," if sunsetted. CAE further believes it does not
duplicate the activities of other public and private agencies because its conferences are
The ten other states surveyed were Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Maryland, New Mexico, and North Dakota.
Hawaii is currently awaiting its Governor's signature on a bill that would create a new office under
its Department of Land and Natural Resources. This new office would be responsible for making policy
recommendations, educating the public on environmental issues, and fostering public relations with
broader in scope and provide an unbiased forum for discussion. However, CAE states
it has recognized that hosting conferences alone cannot justify continued state support,
and has initiated plans to refocus its emphasis on the development of policy
recommendations. Despite these arguments, it remains unclear that there is a fundamental
need to continue CAE. Policy makers have not turned to CAE in the past as a source of
information or recommendations. And, they will likely continue to rely on other agencies
and ad hoc committees for advice on environmental concerns.
If CAE Is Continued, Operational
Changes Should Be Made
If the Legislature decides to keep CAE as an independent agency, changes are needed
to improve the Agency's effectiveness. Below, we discuss changes in the planning and
structure of CAE's conferences, as well as ways for CAE to possibly improve its impact
on environmental policy decisions.
Conference pplanning and structure - CAE's conferences could be improved by changes
in the topic selection process, the scope and preparation for the conferences, and the
amount of time allotted for discussion.
Topic selection/ input process - CAE should develop and implement a formal
process for gaining input into relevant conference topics from the Governor's Office
and the environmental and natural resources committee members in the Legislature.
Currently, conference topics are selected by CAE's program planning committee
members, and there is no standard method for obtaining input from these policy
makers. Legislators on the environmental committees and their research staff said that
they had never been asked for input into topic areas for CAE's conferences. To
increase its impact, CAE should focus on issues that the Legislature and the Governor
identify as important policy issues.
Narrower focus at conferences - CAE should focus the conference topics on one
specific issue in an in- depth manner, rather than trying to address too many issues
at the same time. Our analysis confirmed that CAE's conferences are more productive
when they focus on fewer, more specific topics. For example, CAE's recent conference
that focused solely on forestry issues produced the most recommendations compared
to other conferences that we reviewed, and is considered to be one of its more
successful conferences. By contrast, CAE held a two- day conference in September
1992, which included discussion of 15 separate issues related to water concerns. In
some cases speakers were allotted 15 minutes or less to present technical information
on such topics as groundwater contamination and remedial action alternatives. This
conference ultimately produced no new recommendations.
More information distributed prior to the conferences - Although CAE begins its
initial planning and topic selection for a conference as much as 12 to 18 months in
advance, information is not distributed to the conference participants until a week
or two before it is held. At that time CAE issues a press release that includes
information such as date, time, location, speakers, and conference topics. CAE also
sends only an invitation and registration form to selected individuals and
organizations with a known interest in the conference topic. CAE could improve the
outcome of these conferences by providing conference participants with an
information package on the conference topics prior to the conference. This is the
method used by the Arizona Town Hall.
More discussion time for participants - CAE should allow more time at its
conferences for audience discussion and consensus building. We attended the two
most recent conferences to observe their structure and content. Most of the conference
time was allotted for presentation of information by various speakers or panels of
speakers. Neither conference reached consensus on the issues presented. Conference
participants' evaluations of CAE's conferences concur with our observation that there
was not enough time allowed in the conference for discussion of the ideas presented.
Impact of policy decisions - CAE could improve its impact on environmental policy
decisions by providing more meaningful recommendations and by making itself known
to legislators.
More meaningful recommendations - CAE should develop recommendations that
are more specific and informative. As discussed above, our analysis confirmed the
statements by some policy makers that CAE's recommendations have been too broad,
and are not useful in policy decisions. CAE should develop its recommendations to
advocate specific actions, and should include background information, discussion of
relevant issues, and the level of consensus reached in recommendations submitted.
Improve presence with the Legislature - Many of the legislators, representatives
of the Governor's Office, other state agencies, and environmental groups contacted
felt that CAE had no impact on environmental policy and had no presence with the
Legislature. Both chairs of legislative committees on Environment and Natural
Resources indicated they had first become aware of CAE around the time the
legislative appropriations committees recommended a zero appropriation for the
Agency in fiscal year 1997. To their recollection, CAE had never testified before either
committee, nor had they ever met with CAE on any environmental matters, or
received any environmental policy recommendations from the Agency. Another
legislator concerned with environmental issues said that she tends not to contact CAE
for advice on an environmental matter because of its " low profile." Because of this
lack of visibility, CAE's credibility with these legislators suffers.
1. The Legislature should consider sunsetting the Commission on the Arizona
Environment due to its continued lack of impact on environmental policy, and the
Agency's overlapping functions with other existing agencies. Ad hoc committees can
be used to study environmental issues and recommend appropriate courses of action.
2. If the Legislature decides to continue the commission, CAE should make changes to
improve the usefulness of its conferences and the impact of its recommendations.
In accordance with A. R. S. 541- 2954, the Legislature should consider the following 12
factors in determining whether the Commission on the Arizona Environment should be
continued or terminated.
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the agency.
According to A. R. S. $ 549- 121. A., the Commission on the Arizona Environment was
established to:
A. Actively develop and provide recommendations regarding the social, economic,
recreational, and ecological aspects of the Arizona environment through public
education programs.
B. Facilitate the coordination of public awareness programs regarding the social,
economic, recreational, and ecological aspects of the Arizona environment.
C. Communicate with a broad range of the citizens of this State, including members
of the business and academic communities, so that conclusions developed by the
CAE represent, as nearly as possible, a cross section of thought on environmental
The Commission on the Arizona Environment develops and hosts conferences as the
means by which it addresses its statutory mandates.
2. The effectiveness with which the agency has met its objective and purpose and
the efficiency with which it has operated.
The purpose for which CAE was originally intended was to develop policy
recommendations on environmental issues. We found that CAE's recommendations
were ineffective in impacting environmental policy. See Finding I ( pages 5 through
11) for further detail.
3. The extent to which the agency has operated within the public interest.
CAE conferences generally serve an interest of the public, in that they provide an
opportunity to hear diverse perspectives on environmental issues. However, we
found that a frequent complaint regarding recent conferences was that there was not
enough time allotted for discussion and input from conference participants.
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the agency are
consistent with the legislative mandate.
This question is not applicable to the agency, because CAE has promulgated no rules.
5. The extent to which the agency has encouraged input from the public before
promulgating rules and regulations and the extent to which it has informed the
public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public.
The Commission on the Arizona Environment has not promulgated any rules or
6. The extent to which the agency has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints that are within its jurisdiction.
This factor is not applicable because the Commission on the Arizona Environment
does not have investigative or regulatory authority.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of state
government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling
This factor is not applicable because the Commission on the Arizona Environment
is not a regulatory agency with enforcement or oversight responsibilities.
8. The extent to which the agency has addressed deficiencies in its enabling
statutes that prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
In the 1995 legislative session, the Commission on the Arizona Environment
proposed legislation to implement changes in commission membership and
compensation. House Bill 2238 originally would have allowed for the reimbursement
of commissioners' travel fees, and mandated that commission membership reflect
a broad cross section of environmental perspectives. After the bill was presented, the
Chairman of the Environment Committee introduced an amendment that would have
broadened the language of the enabling statutes, and established the CAE as a
clearinghouse to provide environmental information to various groups. However,
this bill failed to pass.
CAE officials indicated that current mandates are too vague, and do not specify who
will be receiving their recommendations. The CAE plans to reintroduce legislation
that will narrow their statutory responsibilities, specify the recipients of CAE
products, broaden the use of the revolving fund monies, and define appointments
to the commission.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the agency's laws to adequately
comply with the factors listed in the Sunset Law.
We did not identify the need for any statutory changes regarding CAE.
10. The extent to which the termination of the agency would significantly harm the
public health, safety or welfare.
Termination of the agency would not significantly harm the public health, safety, or
welfare. We found in our previous audit, and again in this audit, that CAE has no
significant impact on environmental policy. Moreover, all of its duties could be
performed through the activities of other agencies and ad hoc committees. ( See
Finding I, pages 5 through 11).
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the agency is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be
The Commission on the Arizona Environment is not a regulatory agency; thus, this
factor does not apply.
12. The extent to which the agency has used private contractors in the performance
of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be accom-plished.
CAE uses private contractors to provide conference facilities, and when workload
requires, temporary services. However, unpaid volunteers are used for most of their
nonadministrative tasks. In general, they receive assistance through volunteer efforts,
contributions, and in- kind donations.
Agency Response
Snell & Wilmer
One Arizona Center
Phoenix, Arizona 85004- 0001
( 602) 382- 6000
Fax: ( 602) 382- 6070
Steven M. Wheeler ( 602) 382- 6327
IRVINE, CALIrnRNIA
SALT LAKE m, UU H
October 11, 1995
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
2910 North 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
RE: Performance Audit of the Commission on the Arizona Environment
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft
performance audit (" Draft Report") of the Commission on the Arizona Environment sent to
me with your October 2, 1995, letter. Although we greatly appreciate the courtesy and
consideration shown by your staff during the performance audit process, we most strongly
disagree with the findings and conclusions expressed in the Draft Report that the Commission
should be sunsetted. For the reasons set forth in more detail in the accompanying report
prepared by our Executive Director, and as summarized below, we believe the Commission
is an effective, well- managed organization that serves a unique and valuable function in
enhancing environmental awareness at a minimal cost to the Arizona taxpayer.
A summary of the major areas of our disagreement with the Draft Report follows:
1. The Commission is unfairly criticized for doing exactly what the Auditor
General recommended in 1990. The primary thrust of the 1995 Draft Report
appears to be that the Commission should have spent less time presenting high
quality conferences and discussion forums and instead focused on the
development and advocacy of legislative recommendations. Yet this focus on
conferences is precisely what the Auditor General recommended in its 1990
performance audit. In that report, the Auditor General stated:
" The commission's role should be revised to focus on
what many see as its primary benefit -- providing forums
for discussion of environmental issues. "
Member: LEX MUNDI, an international association of independent law firms with members in
the united states and 60 countries throughout the world.
Snell Gr Wilmer
Douglas R. Norton
October 11, 1995
Page 2
The Commission accepted this recommendation and, as the Draft Report now
acknowledges, it has performed quite well. The Commission is " credited with
hosting unique forums for people with various perspectives to discuss
environmental issues. " ( Page 5). More importantly, the Draft Report
concluded :
" Most of the people interviewed during this audit were
pleased with the quality of the conferences held by CAE.
Conference participants believe that the CAE director
and staff work very hard and develop good conferences
with the resources they are given. In general, many
believe that the conferences involve timely and relevant
topics, and presented a variety of different perspectives
on the topics. The conferences are perceived by many as
providing the general public with an opportunity to
express their views on environmental issues. Moreover,
these conferences are viewed as a neutral forum for
raising the public's awareness of environmental issues
and of the people and agency involved in these issues.
Some believe that attending the conferences allows them
to impact state environmental policy. " ( Page 5).
Thus, the Commission has successfully embraced the recommendations
specifically advocated by the Auditor General in 1990. That very success can
hardly be a reason to sunset the agency.
2. The Auditor General has applied a flawed evaluation standard. The principal
reason advanced in the Draft Report for sunsetting the Commission is the draft
finding that the Commission's activities " have not had a significant impact on
environmental policy decisions. " ( Page i) . Although we dispute this finding
for the reasons set forth in the attached comments from our Executive
Director, this finding would not, even if supported by the facts, justify
sunsetting the agency. The Commission's statutory mandate does a include
legislative advocacy and, as the Auditor General's Office was repeatedly told,
the original drafters of the Commission's enabling legislation never anticipated
that the Commission would become directly involved in policy and legislative
debates. That is why the Commission's enabling legislation specifically
requires the Commission to produce public programs, " facilitate the
coordination of those programs, " and " communicate with a broad range of
Snell & Wilmer
I Douglas R. Norton
October 1 1, 1995
Page 3
citizens of this state. " ( A. R. S. 5 49- 121 . A). The Draft Report totally and
inexplicably ignores the effectiveness of the Commission in its communication
and public awareness programs by instead focusing on the far narrower issue
of the extent to which the Commission has entered the contentious fray of
environmental politics. This arbitrarily selective view of the Commission's
perceived role contravenes its express statutory mandate and the clear
directives of the Auditor General five years ago.
Of equal importance, the Auditor General faults the Commission for failing
what it characterizes as the " stringent test" imposed by the sunset law
regarding the " extent to which the termination of the agency would
significantly harm the public health, safety or welfare." ( Page 5). The
Commission acknowledges that it was never given direct statutory mandates
for the regulation of air, water or hazardous waste, nor was it delegated the
police powers of the state to enforce environmental laws. Thus, it would be
impossible for the agency to satisfy the Auditor General's interpretation of the
sunset test. However, the Commission has been vigorously meeting its
statutory mandate of public awareness programs, educational conferences and
policy development, and should not be sunsetted for doing exactly what the
legislature authorized it to do.
3. The Draft Revort's " finding" that the Commission's activities are duvlicated
bv other state agencies is unsuvvorted and incorrect. The Draft Report's
conclusion that the Commission's activities " overlap with several other public
and private entities within Arizona" ( Page 5) is completely unsupported by any
relevant examples. The report's sweeping generalization that other state
agencies hold seminars and allow public comment on issues within the
agencies' mandated scope hardly demonstrates that the activities of the
Commission are in any way redundant or ineffective. As the Draft Report
itself notes, the Commission " is credited with hosting unique forums."
( Page 5). The Commission's programs on environmental justice, risk
assessment, developing legislative issues, and unfunded federal mandates have
not been duplicated by any other state agency, either in content or in the
diversity of views represented at the conferences. No other state agency has
the ability or the statutory mandate to seek out and explore " cutting edge"
environmental issues in the manner entrusted to the Commission. This point is
perhaps best underscored by a review of the attendance roster at recent
Commission programs, in which the Governor, the heads of major state
Snell & Wilmer
Douglas R. Norton
October 11, 1995
Page 4
environmental agencies, and key members of the state legislature were all
either in attendance or were keynote speakers.
4. The Draft Report's recommended substitute for the Commission -- the use of
ad hoc committees -- is unrealistic. The Draft Report states that the state
" could use ad hoc committees to develop policy recommendations that
represent diverse perspectives on environmental issues. " ( Page 5). However,
the report could only cite one example of a " successful" use of such an ad hoc
committee in the past and, even then, the report fails to mention, much less
evaluate, the considerable time, expense and start- up inefficiencies associated
with that committee. Moreover, the report neglects to point out that the most
recent example of an ad hoc committee, the ACERP Project, used the
Commission in a supporting role to assist in administrative functions and fund-raising
and has recently approached the Commission to assume a leadership
role in following through on the program's recommendations. In short, the
Draft Report offers no convincing rationale for dismantling a well- established,
well- run agency that leverages its meager budget resources with the volunteer
work of over 100 environmental professionals.
5. The report unfairly ignores recent activities of the Commission. The Draft
Report either ignores or barely mentions recent activities of the Commission
which clearly demonstrate its contributions to the development of
environmental policy in this state and the facilitation of public awareness
among a broad cross- section of the state's citizens. These activities include:
( 1) the Commission was selected by Representative Bowers, the
Chairman of the House of Representatives Environment
Committee, to serve as moderator at his first " Environmental
Summit" among key Arizona environmental policy makers;
( 2) Governor Symington has appeared at the last two Commission
seminars to make major policy announcements, including the
introduction of the new Director of ADEQ;
( 3) ACERP has requested the Commission to assist in developing
policy recommendations and appropriate follow through of the
project's critical findings;
Snell & Wilmer
Douglas R. Norton
October 1 1, 1995
Page 5
( 4) the Commission held a first- ever environmental
legislation conference this past June at which all
the major advocacy groups and key legislators
attended to identify and discuss upcoming
environmental legislation; and
( 5) the Commission has developed an internal
strategic plan and proposed legislative changes
that will further sharpen its focus and improve its
We believe an objective and balanced consideration of these recent
developments demonstrates that the agency has played a visible and effective
role in the environmental community of this state.
In conclusion, we do not believe the agency should be sunsetted nor do we believe the
elimination of our modest budget appropriation would benefit the citizens of this state nearly
as much as the activities and resources this agency can contribute to the enhancement of
Arizona's environment. We do believe, however, that the legislative changes and internal
administrative and structural improvements we are in the process of implementing will
further enhance the agency's effectiveness.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Report.
Steven M. Wheeler
Commission on the Arizona Environment
1645 West Jefferson Suite 416 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Phone ( 602) 542- 2102
We appreciate the difficulty the Auditor General's office has in evaluating an agency mandated to perform
non- critical functions for the state. It is especially frustrating to us that this difficulty has translated into a
preliminary judgement based on measurements that are, we believe, entirely inconsistent with both our
legislative mandate and the direction recommended by the Auditor General's office in its 1990 study. We
believe we have consistently performed as directed: both under our mandate and toward full achievement of
the Auditor General's 1990 recommendation. We intend to demonstrate that in this letter. We believe that
this responsiveness indicates both our willingness and ability to perform as directed, if clear direction is in fact
given and if that performance is then judged by those directives, rather than by a directive devised to fit the
format of a more traditional state agency.
We also understand the Mculty the Auditor General's office has in evaluating programs that are still in the
rudimentary stages, where their impact has not yet been noted by the " customers." However, we strongly
believe that the potential value of any agency's self- analysis and redirection should be considered, especially
if there has not been adequate time to demonstrate the effectiveness of its plans. The CAE began its self-evaluation
in June 1993, before requested to by the state, and developed its first Strategic Plan in October
1994. We believe that this redirection indicates our willingness and ability to identify areas for our own growth
and improvement and, since many of our new concepts are consistent with those suggested by the Auditor
General's office, indicates our ability to resolve identified problems and challenges with both plans and action.
Finally, we believe the role of the CAE is as vital today, if not more so, than it was when the concept was first
introduced. As current trends in government move toward:
less g- overnment
greater citizen input into decisions and policies that affect their lives
+ careful consideration of the myriad of impacts environmental problems and solutions have on all
segments of Arizona's population
+ concerns balanced with facts, and
+ better communication between citizens and their elected officials
... it becomes even more important for the Commission to:
provide a forum where people with diverse views, interests and concerns can meet to discuss, debate
and develop non- legislative solutions to divisive environmental problems
Commission on the Anma Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's rep& Page 1
allow a broad range of citizen input in developing environmental legislation, public policy and
identification of environmental problems, and to
educate the public on the broad range of impacts from environmental issues and legislation on
Arizona's citizens, and natural and cultural resources.
In fact, as the roles of local government and the public increases, the role of the CAE is likely to be more
critical to the state through the information provided to aid an increasingly broad profile of decision makers.
ISSUE OF m-
1. Historic and current value of public awareness, education and input. At the time of the Commission's
inception pursuant to an Executive Order in 1965 ( and its re- authorization in 1967,1970,1975 and 1977) and
when raised to state agency status by 1986 legislation, the authors of the Commission on the Arizona
Environment's statutory enabling legislation understood the value and importance of public education,
awareness and input into the state's environmental policies. The problem with such mandates lies not in their
importance, but in the difficulty in quantifying these functions. This does not make them unimportant. It
is not reasonable to assume that the only justifiable role of government should be to regulate and enforce.
Since we have been judged by the Auditor General primarily on our effectiveness at directly impacting
environmental policy, which we will address next, let us assert at the onset of this response the valuable role
we believe public awareness and education continue to play in the state. As government moves to a " bottom-up"
approach which we are told is inevitable, a public educated not only on specific issues, but on the various
impacts of those issues and other related issues, will be better able to develop its own decisions and policies
and determine alternate means to resolve problems. The Commission's unique role in providing this
information and education will be addressed in the ISSUE$ OF OJERZAPANZ) DUPLICATIONsection.
2. CAE's indirect role in ' impacting' environmental policy. The most critical area of disagreement between
the CAE and the Auditor General's report is that of the Commission's effectiveness at impacting
environmental policy.
The Commission believes that its programs have had significant indirect impacts in many areas, most notably
raising the awareness of critical riparian problems and of issues of environmental equity. In some cases we
believe CAE programs have resulted in the formation of ongoing task forces ( e. g. riparian issues) that focus
on the issues once awareness of them has been heightened. In other instances, we have been informed that
internal agency policy changes were being considered as a result of CAE recommendations ( e. g. Department
of Tourism, U. S. Forest Service from our Forest Management conference). We were told that information
provided at the Forest Management conference was incorporated into the Governor's Arizona Land 2000
policy. In still other instances, we believe the CAE served as an unacknowledged catalyst, instigating the
formation of committees in agencies and professional associations to focus on specific issues following CAE
programs ( e. g. environmental equity). Due to the subtle nature of such impacts and to the limited resources
the CAE has to track the indirect effects of its programs, it is impossible to quantify or determine the exact
impact CAE has on environmental policies.
Commksbn on the A~ izonaE nviwnmt Response to 1995 Auditm General's 1. epd Page 2
Broad and increasing participation by state and other policy makers in CAE programs - as speakers,
participants and recipients of CAE information - also belies the report's claim that we are ineffective. Policy
makers from all levels and backgrounds and perspectives have participated in CAE programs, often traveling
considerable distances and making special arrangements to do so: without any compensation or
reimbursement for expenses. And, likewise, continued hard work and contributions of talent and expertise
by our Advisory Council members and other volunteers in CAE programs reflect their belief that the agency's
purposes, programs and potentials are worth considerable personal hard work and sacrifice of time and
3. CAE not directed to ' impact7 environmental policy. In conducting a sunset audit, the Auditor General's
office acknowledges that it must use barometers that go beyond "... determining whether an agency is well
managed, complying with its mandates, or can cite positive accomplishments." In the case of the Commission
on the Arizona Environment, the barometer has been to determine if it has directly impacted the state's
environmental policy.
Phoenix attorney Roger Ferland in a response to the 1990 Auditor General's report noted that the
Commission in its enabling legislation had never been directed to directly impact state environmental policy,
but was, instead, directed to provide information for legislators by developing recommendations on
environmental issues. This was to help them understand the broad impacts of the issues and the public's
interests and concerns to aid in their decision making. Any recommendation that arguably represents the
opinion of a broad cross section of constituents is likely to be moderate. And since the theory of governance
can vary widely, the reality of having an ongoing and direct influence on policy is not realistic. However,
providing information on interests and concerns and providing moderate recommendations is invaluable to
inform policy makers so they can make the best possible decisions given their own theory and philosophy on
governing. Even today's legislators have noted that while they welcome receiving recommendations, they offer
no promise to adhere to them. The recommendations should be balanced and informational in purpose and
used as each legislator sees fit.
Consistent with this somewhat passive role, from the earliest recollection, we were advised by legislators NOT
to lobby our recommendations ( which would be an essential activity if one is to impact policy) or to take sides
on an issue, but to retain our neutrality and provide recommendations for the governor's and, later, the
legislators' information. It was under this directive that the CAE operated until 1990.
4. 1990 Auditor General's report recommended that the CAE '... focus on forums for discussion of
environmental issues7 Although the CAE had been identifying emerging issues, communicating with a broad
cross section of Arizona's citizens, facilitating public awareness through educational programs and providing
recommendations to the governor and other policy makers for 25 years prior to the 1990 audit, in the 1990
Auditor General's report, for the first time, the agency was evaluated for its effectiveness at directly impacting
policy. The CAE's role in education, communication and public awareness was largely ignored because of
the diillculty in measuring such subjective functions and the indirect way in which they impact environmental
policy and the state's environment.
Cornmksh on the A h a Environment Respme to 1995 Auditm General's report Page 3
The report concluded that since we had not been effective at directly influencing policy, we should "... focus
on providing forums for discussion of environmental issues." The report did not suggest we use these forums
for discussion to develop recommendations, but offered this as our strength with the suggestion that it become
our focus.
5. CAE responded by redirecting its programs to focus on forums for public discussion. The Commission
responded to this new directive by establishing a policy ( in November 1990) of focusing more on forums for
public discussion of environmental issues. It was noted in this policy statement that if recommendations
seemed appropriate following discussion, they would be offered, but that no particular effort would be made
to develop them. Again, this was in direct response to the Auditor General's recommendation. As before, no
effort was to be made to lobby any resultant recommendations, they were to be offered for consideration only.
The primary focuses of these more recent forums was to provide opportunities for public discussion of
controversial environmental issues; to increase public awareness and understanding of the multiple impacts
environmental issues have on Arizona's citizens and their environment - their quality of life, Arizona's
ecology, and economy; and to educate both public and private decision makers in government, business, the
general public and the environmental community about the impacts of and interests in environmental issues
in Arizona.
6. CAE successful at producing forums as directed. According to the 1995 Auditor General's report, this
redirected focus was effectively and successfully achieved. The quality and credibility of the CAE's programs
and its unique role in offering balanced and neutral forums to benefit all who attend has been consistently
noted to us by participants and in the 1995 Auditor General's study. We believe this demonstrates our
effectiveness, willingness and ability to perform as directed.
Although the Commission had engaged in activities other than conferences and the Resource Directory since
the 1990 report, contrary toa statement in the AG's 1995 report, the focus of these activities ( state coordinator
for the Take Pride in America Awards Program, Vice chair of the Environmental Education Fair for the
Interagency Committee on Environmental Education, support for ACERP, etc.) continued to be on public
awareness, input and education. It should also be noted that these were accomplished with a staff reduction
from 3 authorized to 2- 2% funded FTEs and a reduction in funding for operating expenses. This reduction
has impacted the number of programs CAE produces and the level of involvement the agency is able to sustain
in other programs ( such as ACERP) .
7. 1993 CAE self- evaluation concludes that additional focus is needed. In 1993, during a selfevaluation
exercise, the Commission determined that it needed to reestablish its relationship with the state's elected
officials, both by improving communication and offering assistance, in the form of recommendations and
other information. Wary of its prior problems in demonstrating its effectiveness at this function, the agency
took the time to plan a new structure and focus that would support this effort.
8. Strategic Plan identifies restructure and expanded focus of CAE programs. In October 1994 the CAE
approved a Strategic Plan for the agency that addressed most of its previously identified inadequacies.
Through changes in programs, structure and focus, the CAE developed plans that should resolve all issues
raised in the Auditor General's report. Then, throughout the 1995 legislative session it reviewed those newly
C o m m ~ onn the Arkma Environment Response to 1995 Auditm General's report + Page 4
established plans, seeking ways to further improve its effectiveness. These plans were reported to the Auditor
General's office at the onset of their study and are generally consistent with the AG's alternate
recommendation in its 1995 final report.
The agency's new programs and activities include its Policy Development and Advocacy Committee
( established to improve its communication with policy makers, including the issue of lobbying); a Public
Outreach Component for several CAE Business Meetings annually ( to improve communication with the
public); Information Sheets ( to provide balanced educational information on various topics); an Annual
Legislative Briefing ( again, to improve communication with policy makers); and Focus Committees ( to study
diverse issues in depth and develop various products that will address problems identified at the CAE's annual
Legislative Issues Conference). Also included in the Strategic Plan were strategies to utilize its volunteers to
supplement the CAE's chronic underfbnding by providing services in the areas of coordinating lobbying
activities, publicity, fund raising and membership. A major policy change was the agency's decision to use
stakeholders, rather than its appointed commissioners, to develop policy recommendations and then advocate
( lobby for) those recommendations. This again emphasized the agency's neutrality as well as enhancing the
credibility of its recommendations.
9. Revised legislation to resolve historic issues. To resolve the historic problems with the Commission's
legislative mandate ( vague language, no recipient designated for its products) the CAE introduced
amendments to its enabling legislation in the 1995 session. During the session, the CAE determined that the
legislation it had introducedwith Representative Bowers needed further revision. When the bill failed to pass,
after becoming more ambitious in its scope than resources allowed, the CAE worked throughout the summer
to make additional revisions to the language. The language approved for the agency's final version has
legislative support, ( see Addendum A).
These proposed legislative language changes designate a recipient for the CAE's products ( creating a bond
lacking since the CAE became independent of the governor's office). The changes also remove much of the
ambiguity of the CAE's role ( making its performance easier to measure), and strengthen the commission
( requiring that some appointments to the Commission are made from the agency's Advisory Council).
10. These adjustments demonstrate CAE's ability to resolve identified problems with both plans and action.
We believe that the insight utilized in recommending these internal changes demonstrates our ability to
determine areas for our own growth and to develop and implement plans that resolve identified problems.
We also believe it demonstrates that the CAE has made a commitment to expanding its programs from
conferences as the sole means of executing its mandates and utilizing its volunteers to means beyond what
were visualized prior to 1990.
11. CAE needs time to fully implement its plans and demonstrate its effectiveness. We strongly believe that
our newly proposed enabling legislation ( establishing a link between the agency and the legislature); our 1994
Strategic Plan ( which includes changes in structure, function and focus) ; activities already underway ( Policy
Committee, June Environmental Issues forum and focus committees); and those planned for the future
( Legislative Briefing) will at least in part resolve the question of the CAE's effectiveness at directly impacting
the state's environmental policy. Unfortunately, what has been lacking is the time the Commission needs to
implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of this recent redirection and these new programs.
Commission on the Arizona Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's report Page 5
12. The 1995 Auditor General's Report. In the summer of 1995, in the midst of the agency's restructuring,
the Auditor General's office began the Commission's Sunset Performance Audit Because there was
insufEcient time prior to the onset of the performance audit for the CAE to implement its Strategic Plan and
other proposed changes, the report recommended sunsetting the agency.
The 1995 Auditor General's report ignores the recommendations from its own 1990 report and the AG's role
in directing the CAE to the focus which they now so critically judge. Focusing again on directly affecting
environmental policy, the 1995 report also dismisses our mandated functions of education, public awareness
and input in favor of the more easily quantifiable function of directly impacting environmental policy. It also
ignores the progress that the CAE has made toward identification and execution of its own remedies and the
fact that many of the report's alternate recommendations include activities that the CAE, in early interviews,
had reported as being recently initiated or planned activities. Finally, the report contains some omissions and
inaccuracies which will be addressed in detail in Addendum B.
1. CAE is unique. We appreciate the acknowledgement in the Auditor General's report that the CAE's
programs are unique within the state. We do, however, disagree that this combination could be sewed by
other state agencies or private entities.
The Commission's statutory mandate to ( 1) develop and provide recommendations, ( 2) facilitate the
coordination of public awareness programs and ( 3) communicate with a broad cross section of citizens gives
us a unique flexibility to address current issues in a manner that " represents, as nearly as possible, a cross
section of thought on environmental issues." A. R. S. 49- 121( 3). This independent non- partisan role
substantially distinguishes us from other agencies and groups and allows us to attract the diversity of viewpoints
that has given our agency credibility for unbiased activity.
Our programs provide a forum for both education and discussion among disparate groups that is not
replicated elsewhere. The CAE is the only truly neutral entity, public or private, that reaches out to all
audiences, believing that that broad representation gives value to our programs, products and audiences. This
neutrality is widely viewed as being unique among state agencies and is highly regarded by our participants.
This reputation and perspective and the trust they engender is nearly impossible to achieve by a focused
committee or regulating agency.
One of our most recent conferences highlights this point. The conference on environmental risk assessment
brought together the stakeholders in this most important issue in a manner no other agency or private group
could have emulated. Our speakers included top EPA and ADEQ officials, the scientific and academic
community, regulated businesses and, most importantly, citizens' groups who represent constituencies vitally
affected by risk assessment procedures but have been traditionally under- represented in this important debate.
Cornmiskm on the Arizona Envinmment Req5onse to 1995 Auditm General's repott Pap 6
2. What CAE programs offer. The Commission on the Arizona Environment offers:
Forums for public discussion of and education on environmental issues
Public Outreach at CAE business meetings
Issue Information Sheets that present all aspects and impacts of complex and contentious
environmental issues
Arizona Environmental and Resource Conservation Directory
Forums for identification of emerging environmental issues
Focus groups to identify problems of and resolution for environmental issues and produce products
or follow- up to address the identified solutions
Volunteers who provide their knowledge, opinions and professional expertise to the state at no charge
through the CAE's Advisory Council and other programs
30 years of experience and institutional memory to aid in producing CAE programs
Experienced staff, ficility, equipment to support CAE's programs and products, and
Scholarship programs that provide opportunities for future environmental professionals and decision-makers
to learn about the complicated environmental problems and solutions that impact Arizona's
citizens and environment.
3. Other state agencies cannot replicate CAE role. Virtually every other state agency has been formed
primarily for the purpose of implementing and enforcing specific state or federal environmental programs,
policies or positions. These agencies do not and cannot serve as " think tanks" or community outreach
organizations that can act outside their narrow legislative mandate. The specificity of their role precludes
them from ( the reality or the public perception of) being able to objectively examine their own programs and
from the ability to identify or examine tangential issues. And, the traditional/ past lack of broad and balanced
input into their programs limits the credibility of their products.
The reference that the other agencies do the " real work" ignores the fact that other agencies have different
mandates than the Commission. These critical roles are appropriate ones for agencies with mandates to do
SO. However, no matter how much " real work other agencies do, that effort and ability is no justification for
down- playing the CAE's efforts, importance and impacts. The Commission's role is to communicate with a
broad cross section of Arizonans and thereby improve public awareness of environmental issues and make
policy recommendations. This is best served by a neutral state agency, a role no other state agency can,
should or does fill, given the public's impressions, valid or not, of those other agencies' mandated and
therefore self- serving functions and purposes.
Additionally, other state agencies have funding that specifically provides for staff whose chief role is to
communicate that agency's position to legislators. Due to minimal funding, the CAE's staff is essentially
limited to carrying out its principal programs. Penalizing the CAE for not interacting better with the
legislature is, therefore, a double bind. ( The CAE's Strategic Plan outlines steps to utilize volunteers to
remedy this in the future.)
The CAE achieves its responsibility, effectiveness and neutral reputation by not being directly involved with
regulatory purposes, thus not having a vested interest in any activity or regulation or being publicly perceived
as having an unavoidable bias. We are therefore able to and do have a reputation for neutrally and objectively
examining all issues and all stakeholders' concerns to identify impacts, problems and areas where
Commission on the Arizona Environment Respme to 1995 Auditor General's rep& Page 7
improvement are called for - to allow a forum for the public, businesses, the environmental community,
academics and other government entities to raise their voice and concerns in a setting where all are equal and
all can hear those diverse views.
4. Private entities cannot replicate CAE's role. Duplication by private entities is even less likely. While the
function of providing information may be replicated, the audience private entities reach consists of
constituents who support their programs and philosophy. Even those who attempt to reach a broad cross
section of Arizona's citizens limit their participation either by financial charges that preclude open
participation, limited topic focus, geographic limitations, or by selectivity in inclusion in their programs.
Further, private entities cannot atuact the participation in programs that a state agency does. And again, the
lack of broad and balanced input into their programs limits the credibility of their products with Arizona's
diverse citizenry.
5. Parts are not equal to the sum. Through its many programs and activities, CAE provides a unique
combination of:
opportunities for citizens to listen to and interact with their elected officials
+ outreach to all stakeholders and the public
+ neutrality, objectivity and proven credibility
6 the level of a state agency interacting with other entities
volunteers representing citizens' groups, businesses, government, representatives of environmental
non- profits, academics and consultants
affordable programs
stakeholder and citizen input into the legislative process
+ debate and discussion of difficult and divisive environmental issues in a facilitated setting with the
practical hope and goal of reaching broad- based consensus on those issues and on respective roles and
opportunities through discussion by those holding opposing views for greater understanding of
conflicting perspectives and controversial issues with the possibility that the need for legislation or
litigation can be reduced or eliminated, or, whenever and wherever possible, support for proposed
legislation can be attained
volunteers leveraging state dollars
recommendations, programs and other products that are broad- based, are produced by multi-disciplinary
work groups and are produced and supported by many of the state's diverse interest and
impact groups
adult education that has always emphasized the broad impacts of environmental issues on the social,
economic, ecological, recreational, and other aspects of Arizonans' lives
+ adult education that explains the rationale behind, implications of and means to comply with public
policy decisions, laws and regulations, and
+ presentations that include personal concerns and perspectives as well as factual information
( including facts that may be contrary to more widely accepted opinions) to substantiate those
opinions ...
... all ofwhich cannot be replicated elsewhere and would fail to serve the legislative intent of the Commission
if carried out only in part.
Commission on the Arizona Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's report Page 8
It is this unique combination of fictors defining CAE's programs that have earned it its credibility and value.
Only the Commission on the Arizona Environment can fulfill its prescribed mandate and provide the services
the Commission does now. To eliminate that role is to eliminate opportunities for public awareness and
education on the diverse interests and impacts of Arizona's environmental issues and of input into the
legislative and resolution process of Arizona's environmental problems.
ISWB THXT AD HOG COMMEiWB CAN DO THE COMMTSION'S WORK BETTER
The Auditor General's report suggests that ad hoc committees can do the CAE's work as well or better than
the agency does now. We disagree for the following reasons:
1. CAE has many desirable attributes and characteristics that ad hoc committees lack. We strongly believe
that NO independently established committee can offer the following. The Commission has:
+ an established 30 year relationship with the state and the public
+ an established, balanced, committed workforce of volunteers ( many of whom are professionals or
academicians) who aid in all aspects of the agency's activities
+ a workforce that includes an institutional memory that enables continual improvement of programs
while avoiding redundancy of effort
+ an established credibility for neutrality and balance in all its programs
+ the ongoing ability to seek outside funding and donations
+ the advantage of having funds that are easily monitored
+ the ability to respond to requests to study an issue as well as use participants at its programs and from
its balanced membership to identify issues for further discussion
+ immediate resources available - in staff, facility, equipment, etc.
+ a structure that allows immediate identification of areas for discussion
+ the ability to discuss topics that can broadly address any combination of federal, state, rural, business,
environmental and public interests
+ a role as a state agency that engenders participation by representatives from all areas and levels of
+ a broad membership and strong external support to supplement representation on any committee,
workgroup or program, so that the absence of a member representing a single perspective cannot skew
ad hoc committee results, and
4 an ongoing identity and support system so that projects identified for action can continue until
completed, and will not be prematurely abandoned due to spent funding or waning participation.
2. CAE focus committees are superior to ad hoc committees. The Commission had indicated to the Auditor
General's office its plans to use focus committees to study and pursue certain identified issues. CAE's focus
committees also would differ from independent ad hoc committees in the following ways. They would:
+ use a non- government directed process ( the CAE is an agency of volunteers, not a government entity),
which can result in non- government products, which can be more efficient and economical
+ provide staffing and coordination by an existing entity whose established credibility and mandated
Commiion on the Arizona Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's report Page 9
neutrality ensures the balanced, broad representation essential to developing a viable product and
engendering ongoing support for and completion of identified solutions and products
have the ability to identify and define problems themselves when appropriate
function under a neutral entity, not under one with already identified interests or programs
include a strategy to complete all products that were identified at the outset as being useful to issue
identify a variety of useful products throughout the process of studying issues - varying from
recommendations to education and beyond
be supported by CAE's members' expertise to aid in the final development, advocacy and distribution
of the products
be cost effective ( ad hoc committees are not free; monies to support them come from funding for
other agencies' programs or from special appropriations)
provide ongoing agency support to develop support for and advocate and disseminate information on
the proposed solutions and products, and
be committed to broad public awareness in all its activities.
3. CAE resources represent ' untapped potential.' As the CAE has identified and developed changes to best
utilize its resources, so could the state better define how it would like to utilize the CAE's resources.
Dismantling it, only to later establish multiple other ' task forces', etc. in its place - that might lack all the
previously mentioned attributes of the agency and probably would function less efficiently and economically -
would not be the best use of the state's money. Once dismantled, the periodic establishment of short term,
single issue entities to perform a similar function, such as ACERP, is time consuming, inefficient, expensive
and logistically difficult. In addition, the state would lose most of the long term CAE volunteers and public
experts and the contributions to the state of their time and expertise.
REASONS TO KEEP llXE COMMISZON ON THE ARIZONA EiWIRONMENT
The Commission on the Arizona Environment
+ has demonstrated its responsiveness to redirection
+ offers opportunities for interaction between elected officials and the public in a way no one else can
+ uses a standing body of volunteers to identify issues for action or to respond to requests for
information or action
+ provides an existing structure to assemble concerned citizens, experts, regulators and others to
develop position documents, recommendations and educational material on environmental issues
* provides a statutorily authorized voice and forum, other than organized special interest groups, that
enables citizens to impact or interact with government on environmental issues
+ offers an established, user- friendly, credible, accessible, neutral and non- bureaucratic entity within
state government
+ has an established mandate to consider and report impacts on and concerns of a broad cross section
of Arizona's environmental interests
C o m mon~ th e Ariwna Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's report Page 10
requires a minimal investment - approximately $ 100,000 - ( often the price of one consultant) to gain
input for the state from over 100 environmental experts plus hundreds of conference and program
+ uses volunteers to support most of the agency's programs and activities
+ has self- supporting programs ( with the exception of staff and facility), and
+ can fundraise to supplement its appropriation
We believe that any further evaluation of the Commission on the Arizona Environment should consider the
errors contained in this report ( 1) the lack of consideration of the role the 1990 Auditor General's report had
on the agency's decision to focus on conferences and the Auditor General's subsequent critical judgement
of that focus in its 1995 report; ( 2) the unfortunate need to use a faulty barometer - one calibrated to judge
agencies which regulate and enforce - to judge the CAE's worth; and ( 3) the lack of consideration in the
report of the CAE's plans and actions already underway to address problems it had already identified with
solutions similar to those recommended in this 1995 Auditor General's report
Most importantly, we hope that the final evaluation of the Commission on the Arizona Environment will
consider what has been ignored in both the Auditor General's 1990 and 1995 reports - the worth and value
of citizen education, awareness and input into the legislative process. While consideration of these functions
may not demonstrate to the Auditor General a critical need for the agency, we believe, as have our members
and participants in our programs and policy makers for 30 years, that this public involvement is as important,
if not more so, today than it was SO years ago.
With revised legislative language, time to implement its Strategic Plans and legislative support, the CAE will
continue to offer an ongoing look at what issues Arizonans believe to be important about their environment
and to work toward the goal of greater public awareness of the broad spectrum of values, issues, concerns, facts
and opinions that make critical environmental issues so important to the state.
Commission on the Ariwna Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's report Page 11
Addendum A
B. Members shall have demonstrated competence, experience and an interest in the environment of this
state AND SHALL INCLUDE DIFFERING ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS SO THAT MEMBERSHIP ON
A. R. S. 44121. G. The commission shall:
1. iktivdy Develop and provide recommendations TO POLICY MAKERS AND OTHERS AS
APPROPRIATE regarding the social, economic, recreational and ecological aspects of Arizona
2. . . LUU '. .. uf PROMOTE public awareness p wregard ing the PERTINENT
social, economic, recreational and/ OR ecological aspects of the Arizona environment.
6. Select and hire ...
7. Accept gran ts...
8. Submit an annual ...
B. Monies in the fund shall be used for commission surveys, studies, publications, internship programs,
workshops d , workshop equipment, PROGRAMS, PRODUCTS AND ACTIVITIES and in carrying out the
provisions of this article.
Commission on We Arizona Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's @ art Page 12
Addendum B
Page 2, I 1. The Commission provides the following programs and activities:
+ Conferences, Forums and Workshops
+ Executive Summaries of Conference and Conference Proceedings
+ Recommendations
+ Information Sheet
Arizona's Environmental and Resource Conservation Directory
+ Scholarship program
+ Legislative Issues forum
+ Focus Committees
+ Public Outreach Component of Statewide CAE Business Meetings
+ Legislative Briefing ( planned)
Page 5, I 2. We believe that government can exist for reasons other than regulation and enforcement.
Education, public awareness and public input are equally valuable roles for a state agency
and as government moves to empower its citizens, these functions become even more
Page 6, I 2 Due to the difficulty in measuring public education, awareness and input, it was difficult to
measure the Commission's impact on policy decisions in 1990 and will remain so. This
does not make such functions unimportant.
No mention was made in the 1990 Auditor General's report that the Commission's forums
for public discussion of environmental issues was to culminate in recommendations; the
report recommends that conferences be the sole focus of the Commission's activities.
The Commission did engage in other activities during the period from 1990- 1995, albeit
with the same focus of public education, awareness and input. These included a mandated
role on the Interagency Committee on Environmental Education; chairmanship of an
Environmental Education Fair hosted by that committee; state coordinator for the federal
Take Pride in America awards program; and support and fund raising for Arizona's
Comparative Environmental Risk Project.
Page 6, I 3 The Auditor General's recommendation to focus on conferences and the importance of
that entity's role in the state was the reason the Commission limited its recommendations
after 1990.
Commission on the Arizona Environment Response ta 1995 Auditw General's report Page 13
There were difficulties within the agency in disseminating recommendations prior to 1990,
including lobbying restrictions placed on the agency. The 1994 Strategic Plan addressed
those difficulties by forming a committee to focus on recommendations and communicate
with policy makers, and in utilizing stakeholders, instead of Commission members, to
develop and lobby recommendations. Since the Plan's development and approval, the
Commission has begun implementation of the strategies set forth in the document
Unfortunately, it has not had the time or the resources, due to other critical legislative
activities ( budget hearings, legislative language hearings, performance audit, sunset
hearing, etc.) since October 1994 to complete the full developmental cycle.
Page 6, I 4 While developing new language is to be lauded, when appropriate there is something to be
gained by reviewing proposed language to resolve environmental problems. This strategy
provides a starting point for discussion, which may conclude that different language is
more desirable as well as providing concurrence on proposed changes. It also provides an
opportunity to determine if there is support for proposed changes, and it can gain support
for and provide information to those who will be impacted by such changes.
The Commission's focus groups, which were mentioned in the first staff interview with the
Auditor General's office, are to be the main structure for developing recommendations.
These committees are formed to discuss topics identified at the CAE's Legislative Issues
conference or by legislators who wish deliberated recommendations on specific topics.
The CAE's conferences, while providing opportunities for development of
recommendations, have always been primarily educational in nature and, realistically, offer
limited opportunities for development of recommendations on the most contentious
Page 6, I 5 We agree that conferences should not be the sole activity of the agency. However, as stated
previously, this focus was at the direction of the 1990 Auditor General's report And this
conclusion was reached by the Commission as well in discussions beginning as early as
Page 7, I 1 If the Commission was perceived as not moving forward on its recommendations in the
past, this was the result of the directive to the agency not to lobby by legislators who valued
the CAE's neutrality. The agency's 1994 Strategic Plan which provides opportunities for
stakeholders to develop recommendations, includes a Policy Committee to coordinate the
efforts of those stakeholders to lobby those CAE recommendations to legislators.
It is reasonable for legislators to rely on other agencies to provide in- depth information on
the issues they regulate, etc. and on those regulations. However, no other agency can
provide the broader view of constituents' opinions and concerns than the CAE because of
its credibility as a neutral, objective and broad- based citizens' advisory council. In addition,
while our programs have been strong, improved communication with legislators was just
recently addressed in our 1994 Strategic Plan, with the formation of our Policy Committee
and the CAE's planned annual Legislative Briefing.
Commission on the Ariwna Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's report Page 14
Page 7,1 2
Page 7, I 3
Page 7, I 5,6
Page 8, I 2
Page 9, I 1
Page 9, I 4
Page 10, 1 2
Page 10, I 3
Although other entities may provide education, conferences and recommendations,
because their focus and image differs, those activities do not serve the same purpose due
to: limited audience, limited perception of neutrality, limited input and impact by the
public, and limited issues to address. Further, it is the combination of these functions that
constitutes the value the CAE offers to the state.
Other agencies have staff paid to directly communicate with legislators; it is inevitable that
they would have greater visibility. However, again, the service the CAE can offer to
legislators is different, but nevertheless, valuable.
Although other entities may provide education, conferences and recommendations,
because their focus and image differs, those activities do not serve the same purpose due
to: limited audience, limited perception of neutrality, limited input and impact by the
public, and limited issues to address. Further, it is the combination of these functions that
constitutes the value the CAE offers to the state.
Similar programs offered by other states but housed within focused departments are not
the same as CAE's programs. If one is truly seeking citizen input, the programs must be
offered by an independent and neutral entity.
As stated previously, the focus on conferences was the direct result of the Auditor General's
1990 recommendations. The fact that we reviewed and revised this focus in 1993 and have
implemented structural, focus and language changes to expand this limited focus is not
The statement that policy makers will not look to the Commission in the future is surmised
and based on opinion, not fact.
The CAE's Policy Committee and its annual Legislative Issues conference are part of plans
already underway to improve input from policy makers to CAE programs.
Invitations to the CAE's conferences are sent to those on its mailing list and include all
interested individuals who have previously participated in CAE's other programs as well as
those whom stakeholders have identified as having an interest in the specific topic.
Although we included expanded time for discussion to allow consensus building at the
1995 September conference on Federal mandates, not all conferences do or will focus on
developing recommendations. Education and public awareness and participation will
continue to be the primary objective of CAE's conferences. The more contentious issues, as
identified at the Legislative Issues conferences and requested by policy makers, that might
benefit by consensus building will be addressed by focus committees. However, both the
Environmental Equity Conference, April 1994, and the Forest Management Conference,
November 1993, offered extensive opportunities for participants to develop
recommendations through consensus building.
Cornmksh on the Arizona Envimment Response to 1995 Auditor General's report Page 15
Page 10, 3 5 CAE's focus committees, already implemented, are structured to provide
recommendations; Information Sheets to provide background information.
Page 10, I 6 The CAE's Policy Committee and its annual Legislative Briefing will provide better
personal contact with policy makers. The annual Legislative Issues Conference will
continue to provide opportunities for policy makers ( in public and private sector) to offer
suggestions of issues CAE will address. In the past, legislators - including Arizona state
senators and representatives, the governor's office, and legislative analysts - have been
contacted for recommendations on issues. The Forest Management Conference,
November 1993; Hazardous Waste Management Conference, December 1992; and Clean
Air Act Conference, September 1991; are examples of programs that were developed based
on such suggestions.
Many legislators who interacted with the CAE in the past are no longer in public service;
many current legislators are newly elected for the 1995 session. Although the purpose of
the CAE's Policy Committee, established in October 1994 was to interact with legislators,
budget hearings, legislative language hearings, etc. took precedence during the ' 95 session.
When the agency is no longer threatened by extinction, it can begin the " business as usual"
plans as set forth in its Strategic Plan.
Commission on the Ariwna Environment Response to 1995 Auditor General's repart Page 16
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.