There is something particularly offensive about charitable foundations established by those who made billions of dollars through their success in the private sector, when they then use that money to fund efforts to make it harder and harder for other people to own or use lands. In essence, they fund efforts to either expand government ownership or restrictions on land, or to create quasi-governmental “land trusts” for the purpose of taking lands and place them out of the realm of private ownership. When you look at a map of the United States, it’s stunning the percentage of raw land in our nation that is government owned, or is partially or totally restricted in its use by… people.
This background is important because it puts into context a power-play by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation to advance their agenda of restricting people-use of lands – or in this case, actually, the ocean. The Packard Foundation has invested countless millions of dollars into promoting the creation of “marine reserves” off the California coastline. The Packard Foundation was a big supporter of the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act (MPLA), which sets the broad framework for placing major restrictions on people-use of massive areas off the California coast. Over the past few years, the Packard Foundation funneled over $18 million to the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation just towards moving the process of creating these offshore marine reserves forward.
Enter into this agenda of a controversial player in the Packard machine – one Michael Sutton (pictured). Sutton currently serves as a member of the California Fish and Game Commission – one of the less impressive appointments of Governor Schwarzenegger. Strongly advocating for appointment by the environmentalist community, Sutton is now using his public position to advocate the goals of his financiers at the Foundation – voting on the details of implementation of the MLPA – working to restrict areas where people can work or play.
**There is more – click the link**
July 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Something’s fishy with this column in that it leaves out major facts about the original legislation and the regulatory process.
For starters, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) has long enjoyed bipartisan support — both inside and legislature and in the communities that depend on oceans for jobs. It’s pretty simple why that is: if fisheries continue to be depleted, then the economies of those areas will wither.
The MLPA does not ban fishing, and it’s certainly not unique to California. Similar strategies along the coastlines of other states (and nations) have resulted in increased fish populations after years of overfishing forced decline.
After the legislature passed the law years ago, stakeholders actively participated in the regulatory process (and still do). The result is a law and regulations with significant “buy-in” from anglers, environmentalists, and others. Sure there are a few crankypants types, but MLPA has received overwhelming support up and down the coast.
You also left out that FPPC staff has issued an advice letter to Mr. Sutton that says there is no conflict of interest.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Steve, unfortunately writing on complex issues via blog doesn’t allow one to write novel-length columns. That said I will tell you that I am very familiar with MLPA and the issues surrounding its passage and implementation. During my tenure on the California Boating and Waterways Commission, I can assure you that we spent quite a bit of time on this issue.
The reality is that the MLPA was controversial when it was adopted, and continues to be unpopular with many people. Don’t confuse “bipartisan support” with people trying to work with bad policy to mitigate it as much as possible.
That having been said, my original point stands, which is that I believe that Sutton is hopelessly conflicted on this issue.
As for the “advice letter” from the FPPC that you mention, I have also had experience with the FPPC and these kinds of letters. They are not connected to any investigation. Simply put, you send a inquiry to the FPPC, give them a set of facts, and based on the facts that you lay out, they give you advice.
In other words, the advice is only as good as the accuracy and completeness of the inquiry. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Sutton why his query to the FPPC failed to mention that he failed to mention his employment with the Aquarium on filed Form 700 disclosure forms?
Frankly, Steve, I would have just as much of an issue if the situation were reversed, and Sutton was getting paid by people who opposed the MPLA and was voting on it.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Actually, the word “investigation” is somewhat bogus and is a new word coined by the latest FPPC Commissioner. It’s a simple review of a complaint filed. I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 95 percent of the FPPC’s “investigations” result in no action. But it sure makes a good sounding press release.
Case in point: your printing of the Journal’s article by Mr. Fund defending Sarah Palin, where he says essentially the same thing about the multiple Freedom of Information Act requests about the Governor of Alaska.
The MLPA hearing process has literally gone on for years with endless hearings and input. The only opponents are small groups of commercial fisherman who don’t want any restrictions. If they were seriously interested in the long-term health of the oceans, they’d realize the overfishing underway will rob future generations of ocean resources.