Gov. Jennifer Granholm (Creative Commons photo by Matt Hampel via Flickr)

Gov. Jennifer Granholm (Creative Commons photo by Matt Hampel via Flickr)

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is facing opposition to her Oct. 8 executive order that restructures government by combining the departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality. The order also removed the power of the Agriculture Commission and the Natural Resources Commission to appoint the directors of their departments.

The move was presented as a way to save money and streamline government but farmers, sportsmen and conservationists say they are worried that it will improperly concentrate power in the governor’s office and could lead to misguided administration of state natural resources and agriculture programs.

The measure will pass into law unless majorities in the Michigan House and Senate pass resolutions against it by Dec. 7.

Last week the Senate passed a resolution of opposition to Granholm’s order. A House version of this resolution, introduced by Bay City Democrat Jeff Mayes has 35 co-sponsors — 15 of them Democrats. So far House leadership has not allowed the resolution to come to a vote.

The chief complaint about the order is that it will allow the governor to directly appoint the head of the combined Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Department of Agriculture.

The departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture now have commissions that guide policy, hold regular public meetings, and appoint department directors. Commissioners are appointed by the governor, but state law requires that appointees represent multiple political parties.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said that the move to have the governor appoint the Deptartment of Agriculture’s chief is intended to make government more efficient.

“Citizens of this state hold the governor accountable for what happens,” Boyd said. “If there is a food safety issue people are not looking to the commission they are holding the governor responsible.”

Giving the governor more direct control over the department merely “aligns reality with perception,” she said, and in any case appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

But farmers have serious problems with Granholm’s plan.

The concern is not so much that partisan politics will guide agricultural policies, Michigan Farm Bureau spokeswoman Tonia Ritter said, but that a governor may appoint a political ally rather than a person with deep knowledge of state agricultural issues.

Although less than 2 percent of the state’s population are farmers, she said, farmers need the agriculture department to be led by someone with a keen understanding of farm issues.

“We want someone in that position that is going to be objective but also a promoter of agriculture, not someone who was appointed for being helpful in a campaign.”

The odds of a good pick are better in the current system where the Department of Agriculture director is chosen by a bipartisan commission which interviews all candidates in forums that are open to the public, Ritter said.

“We intend to continue working until we get a vote in the House,” she said. “Our goals are to keep the commission as the authority over the department and have them appoint the director.”

The Farm Bureau’s concerns are clearly registering with legislators, including Democrats from rural areas.

“The reason that I co-sponsored that resolution is it eliminated the powers of the agriculture commission and put the ag commission in an advisory role,” said Rep. Joel Sheltrown, a Democrat from West Branch whose district includes dairy farms.

In a desolate state economy, agriculture is doing alright, Sheltrown said, so why change something that is working. Plus, the government restructuring was supposed to save money but removing power from the ag commission will not.

Rudyard Democrat Gary McDowell, another co-sponsor of the House resolution, had a similar take.

In a written statement he said:

Agriculture is the state’s second largest industry – generating more than $71.6 billion a year and employing more than a million Michigan residents — it is imperative that we maintain the openness and accountability currently available through the Commission’s oversight and input.

Last week the chairman of the Agriculture Commission, Democrat Jim Byrum, who is also president of the Michigan Agri-business Association, stepped down over differences with the governor on ag policy.

Bryrum said via e-mail: “The Executive order would eliminate transparency, access and public participation in how the Michigan Department of Agriculture sets policy and administers their programs by reducing the Ag Commission to merely an advisory committee, rather than the policy lead for the department.”

Inside Michigan Politics publisher Bill Ballenger, called the executive order a “poorly thought-out decision” and said via e-mail, that “the House has the votes to reject it; only reluctance by the Dems to embarrass the governor prevents it from happening. Word is that she’s likely to issue an AMENDED order that would mollify her many critics.”

Ballenger said that if the Agriculture Commission component of Granholm’s order is not rejected or amended it will hurt the campaigns of Democratic legislators and Lt. Gov. John Cherry, a likely Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner, next year.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican candidate for governor, has seized on the issue.

“This executive order shares the same problems that her governing style has: it is incredibly short-sighted and moves in a haphazard, slapdash manner rather than using measured priorities to guide reform,” Cox wrote on the AG website. “It sends the wrong message to two industries that are persevering despite the Granholm administration’s lack of leadership.”