Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Decision Making Guidance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission committee refines draft decision‑making guidance; to pilot questions on public‑support topic
Summary
The Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission’s Big Tent committee reviewed edits to a draft decision‑making guidance document — including prompts on geographic scope, roles (involved/consulted/informed), resources and an agreement‑and‑certainty matrix — and directed staff to test the guidance on a forthcoming public‑support project ahead of the June meeting.
The Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission’s Big Tent committee on May 14 reviewed a revised three‑page draft intended to help staff and commissioners scope and make decisions more transparently and consistently. Morgan Carlson, conservation director, said the document is a guide for "thorough and objective critical thinking" rather than a required form and outlined edits suggested by the agency’s Science‑Policy Interface.
Commissioners focused on three core areas: clarifying the problem and its geographic scope; listing essential supporting information (who was involved, what resources and deadlines exist); and using an agreement‑and‑certainty matrix to surface areas of consensus and scientific uncertainty. Carlson showed track‑changes that add prompts about whether a decision is time‑critical, who has been involved (involved/consulted/informed), and how options perform against defined criteria.
The guidance prompted debate over practical use. Commissioner Lorna Smith said she needed to "see it in action" and recommended role‑playing or a test run on a real topic. Commissioner Steve Parker asked who will provide and synthesize the scientific information the commission uses, urging clarity about staff’s role in sorting diverse scientific views so commissioners receive a usable fact‑base. Commissioner Barbara Baker recommended adding explicit prompts about whether the commission or agency has legal authority over a proposed action and suggested partnering where the commission lacks budget or expertise.
Staff said the commission’s existing science integrity policy will govern how outside science is considered and that the draft is intended to help teams recognize complexity — not to prescribe a one‑size‑fits‑all solution. Carlson and SPI staff proposed piloting the guidance on a forthcoming item (the committee identified "building community support" as a candidate) and returning to the committee with test results and recommended next steps.
The committee did not adopt formal policy at the meeting. Instead, members directed staff to refine the draft with SPI input, identify topics of varying complexity for pilot tests, and return options and findings at the commission’s June meeting.
The committee adjourned with staff tasked to bring a clarified, options‑based package to the next meeting.
