164 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 



APPENDIX G 



REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR DEPARTMENT 

 OF FISH AND GAME 



The reorganization plan which was prepared by the Department of Finance and 

 submitted to the Legislature pursuant to Chapter 195, Statutes of 1951 (Senate Con- 

 current Resolution No. 84) is reproduced below. 



This plan formed the basis for the reorganization which the Department of Fish 

 and Game is now undergoing. The regional boundaries as suggested by the proposed 

 plan were followed, as shown on the map accompanying the director's report. The 

 organizational set-up differs only in minor respects from the following proposal, princi- 

 pally in terminology of positions (see chart accompanying director's report). 



March 3, 1952 

 To: Honorable James S. Dean A. N. 475 



Director of Finance 

 Subject: Department of Fish and Game — Organization Study 



This report presents general findings and recommendations relating to the organiza- 

 tion of the new Department of Fish and Game which came into existence September 22, 

 1951, under the Charles Brown Fish and Game Reorganization Act. 



The report is submitted in response to Chapter 195, Statutes of 1951 (Senate Con- 

 current Resolution No. 84), -dated June 1, 1951, and to a request of the Director of 

 Fish and Game, dated October 31, 1951. The Senate resolution directed the Department 

 of Finance to assist the Director of Fish and Game in preparing a plan for the organiza- 

 tion of the new department on a regional basis, to be presented to the Legislature at 

 the 1952 Budget Session. 



General findings and recommendations relating to organization are presented here. 

 More detailed recommendations may be presented later in discussion with the Director 

 of Fish and Game. 



Under the form of organization prevailing in the superseded Division of Fish and 

 Game, the division operated its several programs with insufficient organizational pro- 

 vision for close coordination of game conservation, fish conservation, marine fisheries, 

 and law enforcement at or near the local level. Field personnel assigned to a particular 

 program often were insufficiently informed about other programs in their particular 

 localities. While several bureaus within the division were organized by districts to which 

 varying degrees of administrative authority had been given, the boundaries of these 

 one-program districts did not coincide. Thus there was no one person in a particular 

 area in charge of the operation of all fish and game programs with whom local sports- 

 men and other citizens could deal effectively. 



To correct this condition, Chapter 195 directed that the administration of fish and 

 game by the new department be organized on a regional basis. 



The current report's organization plan calls for decentralizing fish and game opera- 

 tions to not to exceed five regions, each operating a composite fish and game program, 

 and each under administrative control of a regional head. Yet the plan provides for 

 sufficient central control to achieve reasonable uniformity and efficiency throughout 

 the State. In addition, it concentrates administrative responsibility in the director and 

 provides a clear line of authority throughout the department. 



SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 



It is recommended that : 



1. Administrative authority of the Department of Fish and Game be concentrated 

 with the director as the law clearly intends. 



2. Responsibility for general policies and regulations be concentrated with the Fish 

 and Game Commission as the law clearly intends. 



3. Actual line operations of fish and game programs be decentralized to not to exceed 

 five regions to be administratively created. 



4. The headquarters office of the department retain control over administrative poli- 

 cies and exercise general direction over the regional operations to achieve uniform and 

 efficient fish and game programs throughout the State. 



