# Debunking the DWR’s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

As most of you know, the DWR has taken a great deal of criticism over the last several months regarding it handling of the Expo Tag program and its decision to award the next five-year contract to SFW, MDF and UFNAWS. The primary concern has been and continues to be the lack of accountability and transparency for the revenues generated from those public tags. Although concerned sportsmen have been frustrated for some time, the frustration reached as climax when KUTV News ran a story on this issue on February 25, 2016: http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo. This story led to numerous emails and phone calls to politicians, discussions on social media and calls for reform.

Rather than acknowledging the concerns of sportsmen and looking for ways to address those concerns, the DWR has dug in its heels and become even more entrenched. In an effort to cover its own tail, the DWR released a set of 26 Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html#q1. As a concerned sportsman that has been actively involved in this issue for several years, I was disappointed with the DWR's response. Rather than recognizing the legitimate concerns expressed by sportsmen and owning up to the mistakes that have been made, the DWR has prepared a self-serving, one-sided statement that does little to resolve the concerns of sportsmen. Most of the people that I have spoken with see the DWR's response for what it is - a blatant attempt to calm the waters and "CYA."

Rather than spending the next 24 hours preparing a lengthy and detailed response to the DWR's entire FAQ document, I am going to address and debunk one of the DWR's FAQ a day for the next 26 days. Please be patient and bear with me. Some of the DWR's points are accurate but many of them are confusing, misleading or only tell half of the story. The DWR's statement also unfairly portrays the RMEF in a bad light. In my opinion, the RMEF has taken the high road and stayed professional through this entire process. As I address the DWR's FAQ's, I will try to share the history, links, documents and other information. My hope is that this thread will provide an opportunity to respond to the DWR's FAQ's and educate sportsmen as to the other side of the story. These are my personal thoughts and comments, and should not be attributed to the RMEF. I will leave it to David Allen and others to speak on behalf of RMEF.

As we take this journey, feel free to chime in, offer your opinions and ask questions. I want this thread to be a place of dialogue and discussion. Additionally, please continue to call and email your friends, family members and politicians. We need to keep this story alive.

Although there are certain of the FAQ's that I am particularly anxious to address, I will start at the beginning with FAQ #1 and work through them in numerical order. So let's get started.

*FAQ #1 - What is the Wildlife Expo Permit Program?
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) operates the Wildlife Expo Permit Program, which has two primary purposes:
To generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah.
To attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.
As part of this program, the Utah Wildlife Board authorizes up to 200 hunting permits (expo permits) per year that are allocated to hunters through a public drawing held at a wildlife exposition.

RESPONSE:*

I generally agree with the DWR's response to FAQ #1. R657-55-1 specifically states that the Expo Tags we specifically created "for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah." See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T1. These statutory purposes have been the same since the Expo Tags were created in 2005. In fact, if you go back at look at the minutes from the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting where this rule was first adopted, Greg Sheehan explained to the Board that the Expo Tags "are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities." See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 15 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GYzBUYlVvS3RCTXM.

I believe there is no real dispute that the Expo Tags have been used to "attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah." The Western Hunting and Conservation Expo is certainly a regional or national wildlife exposition. Over the last 10 years attendance has increased and the groups have had some success in attracting nonresidents. Thus, the second purpose for Expo Tags is not an issue.

The problem has been the DWR's failure to pay attention to the first and primary purpose of the Expo Tags - "generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah." During the first 10 years the groups raised $9,764,445 in $5 application fees, with a record $1,166,050 raised in 2010. There is no dispute that the groups have generated plenty of revenues from these tags. The question is whether those revenues were actually used to fund "wildlife conservation activities in Utah. The reality is that the groups were not required to spend one red cent of the revenues from the Expo Tags on actual conservation projects from 2007 through 2012. As a result, the $5,436,655 that the groups generated from those tags during this time period remains completely unaccounted for. After concerned sportsmen rose up in 2012, the DWR and the groups modified the rule to allow the groups to retain $3.50 of every $5 application and to earmark $1.50 for approved conservation projects. See R657-55-10. As a result, from 2013 through 2016, the groups generated $4,327,790, and 30% of that money or $1,298,337 has been earmarked for actual conservation and accounted for.

Many sportsmen, including me, are frustrated with the fact that the DWR required no accountability for the first 6 years of the Expo Tag program and only required 30% accountability since 2013. I believe that any private group that deals in public assets should be prepared to account for the monies generated from those assets. This is particularly true when the primary purpose of creating the Expo Tags was to "generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities in Utah." How can the DWR or the public be certain that the monies are being used for that purpose without requiring accountability and transparency? Even more troubling is the fact that the groups and the Wildlife Board appear to have committed to some level of accountability when these tags were created in 2005.

For instance, at the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting, numerous sportsmen expressed concern about how the conservation groups would use the money generated from the Expo Tags. See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 21-24. In response to those concerns, Don Peay, who was representing SFW, stated the following: "*it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground.*" Unfortunately, SFW has not honored that commitment and has refused to disclose to the public what it has done with the monies generated from those tags.

In a further effort to address the concerns of sportsmen regarding the use of the monies generated from the Expo Tags, the Wildlife Board passed a motion specifically directing the DWR that "*in their contract negotiations with the representing organizations that annual audits be accomplished in a similar way that is done for conservation tags*." See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 24. However, neither the DWR nor the groups made any effort to ensure that an annual auditing requirement similar what exists for conservation permits was included in the 5-year contracts. Therefore, the DWR and the groups have ignored that binding directive of the Wildlife Board.

In summary, the DWR has accurately described the two purposes for the Expo Tags as set forth in R657-55-1. However, the DWR has dropped the ball and failed to ensure that the nearly $10 million generated from the Expo Tags was actually used for "wildlife conservation activities." And that is the heart of the frustration that is currently being expressed by sportsmen across the state.

Until tomorrow.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #2 - Who can be awarded expo permits and what does that contract allow them to do?
The group selected to distribute expo permits must be a wildlife conservation organization. That organization is then allowed to award the expo permits at its annual convention through a public drawing. The organization does not receive the rights to use any prior expo organizer's event name, venue dates, exhibitors or scheduled events and activities.

RESPONSE:*

Overall, I agree with most of the DWR's FAQ #2. However, I would like to expand on one minor point in FAQ #2.

Pursuant to R657-55-4, any "conservation organization" may apply of the Expo Tag contract. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T5. R657-55-1 defines "conservation organization" as "a nonprofit chartered institution, corporation, foundation, or association founded for the purpose of promoting wildlife conservation." Therefore, any nonprofit group who was founded for the purpose of wildlife conservation was qualified and had the right to apply for the Expo Tag contract.

Although we are all probably familiar with some of the established local groups here in Utah, there are hundreds of such groups across the country. This highlights one of the problems with the DWR allegedly verbally announcing the decision to move to a formal RFP process at a private meeting in October 2014 with a few of the local conservation groups. If the DWR wanted to change the application process, then the DWR should have incorporated that significant change into the proposed rule amendments that it presented to the RACs in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board in January 2015. Had it done so, and the Wildlife Board had adopted those changes, then the DWR would have published to all qualified conservation groups that it was going to use a formal RFP process.

The DWR should not have been choosing which groups it thought may be interested in the Expo Tag contract. Rather, it should have made any necessary changes through the formal rule making process so that all qualified groups were treated fairly and had an equal opportunity to apply. That, of course, assumes that the DWR wanted to invite competition from other conservation groups.

Overall, I have no major issues with FAQ #2.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #3 - Q3: What are the possible economic benefits of a wildlife expo?
The largest wildlife expo currently held in Utah is the Western Hunting & Conservation Expo, which has been an annual event in downtown Salt Lake City since 2007. This particular expo delivers a multimillion-dollar economic benefit to the State of Utah and its businesses. The 2016 Western Hunting & Conservation Expo had more than 40,000 attendees from all 50 states, 12 countries and five continents.

RESPONSE:*

I am not going to argue with the numbers posted in the DWR's FAQ #3. The groups and the state of Utah have been touting the economic benefit of the Expo since it started in 2007. I will admit that SFW and MDF put on a good show, which attracts sportsmen and results in business for local restaurants and hotels. However, I maintain that other groups could do just as well, or perhaps even better, if they were given 200 premium hunting tags to make available at their event. Those 200 tags are a huge draw.

As you will recall, that was one of the two purposes for creating the Exp Tags. See FAQ #1 above ("supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah."). As a result, an important number to consider is how many nonresidents attend the Expo each year. This number is important because most of the residents who attend the Expo can drive to the Expo, apply for the tags, attend if they choose and drive home in the same day. In contrast, nonresidents who attend the Expo typically book hotel rooms, eat at restaurants, and generate other types of tourism dollars for the states. According to the latest "2015 Audit" performed by the DWR, a total of 14,910 applicants applied for the Expo Tags, of which 16% of those were nonresidents. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-08_board_packet.pdf at 137/187. Based upon those numbers, the Expo likely attracted roughly 2,300 to 2,400 nonresidents who came to Utah and applied for those tags. Perhaps someone affiliated with the groups can provide more detailed numbers.

What types of numbers would RMEF have generated if the state of Utah would have awarded the five-year Expo Tag contract to them? To be honest, I do not know the exact answer to that question because RMEF was not provided the opportunity. But I do know it would have been a massive, world-class event. RMEF committed to bring its National Convention to Utah for the full life of the contract and make the 200 Expo Tags available at that event. RMEF recently experienced record attendance at their Hunter & Outdoor Christmas Exposition in Las Vegas with nearly 87,000 people attending. See http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RecordAttendanceatRMEFsHOC.aspx. I also know that the RMEF National Convention would also likely attract a larger number of nonresidents. Just consider the fact that RMEF has nearly 220,000 members across the United States and around world. See http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFRecordsAllTimeMembershipHigh.aspx. RMEF would have tapped into that massive membership to attract nonresidents to its National Convention in SLC. I do not how many members SFW and MDF have but I know it is significantly less. Perhaps somebody can post those numbers when they have a chance. RMEF also committed to a significant multi-platform marketing strategy to publicize the Expo and the 200 tags. See RMEF Proposal dated 11/24/2015 -- https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.

My point is sharing these numbers is to highlight the fact that although SFW and MDF have put on a good show for the last 10 years, RMEF could have done the same thing and likely would have grown the event due their increased size and reach. Additionally, all of us should recognize that the 200 premium tags provided to the host of the Expo are a massive draw to help bring people to the show. Finally, while we may not know exactly how massive the RMEF National Convention would have been in SLC, Utah coupled with the 200 Expo Tags, we do know one thing for certain - *100% of all application fees would have been used for actual conservation projects.* The DWR cannot argue with that fact.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

First and foremost, thank you to Hawkeye for taking the time to draft and post these responses. They are "compelling and rich." Second, I want to expound somewhat on FAQ #3.

In its answer to FAQ #3, the DWR claims that the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo (the "Expo") (1) drew 40,000 attendees and (2) "delivers a multimillion-dollar economic benefit to the State of Utah and its businesses." This is an interesting and confusing claim. Although millions of dollars flow through the Expo via the auction and the raffle, does attendance at the Expo create a "multimillion-dollar economic benefit" in Utah? Certainly, the 40,000 Expo attendees collectively spent millions in Expo related activities, e.g. travel, lodging, food, etc. Nevertheless, is the millions spent by all Expo attendees commensurate with the "multimillion-dollar economic benefit to the State of Utah" claimed by the DWR?

Although Expo attendees generate significant economic activity, I believe that most of this activity is not a net benefit of the State of Utah. Instead, I believe that most of the economic activity created by the Expo attendees is simply shifting money from various parts of Utah to other parts of Utah, e.g. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Furthermore, in terms of overall net economic benefit to the state, it is the number of non-residents Expo attendees, not the overall number of attendees, that matters most.

The DWR's claim about the economic impact of the Expo is a claim commonly made by sports franchise owners whenever they are seeking public funds to build a new facility. In the case of a sports franchise, the owner will claim that the state, county, or city should help pay for the proposed facility because the new facility will create millions of dollars of economic activity for the state, county, or city. The problem with this claim is that study after study has shown that it is not true. Instead of creating new economic activity, the new sports facility simply shifts economic activity from one area of the state, county, or city to another area of the state, county, or city. Therefore, the net increase in economic activity created by the sports facility is typically insignificant or nonexistent.

The reasons why a new sports facility does not generate new economic activity, but instead simply shifts economic activity, are two-fold. First, sports facilities serve a limited geographic area. Although some non-residents may attend games at the facility, the vast majority of the attendees are residents of the geographic area surrounding the facility. Two, in general, people have limited discretionary income. Because people have a limited discretionary income they must choose how that income will be spent, i.e. they must choose "Option A" or "Option B," but cannot choose Option A and Option B. Even those with a high amount of discretionary income must choose between various options based on (1) money and (2) time/availability. Consequently, when a new sports facility is built it does not bring new money to the area. Instead, it simply shifts economic activity from the previous facility or other businesses in the area, i.e. restaurants, theaters, shops, etc., or both, to the new sports facility.

The same phenomenon occurs with the Expo. As hawkeye pointed out, in 2015 only 16% of the raffle tag applicants were non-residents. Furthermore, it is likely that non-residents account for a much smaller percentage of Expo attendees (I would guess less than 10%), which means the vast majority of Expo attendees are residents of Utah. Consequently, the majority of money spent on Expo related activities does not add to Utah's economy. Instead, the Expo shifts millions of dollars from various businesses throughout Utah to businesses in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County.

To illustrate my point, let us compare the annual "Expo" to the semi-annual "Outdoor Retailer" show. As stated previously, the DWR claims that the Expo drew 40,000 attendees in 2016. This is similar to the attendance figures for Outdoor Retailer. http://www.sltrib.com/home/2789841-155/as-record-breaking-outdoor-retailer-show-opens. It is estimated that the combined attendance of the summer and winter Outdoor Retailer shows is approximately 45,000. Id. Although the attendance figures for the Expo and Outdoor Retailer are similar, the financial impacts of the expositions are vastly different. The Expo brings an estimated $10 million to the "local economy," while Outdoor Retailer brings $45 million to the _state. _https://muledeer.org/western-hunting-conservation-expo-breaks-attendance-and-fundraising-records-2/ and http://kutv.com/news/local/22k-expected-at-outdoor-retail-expo-in-salt-lake-city.

The disparate economic impacts of the Expo and Outdoor Retailer is simple to explain. While the Expo draws 40,000 attendees who mostly live in Utah, Outdoor Retailer pulls 45,000 attendees who primarily live out-of-state (Outdoor Retailer is closed to the public and is exclusively for retailers of outdoor equipment). Therefore, while the average Expo attendee spends $100 or less for food, fuel, and tickets to the expo, the average Outdoor Retailer attendee is spending $1000 or more for hotel, food and beverage, entertainment, rental car, etc. In addition, the $100 spent by the Expo attendee would have been spent elsewhere in Utah if it was not spent at the Expo, whereas the $1000 or more spent in Utah by the Outdoor Retailer attendee would not have been spent in Utah except for the Outdoor Retailer show.

Hawkeye asked an interesting question, "What types of numbers would RMEF have generated if the state of Utah would have awarded the five-year Expo Tag contract to them?" Although we will never be able to answer this question accurately, I think we can answer two related questions: (1) Would RMEF affect the number of Utahns attending the Expo and (2) Would RMEF affect the number of non-residents attending the Expo? (I understand that if RMEF were hosting the event it would be the RMEF national convention and not the Expo, but I am using the term "Expo" for simplicity.)

Would RMEF affect the number of Utahns attending the Expo? Probably? What the effect would be is impossible to know, but certainly if RMEF were hosting the Expo there would be some change in the number of Utahns attending the Expo. Yet, again, in terms of economic benefit to Utah, I believe any change would have little, if any, net economic benefit for Utah.

Would RMEF affect the number of non-residents attending the Expo? Almost certainly. As Hawkeye stated, RMEF boasts a membership of nearly 220,000. http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFRecordsAllTimeMembershipHigh.aspx. Furthermore, I believe this figure is ten times higher than the combined membership of the current Expo sponsors (This conclusion may be incorrect because I could not confirm the Mule Deer Foundation's membership figures). http://sfw.net/about/. Given RMEF's vast membership, if RMEF hosted the Expo it is almost certain that additional non-residents would attend the Expo. Moreover, even if the increased number of non-residents was small, e.g. two percent (2%) of RMEF total membership (excluding members in Utah) or 4280 additional non-resident attendees, the net economic benefit to Utah would be over $4,000,000 (assumming each attendee spends $1000 during the Expo). Even less than 1% of RMEF members attending the Expo would geneate more than $2,000,000 for Utah's economy.

In conclusion, I think the DWR is overstating the value of most Expo attendees to Utah's economy. Furthermore, the economic value the Expo provides to Utah can only be increased significantly by increasing the number of non-residents who attend the expo.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RMEF had almost 87,000 attendees at their national convention in December in Las Vegas. That is more than double what the hunt expo brought in this year in their "record" attendance. 

Does anyone think that RMEF would bring in significantly less people if the location shifted from Vegas to SLC, with no other change? I argue that it would not. Throw the lure of 200 raffled tags into the mix, and is there any legitimate claim they wouldn't push 100k?

And I'd suggest a much higher number of out of state attendees as well.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Vanilla, yes, and not only is it a much larger crowd, it is a more diverse and vested crowd as well. If you talk to the retailers and manufacturers that attend these things, they can tell you which ones make them money, draw in customers(with money) and which ones don't. Given a choice, retailers and manufactures would choose RMEF over SFW any day of the week. It is _this_ clientele that brings an economic impact to the local economy.

People beg to get into RMEF and WSF shows, and wait for years to get a spot. The Expo has to actively court the big names to get them here. I'm in the industry, while I'm not "big", I talk with many of those that are. There is no comparison.

At the RMEF convention smaller retailers and manufactures show up and hold meetings, demonstrations, and gatherings at nearby hotels and other venues for their clientele, because they will never make it on the floor. They have people coming from all over the world, not just other states. You see this at Shot Show and the Outdoor Retailer show as well. You do NOT see this with the Expo

I have people from 20 US States, China, Japan, and Europe visit me when the Outdoor retailer show is in town. I've never even had a phone call from someone that was here for the Expo. And we get inquiries from all over the world wanting to know whether we will be at the RMEF convention, Outdoor Retailer, Shot Show, WSF convention, etc. because they want to come see us. NEVER had an inquiry about if we were going to be at or near the Expo for the same reasons.

That almost 1 mil in Canadian hunts, how many of those does RMEF have to hand out to get big names at their shows??????


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #4 - Q4: Which conservation groups have held the expo permit contract?
Since the Wildlife Expo Permit Program began in 2007, three separate expo permit contracts have been awarded. The first contract went to the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep in 2007, and the second one went to the Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) in 2011. The most recent expo permit contract - which will run from 2017-2021 - was awarded to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) in December 2015. SFW will partner with MDF and the Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (UFNAWS) during this contract period.

RESPONSE:*

The statements in FAQ #4 are generally accurate but they make it appear as if the DWR has been awarding the five year Expo Tag contracts to different conservation groups. But the reality is that SFW and MDF have controlled those contracts and the Expos since the Expo Tags were created.

The first Expo Tag contract (2007-2011) was technically awarded to the FNAWS, who partnered with SFW and MDF to host the early Expos. After three years, however, FNAWS elected to no longer be a part of the Expo and withdrew from the contract. By the way, does anybody know why FNAWS pulled out? Pursuant to the rule, that initial contract was then transferred to SFW and MDF, who were partners with FNAWS. See R657-55-11 ("If the conservation organization awarded the wildlife expo permit series withdraws before the end of the 5 year period or any extension period under R657-55-4(1)(b), any remaining co-participant with the conservation organization may be given an opportunity to assume the contract and to distribute the expo permit series consistent with the contract and this rule for the remaining years in the applicable period.") See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. Therefore, SFW and MDF were involved in the Expo for the full 5 years of the initial contract (2007-2011).

The second Expo Tag contract (2012-2016) was technically awarded to MDF. See 2010 Contract Between the DWR and MDF -- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwhBsR2dj01GUWx3dkgxM0dBTzQ/view?usp=sharing. It is significant to note that the DWR utilized the process outlined in R657-55-4 to award the first two Expo Tag contracts. At that point in time, it did not believe that some other state statute required it to utilize the formal RFP process. Although the DWR generally contracts with a single entity, the application submitted by MDF (Exhibit 2 to the Contract) makes it clear that MDF was going to partner with SFW to host the Expos during the five-year term. Moreover, if you review the application submitted by MDF and SFW for the contract (Exhibit 2 to the Contract), you will also notice that the parties submitted a simple 3-page application which contained very little information. SFW and MDF hosted the Expo for the full 5 years under this second contract (2012-2016).

The third Expo Tag contract (2017-2021) was just recently awarded to SFW. See 2016 Contract Between the DWR and SFW -- http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. In addition to MDF, SFW also listed UFNAWS as a partner for the Expo. Does anybody know what the relationship is between UFNAWS and SFW? If you look at SFW's proposal for the most recent contract, you will notice that they included the same address for both SFW and UFNAWS. See RFP Proposal at 23-24 - http://sfw.net/data/SFW-200-Expo-Tags-RFP-web.pdf. It is also important to note that the DWR, at the request of the groups, recently amended the Expo Tag rule allow an additional five-year extension of this contract. See R657-55-4(1)(b). Therefore, SFW and MDF will likely be involved in the Expo for the next ten years (2017-2026).

In summary, while the DWR's response to FAQ #4 is technically correct, it gives the false illusion that the five-year Expo Tag contracts have been awarded to conservation groups, and groups other than SFW and MDF have been awarded the Expo Tags. This simply is not true. The reality is that SFW and MDF have been involved with every Expo since 2007 and now have the right to continue to do so for likely the next decade. While it is true that FNAWS was involved from 2007 to 2009 and now will be partnering with SFW and MDF under the new contract, this does not change the fact that these two groups have controlled the contract and the Expo Tags since the beginning.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Don Peay was one of the founders of UFNAWS and they've always worked closely with SFW. To me it's the same organization even though they are technically different groups. 

I doubt anybody really asked who has hosted the expo in the past, they just put that in there to make them seem less biased. Not buying it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

El Matador said:


> Don Peay was one of the founders of UFNAWS and they've always worked closely with SFW. To me it's the same organization even though they are technically different groups.
> 
> I doubt anybody really asked who has hosted the expo in the past, they just put that in there to make them seem less biased. Not buying it.


Yep, just like the money as well, from one pocket into the other. Look into those hunts, and then chase the disclosures for conflict. It is very thinly veiled.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #5 - Q5: Where does the money from the application fees go?
Hunters are charged a $5.00 per-permit application fee when they apply in the expo permit drawing. The DWR must approve in advance how 30 percent of these funds are spent. Expo organizers must spend the remaining 70 percent on policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah. All of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah.

RESPONSE:*

The question raised in the DWR's FAQ #5 is exactly what sportsmen have been asking for nearly 10 years. Unfortunately, the answer provided by the DWR is confusing and misleading.

First, the DWR is correct that "hunters are charged a $5.00 per-permit application fee when they apply in the expo permit drawing." As explained above, from 2007 through 2016, the groups $9,764,445 in $5 application fees, with $1,166,050 raised in 2016. There is no dispute that the groups have generated plenty of revenues from these tags. The question is whether those revenues were actually used to fund "wildlife conservation activities in Utah" as was originally pitched to sportsmen. See R67-55-1 - See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T1. The DWR did not require the groups to spend one red cent of the revenues from the Expo Tags on actual conservation projects from 2007 through 2012. As a result, the $5,436,655 that the groups generated from those tags during this time period remains completely unaccounted for. After concerned sportsmen rose up in 2012, the DWR and the groups modified the rule to allow the groups to retain $3.50 of every $5 application and to earmark $1.50 for approved conservation projects. See R657-55-10. As a result, from 2013 through 2016, the groups generated $4,327,790, and 30% of that money or $1,298,337 has been earmarked for actual conservation and accounted for.

Second, the DWR states that "the DWR must approve in advance how 30 percent of these funds are spent." R657-55-10(3) states that this 30% must be spent on actual conservation projects and that "project funding will not be committed to or expended on any project without first obtaining the division director's written approval." Under the contract recently signed by the DWR and SFW, the conservation groups must also prepare detailed annual reports accounting for these monies. See 2016 Contract, Section 7.e.4 - http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. This is the level of accountability and transparency that should be required of private groups generating revenues off of our public tags. However, it begs the question why is this transparency limited to only 30% of the Expo Tag revenues? Why doesn't the DWR require the same love of accountability and transparency for the remaining 70% of the revenues?

Third the DWR states that "Expo organizers must spend the remaining 70 percent on policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah." This statement is referring to specific contract language that was recently added to the latest contract between the DWR and SFW in response to pressure from sportsmen and the media. Pursuant to Section 7.c of the contract, SFW and its partners retain $3.50 from every $5 application and that money must be used for "*policies, programs, projects and personnel that support wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah.*" The highlighted language referencing "wildlife conservation initiatives" is new language that was not included in prior contracts between the DWR and the groups. But what does that language actually mean? Can the SFW/MDF pay salaries to SFW/MDF "personnel" with that 70%? Can they lobby with that 70% in an effort to affect "policies"? Did the parties simply draft a provision that authorizes them to do what they were already doing? Can anybody tell me what a "wildlife conservation initiative" is? Why didn't the parties define that term in the contract? As a lawyer, I always define critical contract terms unless I am purposefully trying to leave the term ambiguous so that my client can take advantage of the ambiguous language. I am guessing that is what happened here. I have asked for some clarification from some of my contacts but I have not heard back yet. Do any of you know what that term means? On the surface, this statement sounds great but it has no real meaning. In theory, the groups could spend the 70% of the Expo tag revenues on nearly anything and argue that it somehow supports "wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah." I am guessing that this language was added to the contract as window dressing so the groups and the DWR can point to it and say that 100% of the revenues are spent on wildlife conservation. Hopefully, folks dig a little deeper into the issue.

Finally, the DWR states that "all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah." This statement seems like a real stretch. Given the extremely broad and ambiguous language that governs the spending of 70% of the Expo Tag revenues, how can the DWR make this statement? I think that we should all email the DWR and ask them: (1) please define for us what constitutes a "wildlife conservation initiative" under Section 7.c of the contract; and (2) why didn't the DWR actually define that term in the contract so that it was clear to the parties and the public. Now some people might say perhaps the DWR wanted to provide the groups some flexibility during the year with how to spend the 70% but they intend to audit those expenditures at the end of the year? Wrong. A simple reading of the contract reveals that there is no audit provision in the agreement. Pursuant to 7.e, SFW and its partners must submit a report to the Wildlife Board and the DWR by September 1st detailing among other things a description of each project funded with Expo Tag revenues. *However, the annual reporting requirement in Section 7.e only applies to projects funded with the 30% of the Expo Tag revenues (which expenditures already require DWR approval). There is no audit or reporting requirement in the contract or the rule that applies to the 70% retained by the groups.*

In summary, given the lack of accountability and transparency and the lack of any clear requirements as to how the groups can spend 70% of the Expo Tag revenues, it is unclear to me how the DWR can make a definitive statement that "all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah." Even if you think the new requirement that the groups spend that money on "wildlife conservation initiatives," which is completely undefined, somehow solves the problem, the DWR's blanket statement is still misleading in that ignores the fact over the last 10 years, millions of dollars have gone unaccounted for. Thus, the statement that "all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah," fails to recognize the lackluster history of accountability and transparency with respect to the Expo Tag revenues and the loosey-goosey "fix" that has recently been put in place.

What do you guys think about the new contract language?

-Hawkeye-


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

hawkeye said:


> But what does that language actually mean? Can the SFW/MDF pay salaries to SFW/MDF "personnel" with that 70%? Can they lobby with that 70% in an effort to affect "policies"? Did the parties simply draft a provision that authorizes them to do what they were already doing? Can anybody tell me what a "wildlife conservation initiative" is?
> 
> What do you guys think about the new contract language?
> 
> -Hawkeye-


As I read it, a "wildlife conservation initiative" is lobbying the legislature *against* stream access. It is writing a couple letters to national Senators about the problem Du Jour, like Mexican wolves, sage grouse, PETA, or other "grave" threats, and pocketing a healthy commission. Maybe if we are lucky, the upland game hunters will get an extra stocked pheasant or two.

I think you are nailing it in your analysis of the language and keep up the good work. Thank you for preparing this thread.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Given the fact that the fox is guarding the hen house, it does not matter what the language says, at least under the current captain and crew. But it is very important that we understand why this situation is the way it is. 

This is a closed loop system, with faulty internal feedback under the guise of independent oversight, from the governors office, to the group that approves the expo contract, to the SDFWR/wildlife board, and back. 

This plays out through every facet of DWR operations. And because of the faulty internal feedback loop, they reflexively double down on every bad decision. The results of which are always more money, more money, more money, less wildlife, less tags, less hunters, less wildlife, less tags, less hunters. If this were a legitimate profitable private entity, with proper feedback channels, and independent audits, this cycle would extinguish itself, because there would be NO ROI. But instead, the faulty feedback, like the over proliferation of cancer cells, continues to grow out of control, killing the very being that it is living off of. 

Beyond accountability and transparency which are sorely lacking, we need massive ROI analysis. When you spend this kind of money, there is an expectation that something is being accomplished, that you are going somewhere and making progress. In any other venture, if the expense of maintaining homeostasis or the status quo continued to climb exponentially, normal feedback would dictate a cessation of such waste, and a move toward sustainability and forward progress. But again, we have a broken feedback system here that feeds back onto itself. So we spend more and more, while we get less and less in return.

If the DWR's job is to manage wildlife, and SFW's stated goal is to further wildlife and hunters, and all the while these two have worked together to exponentially increase the funding stream for these goals over the last 20 years, then why has the ROI been negative across this time frame? 

It is the 'Conservation Expo" yet the term conservation is vague and haphazardly tossed about, with no regard to any expectations of goals, requirements, and return, relating to said "conservation". It is entirely discretionary, and is another negative stream feeding back on to itself, driving the current deficit in wildlife and hunters, while continuing to over leverage what limited resources are left, with a trajectory set for depletion, and the zeal of a vulture capitalist poised to smash and grab. 

There is no language to support a future of growth, or sustainability, but rather a model and plan to continue to embezzle all the way to bankruptcy, with golden parachutes deployed. This ship was pirated a long time ago, and it's treasure long ago plundered. There is diminishing capacity to further privateer anymore, without complete abandonment, and pirating of a new vessel, which is why these pirates are hunkered the way they are on OUR ship. It is through the internal Parlay of pirates attempting to avoid mutiny, and inevitable cannibalism, that we get contracts like this, that force hunters to walk the plank of their own ship.

Which is why it is very important that hunters understand these privateering articles. So a big thanks to Hawkeye for walking us through this.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Thanks lonetree. Only 21 more posts/FAQ's to go. I hope that you guys will free to chime in with comments and questions as we move forward. My goal is to use this thread to help educate folks at to what is going on and what the DWR is saying to justify the past.

Hawkeye


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

*Debunking the DWR's Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Cons...*

Maybe your pressure is getting at some of these groups. Not SFW but MDF is looking for a new controller. http://www.ksl.com/jobs/listing/653283?ad_cid=1

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

hawkeye said:


> Finally, the DWR states that ?all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah.?
> 
> In summary, given the lack of accountability and transparency and the lack of any clear requirements as to how the groups can spend 70% of the Expo Tag revenues, it is unclear to me how the DWR can make a definitive statement that ?all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah.? Even if you think the new requirement that the groups spend that money on ?wildlife conservation initiatives,? which is completely undefined, somehow solves the problem, the DWR?s blanket statement is still misleading in that ignores the fact over the last 10 years, millions of dollars have gone unaccounted for. Thus, the statement that ?all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah,? fails to recognize the lackluster history of accountability and transparency with respect to the Expo Tag revenues and the loosey-goosey ?fix? that has recently been put in place.
> 
> ...


Hawkeye-
Don't know where you find the time to do this, but I for one appreciate it and hope to be able to use this information in my dealing with others.

I've got to admit - I had to chuckle when I read that "all the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah". First off, definitives such as "all" should never be used period. As a consultant, we could get skewered in our reporting by using such terms. What is DWR thinking here.

Secondly, how do they know that "all" application fee revenues? There is no accounting for the 70% of the fees that SFW and MDF retain! When I ask officials how they know where those 70% of tags fees go, all I get is...crickets. My guess is that DWR and SFW/MDF think that if they stonewall and delay long enough, this will all go away. I hope that we don't allow this to happen as a hunting community until real answers and accounting are provided.

It was posted by Muscle Whitefish in a separate thread that SFW spent upwards of ~900K on 11 hunts to Canada in 2013. How that directly benefits wildlife here in Utah, I have a hard time seeing. How do we know that expo fees weren't used for those hunts????

Exasperating!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MWScott72 said:


> Hawkeye-
> Don't know where you find the time to do this, but I for one appreciate it and hope to be able to use this information in my dealing with others.
> 
> I've got to admit - I had to chuckle when I read that "all the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah". First off, definitives such as "all" should never be used period. As a consultant, we could get skewered in our reporting by using such terms. What is DWR thinking here.
> ...


Through this whole scenario, dating back to the August 16, 2012 Wildlife Board meeting where UWC first proposed they put 90% back into wildlife, the DWR and the Expo Partners have had a difficult time explaining where the $5 application fees were going. At first, they insisted that it cost them as much or more to conduct the draw than it did for the Fallon NV company to do it. (That's where the $3.50 figure came from.) Then it was that most of it was needed for the "administration" and "coordination" expenses of the Expo itself. Then it was needed to help keep the organizations solvent. And now we're told it's used for "initiatives" that benefit wildlife conservation. Have the purposes changed or just the excuses?


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Through this whole scenario, dating back to the August 16, 2012 Wildlife Board meeting where UWC first proposed they put 90% back into wildlife, the DWR and the Expo Partners have had a difficult time explaining where the $5 application fees were going. At first, they insisted that it cost them as much or more to conduct the draw than it did for the Fallon NV company to do it. (That's where the $3.50 figure came from.) Then it was that most of it was needed for the "administration" and "coordination" expenses of the Expo itself. Then it was needed to help keep the organizations solvent. And now we're told it's used for "initiatives" that benefit wildlife conservation. Have the purposes changed or just the excuses?


Does anyone know who conducts the draw for sfw.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

SFW and MDF use a small software company named GraySky Technologies, LLC to conduct the draw: http://grayskytech.com/


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #6 - Q6: Where does the money from the permit fees go?
When an applicant is selected to receive an expo permit, he or she must pay the regular permit fee that all other hunters in Utah must pay. Expo organizers have never received any of the permit fees charged for the 200 expo permits. One-hundred percent of those funds have always gone directly to the DWR.
RESPONSE:*

I have no issues with the DWR's FAQ #6. If you apply for the Expo Tags and your name is drawn in the Expo Tag drawing, you still have to purchase the actual permit from the DWR. For instance, when I drew a LE deer tag at the Expo in 2008, I received written notification in the mail but I then had to go the DWR and purchase the actual permit, which today costs $168 for a resident. Successful applicants must pay the regular permit fee and those fees go to the DWR.

FAQ #6 is pretty straight forward but there are more interesting topics on the horizon. 20 more to go!

-Hawkeye-


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

El Matador said:


> Don Peay was one of the founders of UFNAWS and they've always worked closely with SFW. To me it's the same organization even though they are technically different groups.
> 
> I doubt anybody really asked who has hosted the expo in the past, they just put that in there to make them seem less biased. Not buying it.


 Actually, they are legally one group and have been from the beginning! And beginning with the first text, that fact is proudly used throughout their proposal as a prime reason for their entitlement to the contract. Western Hunting and Conservation Expo Partners is the company that actually signs the contract with only the contact person's name and signature changing. This time it is Jon Larson and last time it must have been Miles Morretti. In fact, one of the reasons they also diss the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation throughout the proposal is because they pulled out of the WHCE Partners early on. They pride themselves as one entity when it suits their agenda, but separate themselves when it doesn't.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Lee-

I see things a little differently. The Expo Tag contract is awarded by the DWR to a specific conservation group, which then has the right to partner with outher groups. The prior contract was awarded to MDF, and MDF is the party that signed the contract. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GUWx3dkgxM0dBTzQ However, we all know that MDF partnered with SFW to host Expo during that 5-year term, and MDF's proposal made it clear that would be the case. The current contract was awarded to SFW, and SFW is the party that signed the contract. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf However, we all know that SFW will partner with MDF and UFNAWS to host the next 5 Expos and their proposal stated that would be the case.

While the groups are separate entities, they obviously have a very close ties. SFW and MDF have partnered on the last 10 Expos. FNAWS was a partner with SFW and MDF on the initial 3 Expos and will be partnering with them from 2017-2021. SFW and FNAWS apparently share the same mailing address and Don Peay founded both groups. Interesting facts.

Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Don't forget those Canadian hunts: http://businessprofiles.com/details/arctic-red-river-outfitters-ltd/CA-6734502/don-peay

Edit because of questions: The last link is finicky, it is Byron Bateman, and Don Peay's relationship with Arctic Red River(they are/were principals): http://www.arcticred-nwt.com/ It is an amazing part of the world by the way. It is unfortunately on my radar for reasons besides this.

And World Trophy Outfitters: http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/company?companyId=309117126&targetid=profile Don Peay interest.

And besides SFW and FNAWS, there is Sportsmen for Habitat, Biggame forever, and the Full Curl Society.

In short, you have money flowing between all of these entities, which are all inter connected. Business and making money are fine, I use my business and that of friends and family to support my conservation endeavors as well. In my case those businesses donate money and goods towards research, and things like gear giveaways, where we draw names for people that send in photos related to wildlife research.

In the cases we are looking at here, we have World Trophy Outfitters, that purchases sheep tags from Arctic Red River. We then see large amounts of SFW money being directed towards Arctic Red River as well. I am all for, for profit enterprises sending money to non profit organizations to support wildlife conservation and hunting. We see allot of really good examples of this, Like here: http://utahstreamaccess.org/utah-stream-access-coalition-sponsors/ While on that very issue, we see money, lobbying, and speech from non profits flowing in a very different direction on this issue, as well as others: "This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy,"--Don Peay

And lets not forget that according to these people the NAMWC is "socialism" and that public hunters of public wildlife are just socialists, birth rights apparently mean nothing to some: http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2012/03/group-founder-declares-north-american-hunting-model-%E2%80%9Csocialism%E2%80%9D

Money is good, business is good, charity is good, but how you go about these things matters, and it influences the results of those endeavors. I have a real problem with what is nothing but for profit endeavors masquerading as conservation, when they can't produce any results pertaining to this supposed conservation. We know they are profitable endeavors, but what we don't see is all the good that is supposedly being reaped by hunters, as a result of the leveraging of our publicly held wildlife and hunting. All we have seen is reduced wildlife and tags. These 200 tags were not a result, nor are they a driver of good conservation work. They are quite the opposite in fact, as no net gain in the way of wildlife, tags, and hunting has been made during the tenure of these programs, which are very key indicators and goals of good conservation work. As proof of concept here, we have less hunters, less tags, and less wildlife than when this was all started.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> *FAQ #6 - Q6: Where does the money from the permit fees go?
> When an applicant is selected to receive an expo permit, he or she must pay the regular permit fee that all other hunters in Utah must pay. Expo organizers have never received any of the permit fees charged for the 200 expo permits. One-hundred percent of those funds have always gone directly to the DWR.
> RESPONSE:*
> 
> ...


If DWR is receiving 100% of the tag fees as paid by the voucher holder at resident prices, then how do you say that the public is being cheated? The permit is paid for in whole to the DWR and state... If I obtain a special used permit from the state or federal government to harvest Christmas trees, rock, oil, gas, minerals etc., with the intent to make a profit, then how would the two hundred wildlife lottery vouchers be any different? Could we not make the same argument about land owner vouchers or Cooperative wildlife management units? Which of these consumers are violating the public trust and under what reasoning? Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> If DWR is receiving 100% of the tag fees as paid by the voucher holder at resident prices, then how do you say that the public is being cheated? The permit is paid for in whole to the DWR and state... If I obtain a special used permit from the state or federal government to harvest Christmas trees, rock, oil, gas, minerals etc., with the intent to make a profit, then how would the two hundred wildlife lottery vouchers be any different? Could we not make the same argument about land owner vouchers or Cooperative wildlife management units? Which of these consumers are violating the public trust and under what reasoning? Big


No one is saying that consumers are violating public trust. Your examples of Christmas trees, rock, oil, gas, and minerals just simply don't hold up. We as the public know that 100% of the money being paid to the fed and the state on those is going back into the federal and state coffers, there is no private interest that is brokering those resources. In the case of gas and oil there is an open bidding process, and again no private broker profiting from the additional leverage of an outside lottery. I have not seen to many non profits pop up with lotteries for limited Christmas trees and rocks.

Again we are not talking about consumers. Consumers would be those of us that get an Expo tag, or purchase or draw a CWMU tag. CWMUs aside, though you have point there to an extent, we are talking about private interests leveraging public resources. And as that is the case, like with other public resources their needs to be transparency, accountability, and their needs to be maximum benefit for the holders of these resources, which in this case is us, hunters. Or in the case of oil and gas on SITLA lands, it is the education and future of our children.

So here in lies the problem. You have an open bid process for the purpose of getting the most out of the leveraging of the public resource that is being leveraged. In this case we have several con orgs here in Utah with abysmal records on return when it comes to conservation, wildlife, and hunters that have what is in all practical terms a monopoly on this process. On the other side you have a national conservation organization that has an extensive track record. This organization put forth what is apparent to most, a far better offer when it comes to leveraging our public resources. They have offered to keep less(none in fact) and help leverage our resources better than the current operators. This is in the best interest of conservation(the intent of these tags) and the wildlife and hunters that will benefit from the implementation of said conservation.

If it were like trees and rocks, then why do we even have the Expo?

This really has little to do with a few of the details that some will make this about. This has far more to do with what is best for conservation, wildlife and hunters. So WRT the Expo and the process for awarding Expo tags, the problem is really simple. We have a defacto monopoly, implemented via a system of long held fiefdoms, that has prevented the people of Utah from benefiting to the fullest from it's publicly held wildlife. The same people that hold that monopoly also have a net record of complete failure when it comes to conservation, wildlife and hunters, as evidence by a serious lacking of those things over their tenure.

And again, we have a national organization with a proven track record on many fronts including the operation of conventions, that has put forth a far better offer, but has been shut out due to political malfeasance. That is the problem here, the process, the transparency, the accountability, and the results of those or lack there of.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*What constitutes a conservation orginization*

Lonetree,

As you know I respect your position. My questions are under the public trust doctrine how can we make the claim that the wildlife is under the stewardship of hunters, when we have no such laws instituted that gives hunters rights to wildlife. The closest that we come is proposition 8, lead by SFW that requires 2/3 support to make changes to wildlife laws. What keeps SUWA, Sierra Club, Humane society of Utah or any other non profit organization from applying or possibly obtaining a contract for these expo vouchers and potentially not acting on these vouchers or having a non game wildlife expo? It maybe that the World Wide Wildlife Fund could potentially raise far more funds for wildlife and may change the narrative...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> Lonetree,
> 
> As you know I respect your position. My questions are under the public trust doctrine how can we make the claim that the wildlife is under the stewardship of hunters, when we have no such laws instituted that gives hunters rights to wildlife. The closest that we come is proposition 8, lead by SFW that requires 2/3 support to make changes to wildlife laws. What keeps SUWA, Sierra Club, Humane society of Utah or any other non profit organization from applying or possibly obtaining a contract for these expo vouchers and potentially not acting on these vouchers or having a non game wildlife expo? It maybe that the World Wide Wildlife Fund could potentially raise far more funds for wildlife and may change the narrative...


The WWF and RMEF are two very different things, that is why I dislike slippery slope arguments so much. But practically speaking, if RMEF can't get the contract, then no one needs to worry about anyone else do they? That is kind of my point here.

As for laws giving hunters rights to wildlife. I'll admit I don't have the specifics at my fingertips, but it starts with the 10th Amendment of the United States, and then the Utah constitution bestows those public trusts onto the citizenry of Utah. From there we can make the case through funding that hunters have a proportional positive responsibility(bestowed by right) through the mandate of management and funding. All the citizens of Utah own Utah wildlife, and that same wildlife is also owned by the United States of America, and considered an international resource. Within those confines, hunters in Utah have a larger say in that publicly held wildlife.

Personally, my issue is that of conservation, wildlife, and hunters, which is supposed to be what this is all about. Yet it has nothing to do with it, at least by way of any practical results. We've been telling a joke for about 20 years now, and it starts with "That's the way we have always done it" and it ends with, "We never have time to do it right the first time". In between all of that is allot of truths about what makes success, what doesn't, and how you change that.

The current Expo contract holders can not only not provide the most on behalf of Utahans WRT our public resources that they are leveraging, supposedly for us, they have ZERO credibility in their on the ground track record when it comes to the actual, tangible, measurable goals of wildlife conservation. No deer, no deer tags, no deer, no deer tags. Its like a bunch of junior high school kids in home economics throwing raw spaghetti at the wall, trying to get it to stick, but not understanding why it won't.

Frankly 20 years is more than enough of watching this miserable train wreck of "hey lets try this, or no maybe this, what about racoon bounties?" The Expo contract is just another extension of our failed wildlife policies here in this state. The mechanisms, people, policies and out comes are all one in the same.

The bigger question is not really why RMEF did not get he contract. It is why does SFW deserve the contract? WHY? It is not because of all of the wonderful things they claim to do, everyone does all kinds of things, noble and necessary. I'll bring this right back to where I have been for years on this, Where are the deer, where are the deer tags? They have had 20 years, and moved the ball no where, all the while telling us that we just need to do more of the same. It is a sham, and an insult to actual conservation. At a minimum, we should stop calling it the "conservation" Expo, since that is nothing but a word in this case used to justify what is really going on, which is the sell off and profiteering from public resources at the expense of hunters. Call it what it is, I'm fine with that, I'm fine separating the conservation part of it out, and neutering my own argument. But then you still have the glaringly obvious problem of not rewarding the Expo to the most competitive bidder.

People can slice this up how ever they want, and split every hair on it. It is all really simple, if the Sierra Club was the most competitive bid, and their conservation grew more wildlife, tags, and hunters, then that is where the contract should go, because that is where we, as hunters, and owners of the public trust being leveraged here benefit the most, which is after all the intent of all of this.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #7 - Q7: Was there an open public process to determine how the Wildlife Expo Permit Program operates?
To set the terms of the Wildlife Expo Permit Program - and the use of the application fee revenue - the DWR held open public meetings in December 2014. Five public regional advisory council (RAC) meetings were held throughout the state to discuss the rule and the revenue split. The 51 members of the RACs included elected officials, sportsmen, livestock producers, tribes, wildlife enthusiasts and other appointed members of the public. During these statewide public meetings, there were comments on the program from five citizens, and only two of them raised concerns. All five of the RACs approved the DWR program recommendations and the proposed split of the application fee revenue. On Jan. 6, 2015, the Utah Wildlife Board adopted the RAC recommendations.

RESPONSE:*

I have several comments regarding the DWR's FAQ #7. The DWR is correct that the made certain changes to the Expo Tag Rule (R657-55) in January 2015. As part of that effort, those proposed rule changes were sent out to the RACs in December 2014 and then the amendments were formally adopted by the Wildlife Board on January 6, 2015. I did not attend all 5 RAC meetings around the state but I did attend the Central RAC meeting and the Wildlife Board meeting.

The DWR makes a big deal out of the lack of public outcry at the RAC and WB meetings. Most of you have probably attended a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting at some point. While the public process is a good one in principle, most of the folks I have spoken with have become frustrated with RAC and WB process and rarely attend. At the December 2014 Central RAC meeting, there were only 12 or 15 people in attendance - half of which were DWR employees and 3 or 4 more were with SFW. Lee Tracy of UWC and I both expressed detailed concerns about the Expo Tag program, including the proposed 5-year rule extension and the lack of accountability and transparency from the conservation groups. If the DWR is correct that only 2 people in the entire state expressed any concerns, then I guess Lee and I were those two people. I would just note that the DWR should not interpret the lack of participation at the RAC and WB meetings by sportsmen as support and endorsement for the Expo Tag program (and other issues for that matter). Rather, I believe the lack of participation is more of an indication of frustration and the fact that folks have simply given up on the public process. If the DWR wanted to really know how many sportsmen feel about this issue, all it needed to do was think back to the August 2012 WB board meeting where we presented a proposed rule amendment, a petition signed by over 1,000 sportsmen (https://www.change.org/p/utah-wildl...nvention-permits-to-august-agenda-action-item), and numerous sportsmen asked the DWR and WB to address the lack of accountability and transparency. Those requests were ignored. I also noticed that the DWR failed to mention that over the last year the DWR and the WB has been flooded with calls and emails expressing concern about the Expo Tag program, in addition to the recent media attention covering this issue.

However, the most glaring omission from the DWR's FAQ #7 is the fact that the DWR failed to clarify at the December RAC meetings and the January Wildlife Board meeting that the DWR was allegedly going to move to a formal RFP process in order to award the next Expo Tag contract. Mike Canning, Assistant Director of the DWR, sent an email out to a handful of conservation groups in October 2014 announcing "three major proposed changes" to the Expo Tag rule and program. This email also included a redline version of R657-55 showing the proposed rule changes. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwhBsR2dj01GVTVtN1IxS3pqVmM/view?usp=sharing. Nowhere in Mr. Canning's email or in the redline version of the rule amendments did the DWR clearly state that it was going to change the process for awarding the Expo Tag contract. That same redline version of R657-55 was presented at each of the RAC meetings in December 2014 and the WB meeting in January 2015. In addition, Kenny Johnson presented a power point presentation at the RACs and WB meeting that said nothing about a formal RFP process. If the DWR truly intended to move to a formal RFP, then they should have made that clear in those public meetings. And more importantly, the version of the rule that was presented to the RACs and formally adopted by the Wildlife Board on January 6, 2015, did not say anything about a formal RFP. Please read the current version of R657-55-4 and see what was adopted by the Wildlife Board. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. To this day, there is nothing in the Expo Tag rule authorizing the use of the formal RFP.

In conclusion, while it may be true that here was not a great deal of participation and outcry at the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings when the Expo Tag rule was discussed, the DWR should not interpret that silence as support from the general public. This is especially true given that the DWR failed to adequately inform the public of the most significant change that was being made - the change to a formal RFP process. Plus, the DWR has heard from sportsmen many times on issue at prior meetings, through emails and phone calls, and through the media. The fact that the DWR needed to release 26 separate FAQs in an attempt to tell their side of the story suggests that they are hearing from us now. Will they listen this time?

-Hawkeye-


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

hawkeye said:


> Lee-
> 
> I see things a little differently. The Expo Tag contract is awarded by the DWR to a specific conservation group, which then has the right to partner with outher groups. The prior contract was awarded to MDF, and MDF is the party that signed the contract. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GUWx3dkgxM0dBTzQ However, we all know that MDF partnered with SFW to host Expo during that 5-year term, and MDF's proposal made it clear that would be the case. The current contract was awarded to SFW, and SFW is the party that signed the contract. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf However, we all know that SFW will partner with MDF and UFNAWS to host the next 5 Expos and their proposal stated that would be the case.
> 
> ...


 Jason, (and all you others),
Having now seen the previous contract, I'll concede to your observation that there were 3 different companies that signed the contract.

Now, I'm certainly no legal expert, but that brings up a possible legal problem in my mind. If they are 3 separate companies, why was SFW allowed to sign a contract that was issued based upon the acceptance of a proposal submitted by a company legally identified on the signed submission form as The WESTERN HUNTING AND CONSERVATION EXPO, a DBA of the Mule Deer Foundation? Note that on the submission form Jon Larson is listed as the company (WHCE) contact person with the position/title of "Senior Event Coordinator". Maybe they legally covered their tracks, but they all lead to the same curtain.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Hawkeye-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R657-55-10 now require SFW to disclose how the $3.50 app fee is utilized...even if it is simply used for "administrative purposes"? This would seem to require the kind of transparency that hunters have been screaming for since the inception of the expo tags.

I can tell you this, if a majority of that app fee money is used for "administrative" purposes or "Canadian hunting adventures", I believe the public is going to throw a fit about it once the information is released...as required.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

MWScott72-

No, R657-55-10 does not require the groups to account for the $3.50 they are allowed to keep "for administrative purposes" from every $5 application. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/981-r657-55--wildlife-convention-permits.html. R657-55-10(5) provides as follows:

(5) The conservation organization shall submit a report to the division and Wildlife Board each year no later than September 1st that accounts for and documents the following:
(a) gross revenue generated from collecting $5 wildlife expo permit application fees;
(b) total amount of application fee revenue retained for administrative expenses;
(c) total amount of application fee revenue set aside and dedicated to funding projects, including bank statements showing account balances; and
(d) description and records of each project funded with application fee revenue, including the date of funding, the amount of funding contributed, and the completion status of the project.

Under subsection (d), they only have to account for the 30% that is earmarked for approved conservation projects.

Hawkeye


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #8 - Q8: Is there accountability for the use of application fee revenue?
The 2017-2021 expo permit contract recently signed between SFW and the State of Utah clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically for "policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah." SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife.

RESPONSE:*

The question posed in FAQ #8 asks if there is accountability for the use of the application fee revenue from the Expo Tags. Accountability is exactly what sportsmen have been asking for over the last ten years. Rather than answering this question honestly and admitting the shortfalls of the past, the DWR appears to be using a smokescreen in hopes of getting sportsmen off its back. Let me point out a few of the problems with the DWR's answer to FAQ #8.

First, the DWR fails to acknowledge that they failed to require any accountability for the first six years of the Expo. From 2007 to 2012, the DWR did not require the groups to spend one red cent on actual conservation and there was zero accountability from the Expo Tag revenues. As a result, sportsmen have no clue how the conservation groups spent the $5,436,655 that was raised during those years - and neither does the DWR. That is simply inexcusable.

Second, the DWR fails to acknowledge that from 2013 until today, the DWR has only required that the groups spend 30% on approved projects. See R657-55-10(3) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. As a result, from 2013 through 2016, the groups generated $4,327,790, and 30% of that money or $1,298,337 has been earmarked for actual conservation and accounted for. While 30% is better than 0% it is still woefully insufficient given that these revenues are generated from our public tags and were supposed to be used for "wildlife conservation activities." R657-55-1. What is even more disappointing is the fact that the DWR was perfectly fine with zero accountability. The only reason that there is a requirement that 30% must be spent on approved projects is because sportsmen threw fit about the lack of accountability and transparency.

Third, the DWR states that "Expo organizers must spend the remaining 70 percent on policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah." This statement is referring to specific contract language that was recently added to the latest contract between the DWR and SFW in response to pressure from sportsmen and the media. Pursuant to Section 7.c of the contract, SFW and its partners retain $3.50 from every $5 application and that money must be used for "*policies, programs, projects and personnel that support wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah.*" See 2016 Contract, Section 7.e.4 - http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. The highlighted language referencing "wildlife conservation initiatives" is new language that was not included in prior contracts between the DWR and the groups. On the surface this sounds great but what does that language actually mean? Can the SFW/MDF pay salaries to SFW/MDF "personnel" with that 70%? Can they lobby with that 70% in an effort to affect "policies"? Did the parties simply draft a provision that authorizes them to do what they were already doing? Can anybody tell me what a "wildlife conservation initiative" is? Why didn't the parties define that term in the contract? As a lawyer, I always define critical contract terms unless I am purposefully trying to leave the term ambiguous so that my client can take advantage of the ambiguous language. I am guessing that is what happened here. I have asked for some clarification from some of my contacts but I have not heard back yet. Do any of you know what that term means? On the surface, this statement sounds great but it has no real meaning. In theory, the groups could spend the 70% of the Expo tag revenues on nearly anything and argue that it somehow supports "wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah." I am guessing that this language was added to the contract as window dressing so the groups and the DWR can point to it and say that 100% of the revenues are spent on wildlife conservation. Hopefully, folks dig a little deeper into the issue.

Fourth, if the DWR was truly concerned about accountability then you would think they would audit the groups' use of the Expo Tag funds. However, there is no requirement in the Expo Tag Rule of the Expo Tag Contract that provides for an audit of the monies raised from the Expo Tags. This is surprising given that the DWR conducts annual audits on the monies the conservation groups raise from Conservation Permits that are auctioned off by the groups. See R657-41-9(6) - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html. Why doesn't the DWR do the same thing with the Expo Tag revenues?

Fifth, the DWR may attempt to argue that the groups are going to self-report on how they spend the money generated from the Expo Tags. Pursuant to 7.e, SFW and its partners must submit a report to the Wildlife Board and the DWR by September 1st detailing among other things a description of each project funded with Expo Tag revenues. However, it is important to note that the annual reporting requirement in Section 7.e only applies to projects funded with the 30% of the Expo Tag revenues (which expenditures already require DWR approval). There is absolutely no audit or reporting requirement in the contract or the rule that applies to the 70% retained by the groups.

Finally, the DWR states that "SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife." This statement is particularly troubling. The DWR states this as if it is a fact but where is this spelled out in the Expo Tag Contract or the Expo Tag Rule? The answer is there is no binding requirement in the contract (http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf) or the rule (http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm) that requires the groups to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife. In fact, that requirement is actually inconsistent with the requirement in the contract and the rule that the groups only have to account for the 30% that is earmarked for approved projects. If the DWR was serious about a 100% reporting rule then why didn't the DWR include that requirement in the contract? Instead, the DWR points us to press releases from SFW and MDF stating that "we will annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife." See http://sfw.net/2016/03/02/2492/ and https://muledeer.org/hunting-expo-p...ervation-successes-of-10th-anniversary-event/. Did the new Expo partner (UFNAWS) issue a similar statement? If so, I have not seen it. So rather to including a binding requirement in the contract or rule, the DWR appears to be relying on a nonbinding statement from the groups that they will account for 100% of the Expo Tag proceeds. Let's hope SFW and MDF honor that commitment unlike the commitment that Don Peay made when the Expo Tags were created. See 3/31/2005 Wildlife Board Minutes at 12 (*"Mr. Peay said it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground."*). Time will tell if the public will get burned again as a resulting of leaving that requirement out of the contract. You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

In conclusion, the DWR gets an "F" when it comes to requiring transparency and accountability for the Expo Tag revenues. What little accountability exists today, is the result of sportsmen demanding it. The DWR would be fine with zero accountability and as explained to me they are comfortable "simply trusting in good faith that the money would be used properly." Additionally, the DWR did nothing to improve the accountability and transparency for the Expo Tag proceeds in the latest contract. Rather, the DWR is relying on the nonbinding statements from the groups that they will account for 100% of the Expo Tag proceeds. That is not how you watch over public assets. As a result, the DWR's answer to FAQ #8 sounds great to the uninformed but when you dig into the details it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Hawkeye


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #9 - Q9: Has the Wildlife Expo Permit Program ever been audited?
Yes, the DWR audits the program annually.

RESPONSE:*

FAQ #9 is at best confusing and misleading, and at worst, false. When you read the DWR's answer you are given the false impression that the DWR has conducted annual audits of the Expo Tag program since the beginning. Moreover, given that the public's concerns are focused on how the groups are spending the monies generated from the Expo Tags, the DWR's answer also falsely implies that they have been auditing the expenditures of the groups. Let's look at the real facts.

Over the years, the DWR has conducted certain "Wildlife Convention Audits." The first such audit was conducted in 2010, four years after the Expo began. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GMDJfZGZJV0VoXzA. In fact, the 2010 "audit" states that no formal audit was performed in 2007, 2008 or 2009. See 2010 Audit at 1. Therefore, it is simply not true to state or imply that audits have been performed on an annual basis.

More importantly, the "audits" that were performed in the early years did not look at how any of the application fees were spent by the groups. Rather, those early "audits" only looked at the drawing process, the number of applicants and the amount of money generated from the Expo Tags. See generally 2010 Audit. This is consistent with the prior version R657-55 that merely provided for a "Wildlife Convention Audit," which was focused solely on the "processes used to handle applications for the convention permits and conduct the drawing, and the protocols associated with collecting and using client data." See R657-55-2(2)(d) - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gd1Fjb1doaElMbUU. As a result, the DWR failed to look at or "audit" how any of those monies were spent by the groups. Therefore, even in the years when "audits" were performed between 2007 and 2012, we do not know if any of the money generated from the Expo Tags was spent on actual conservation projects. This is why I used to get so frustrated in the early years when we were discussing the Expo Tags proceeds and the DWR or the groups would claim that there was an annual "audit." Yes, there were "audits" in some years but those "audits" did not even consider how the money was spent. An "audit" that doesn't look at expenditures is like a colonoscopy that does not require you to remove your pants -- pointless.

After public outcry reached a climax in 2012, the conservation groups and the DWR agreed that the groups would begin spending 30% on actual conservation starting in 2013 and the rule was amended to require the groups to self-report on the 30% that is earmarked for approved conservation projects. The DWR was also authorized to audit that 30% of the proceeds. The relevant language provides as follows:

"(d) "Wildlife exposition audit" means an annual review by the division of the conservation organization's processes used to handle applications for expo permits and conduct the drawing, the protocols associated with collecting and using client data, the revenue generated from expo permit application fees, *and the expenditure of designated expo permit application fee revenue on division-approved projects.*" R657-55-2(2)(d).

Since 2013, when the DWR performs its Expo Tag audit, it actually looks at the how the groups have spent the 30% earmarked for approved projects. I have attached a link to the 2015 Expo Tag Audit as an example. Take a minute to review it. It contains some interesting information. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GeWZmaUFGZnh6VVU. The 2015 Audit begs the question, however, of why only audit 30% of the Expo Tag revenues. The answer to that question is the DWR and the groups wanted to get the public off their backs but they are not really serious about accountability or transparency.

In summary, FAQ #9 is both confusing and misleading, at best. The DWR fully understands that the public is concerned about how the money is being spent by the groups and that is why we are asking for an audit. Yet, the DWR is more than happy to simply state, "Yes, the DWR audits the program annually." That statement is false in that audits were not performed in the early years. Plus, the statement is confusing and misleading because in those early years the "audits" that did occur did not look at expenditures and since 2013 the "audits" have only really audited 30% of the Expo Tag revenues.

So what do you think? Was the DWR's response was inadvertently unclear or purposefully misleading?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The 2015 "audit" begs all kinds of questions. And I'm sure I am missing more. Is there something other than a technology audit for GraySky's code? Given how the state has awarded contracts in the past, and these characters in particular, the question of conflicts of interest abound.

If I were a betting man, which some days I am, I would bet there is a conflict of interest related to GraySky. I'm not all in, but I'm raising. This is based solely on probability alone, which given the environment is some pretty safe territory. 

Also $48,219.60 dollars for a fencing project, on what I'm sure is private property given the title of the project. "David Edwards fencing project". Looks to possibly be in Beaver county? Some details here would be nice. 5 strand fawn killer, netting, removal, etc? Specifically how this relates to "conservation". Also, is it actually twice that number, because it is listed under MDF and SFWs. Same project, same $ amount. Must be very important to conservation if they both funded it. 

$6,125 for "habitat improvements" on SFW property? $50,000 approved for the Sportsmen's Congressional Foundation. These guys have been involved in some really good things. But, here is the big but, how is this Utah "conservation"? These guys are a national WADC outfit. Where does that play directly on the ground for Utah wildlife and hunters? And if we are going to make slippery slope arguments on this, what about if the Sierra Club had the expo tags and wanted to throw $50,000 of "conservation" money to what is ultimately lobbying.

And my big pet peeve: $223,734.80 on mule deer translocations. Seriously? In the few places we can grow deer, we have decided to move them at extreme cost, and high mortality. This is "conservation"? Remember, doe hunts were decided against in many of these cases. Rather than work with a good thing, and get hunters some opportunity, they decided to waste a whole lot of money to reduce hunting and deer numbers. Never mind, now that I am typing this, its sound about par for the course, given the last 20 years. In speaking with 2 biologists from other states today, I worked those transplants into the conversation. One never heard of them, and one was familiar with them. Apparently that is a pretty big joke in one state, and about to become one in the other. One of those biologists worked on VIT and translocation technology years ago with one the pioneers in the field. These guys laugh out loud at this stuff.

And since we are talking about audits, here is where you can really see the case for an ROI analysis. On a per deer basis, it is tens of thousands of dollars per deer that has been reduced over the last 20 years. Whether you account for it in reduced deer, or reduced deer tags, it is staggering amount of money in the red.

Hawkeye, it is clear as mud, as I assume they meant it to be.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #10 - Q10: Why was a Request for Proposals process used to award the expo permit contract for the 2017-2021 timeframe?
The expo organizer performs a service for the DWR by administering the expo permit drawing and attracting a large wildlife exposition to the state. When a state agency wants to contract for services, it's required to follow the provisions of state procurement laws. The state procurement process is overseen by the Division of State Purchasing and General Services (State Purchasing).

The DWR worked with State Purchasing to issue a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) that was publically distributed and then analyzed by an impartial evaluation committee. An RFP provides a clear set of minimum requirements as well as the scoring criteria that are used to evaluate each proposal. This allows applicants to understand what is important to include in their proposals and how the proposals will be judged.

RESPONSE:*

In FAQ #10, the DWR states that "The expo organizer performs a service for the DWR by administering the expo permit drawing and attracting a large wildlife exposition to the state." While one of the purposes for the Expo Tags as set forth in R657-55-1 is to attract a wildlife exposition to the state, the DWR has continually ignores the other express purpose which is to "generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities." See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. As explained prior posts, nobody will dispute that SFW and MDF have attracted a wildlife exposition to the state. The question is whether the nearly $10 million in application fee revenues have been used for "wildlife conservation activities."

The main thrust of FAQ #10 is the DWR's suggestion that under "state procurement laws" it was required to use the formal RFP process to award the latest five-year Expo Tag Contract, and that it worked with the Division of Purchasing to do so. In other words, the DWR is saying that it was required to move to a formal RFP process, a move which is directly inconsistent with the informal application process set forth in R657-55-4, in order to comply with some separate state procurement statute. There are multiple problems with this position, including the following:

First, I don't believe there is any real conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the state procurement code. Why hasn't the DWR identified the specific state statute that supposedly required them to move to a formal RFP process? And if there is such a statute, why did the DWR just learn about it now - 10 years after the Expo Tags were created? The fact is the DWR has relied upon the process set forth in its rule (which is already an informal RFP process) to award to two prior five-year contracts. If what they are saying is true then the DWR violated the state procurement code for 10 years. Why the sudden change now? Where is the alleged conflict? It makes no sense.

Second, assuming what the DWR is saying is true, there did not need to be any conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the state procurement code. As you will recall, the DWR just amended its rule in January 2015. If the DWR wanted to change the process then it had a perfect opportunity to do so in the January 2015 rule amendment. All it had to do was remove the prior application process from the rule and spell out that the DWR would be issuing a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing. See R657-55-4. If the DWR truly discussed all of this with several conservation groups in an informal meeting in October 2014, then there is no reason why they could not have incorporated the formal RFP process into the proposed rule amendment that went out to the RACs in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board in January 2015. In summary, there was absolutely no reason to have any conflict between the DWR's rule and some other supposed state statute. In essence, what the DWR is saying is "we created a conflict between our rule and another statute and now we are relying on that alleged conflict to violate our own rule."

Third, the DWR is ignoring the binding effect of their own administrative rules. This is very important. The Utah Department of Administrative Services Division of Administrative Rules is the state agency that is responsible for publishing the administrative rules for every Utah state agency, including the DWR. On their website (http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm), they include a brief explanation as to the purpose of administrative rules. Take a minute and read it when you have a chance. It states the following:

*"DUAL PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

An administrative rule serves at least two purposes. First, a properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law. Therefore, a rule affects our lives as much as a statute passed by the legislature, restricting individuals AND the agency that issues it.

Second, an administrative rule is a messenger of sorts. It informs citizens of actions a state government agency will take or how a state agency will conduct its business. It provides citizens the opportunity to respond -- whether by providing public comment, or becoming involved in some other way."*

That is the summary/explanation provided by the State of Utah. Those are their own words. That means that the application process set forth by the DWR in R657-55 has the "binding effect of law" just as much as some other statute passed by the legislature and it binds "the agency that issue it." So much for the DWR's explanation that they suddenly became aware of some statute that requires them to violate their rule.

The second point is also critical. The DWR communicates with the public (and conservation groups) through its administrative rules. That is how the DWR informs the public (and conservation groups) as to how actions it "will take or how will conduct its business." As I have explained to the DWR, RMEF had no obligation to attend the DWR's private meeting in October 2014 and what may or may not have been "mentioned" at the meeting is completely irrelevant. RMEF also had no duty to inform the DWR that they might be interested in applying for the next Expo tag contract. The DWR was bound by the process set forth in its administrative rule and that is how the DWR is supposed to communicate with the public.

I would also like to point out that although the DWR may have worked with the Division of Purchasing to prepare the formal RFP, the DWR is the agency that determined the criteria to be included in the RFP and how to score those criteria. The Division of Purchasing's role was to provide support with the preparation of the RFP and to administer the RFP process. The DWR should accept responsibility for the decision to move a formal RFP process, for failing to adequately communicate that change, and for the format and scoring criteria included in that RFP.

At the end of the day, I have no issue with the DWR's decision to move to a formal RFP process. However, if the DWR was truly contemplating that decision in late 2014 then it should have included that change its in January 2015 rule amendment so that everyone was aware of the change and there would have been no conflict between the DWR's own administrative rule (R657-55-4) and the actions taken by the DWR.

I will discuss the format of the RFP and the makeup of the selection committee in later posts.

Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

_"The fact is the DWR has relied upon the process set forth in its rule (which is already an informal RFP process) to award to two prior five-year contracts. If what they are saying is true then the DWR violated the state procurement code for 10 years. Why the sudden change now? Where is the alleged conflict? It makes no sense"

_Well, it makes sense if you have been awarding the contract to your friends, and then suddenly there is competition, and that competition looks to be able to outbid your friends on their inside deal. Why is that a problem? Because without the Expo as cover, SFW's role as head of the DWR looks far more conflicting if they don't have the means to make it _look_ like they give the DWR a million dollars every year. Along with accountability, there is a massive amount of merit missing in all of this.

_"I would also like to point out that although the DWR may have worked with the Division of Purchasing to prepare the formal RFP, the DWR is the agency that determined the criteria to be included in the RFP and how to score those criteria. The Division of Purchasing's role was to provide support with the preparation of the RFP and to administer the RFP process. The DWR should accept responsibility for the decision to move a formal RFP process, for failing to adequately communicate that change, and for the format and scoring criteria included in that RFP."

_This is very key. Again, for some that may be just tuning in, this was the only option the DWR had to cut RMEF out of the contract for the Expo, without just explicitly saying no to RMEF and endorsing SFW. Which they and SFW had to do to maintain their cover of who is wagging who. Like with allot of other related things, this was an attempt to abdicate responsibility, or at least provide that cover. When in fact, as has been pointed out here, it is still the sole responsibility of the DWR, for how things fell. Their hands were not tied by someone else, they only made it look as though their hands were tied and that someone else was making decisions for them. Much like when deer numbers and tags are down, it is not them, but if they are up, then we need a new metric to try and make it look like they did something to influence that. Same old, same old.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

hawkeye said:


> The DWR is ignoring the binding effect of their own administrative rules. This is very important. The Utah Department of Administrative Services Division of Administrative Rules is the state agency that is responsible for publishing the administrative rules for every Utah state agency, including the DWR. On their website (http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm), they include a brief explanation as to the purpose of administrative rules. Take a minute and read it when you have a chance. It states the following:
> 
> *"DUAL PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
> 
> ...


While you have made a convincing case for DWR inconsistencies on a number of these issues so far (thank you), I still think that this item above is the one that can be best used by RMEF to overturn this decision. (If they choose to pursue it in court)


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #11 - Q11: Did DWR use the RFP process to award the expo permit contract in the past? If not, why was it used this time?
The Wildlife Expo Permit Program rule (R657-54) also describes a procedure for awarding the expo permit contract, and there are many areas where this rule and state purchasing code overlap. For the past two expo contract awards, proposals were requested by and submitted directly to the DWR for evaluation and consideration.

However, state procurement code does not give the DWR independent purchasing authority - the DWR was required to coordinate with State Purchasing and its RFP process for this contract award. In areas where state purchasing code and the DWR's rule conflict, the DWR must follow state purchasing code.

In May 2015, DWR began formally working with State Purchasing to develop the RFP document, with the goal of using the RFP process within its existing rule. The DWR specifically mentioned its intent to use an RFP for the 2017 expo permit contract during formal public meetings in December 2014 and August 2015. Listen to recordings of those meetings.

RESPONSE:*

FAQ #11 is another example of where the DWR provides a superficial response but carefully skips over a number of key issues and problems. Let me walk you through FAQ #11 paragraph by paragraph.

In the first paragraph, the DWR admits that its own administrative rule sets forth a procedure for awarding the five-year Expo Tag contract. Unfortunately, the DWR cites to the wrong rule. R657-54 addresses wild turkey hunts. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-054.htm. The correct DWR rule is R657-55 and Section 4 of that Rule includes the following process for awarding the expo tag contracts. It spells out that conservation organizations may apply for the contract by submitting and application to the DWR between August and September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of each wildlife exposition term. It spells out exactly what information must be included in that application. It states that the DWR will consider two specific criteria and making a non-binding recommendation to the Wildlife Board. And finally, it states that the Wildlife Board will make the final decision as to awarding the contract based upon four specific criteria, one of which is the recommendation from the DWR. See R657-55-4(3)-(7) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. The DWR used this informal RFP process to award the prior contracts to SFW and MDF. I have attached a link to the simple 3-page proposal from MDF that was the basis for the second five year contract (2012-2016). See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GSzQtSG9FT1JoT1U. The DWR followed and utilized this process for the first 10 years of the Expo Tags.

In the second paragraph, the DWR states that it "was required to coordinate with State Purchasing and its RFP process for this contract award. In areas where state purchasing code and the DWR's rule conflict, the DWR must follow state purchasing code." What is missing from the DWR's statement is any explanation of why it was suddenly required to change course and utilize the formal RFP process now - 10 years and two contracts later. Was there a recent change to the state purchasing code that suddenly brought the DWR and the Expo Tags within its jurisdiction? Did the DWR simply ignore the state purchasing code for the prior 10 years? Was the DWR even aware of these alleged requirements of state purchasing code when it awarded the prior contracts to SFW and MDF? Why now? And as I set forth in Post #156 responding to FAQ #10 above, where exactly is the conflict between the informal application set forth in R657-55-4 which the DWR had relied upon for a decade and the requirements of state purchasing code? As I have explained in other posts, I don't see any real, significant conflict and even if there is a conflict, there was no reason for there to be any conflict given that the DWR amended its rule in January 2015. The DWR seems to suggest that the Division of Purchasing was pushing them to use a formal RFP. I have personally spoken with Kent Beers, the Director of the Division of Purchasing, and he told me that was not the case. Mr. Beers confirmed that Division of Purchasing does not tell state agencies that they must utilize the formal RFP process, nor does it mandate the criteria to be included in RFP's. Rather, each state agency must determine whether is to utilize the formal RFP process. If an agency decides to use that approach then the Division of Purchasing assists in drafting the RFP and coordinates the RFP process. However, the agency itself determines the criteria to be included in the RFP and how to score and weigh those criteria. That is exactly what occurred here.

In the third paragraph, the DWR states that it "began formally working with State Division of Purchasing to develop the RFP document." Assuming this is true, you have to ask why did the DWR wait until May 2015 to start working on the RFP when it claims it discussed that change during a private meeting with conservation groups in October 2014? Why the seven month wait? Also, you have to ask if the DWR began working on the RFP in May 2015, then why didn't they have the RFP ready prior to the September 1st close the application period in R657-55-4? Assuming the DWR's statements are true, it shows that their approach in moving to a formal RFP was sloppy and untimely, at best. Next, the DWR states that it "specifically mentioned its intent to use an RFP for the 2017 expo permit contract during formal public meetings in December 2014 and August 2015." Now I have addressed this point before but let me reiterate that the DWR did not clearly disclose to the public during the December 2014 RAC meetings or the January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting that it was moving away from the informal application process set forth in its own rule and moving to a formal RFP. See Post #132 Responding to FAQ #7. If you listen to the minutes from those meetings there are a few casual references to the term "RFP" but they generally come in the context of describing the informal RFP process set forth in the DWR's own rule. I challenge the DWR or anyone else to show me where the DWR specifically disclosed this change in those meetings and in particular during the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting where the amended rule was adopted. Certainly a change this significant would have been included in Kenny Johnson's power point presentation on the topic or even better in the redline version of the rule? But it is not there. And finally, rather than owning up to this obvious mistake, the DWR points to the fact that Kenny Johnson supposedly mentioned that the DWR was moving to the RFP process during August 2015 Board Meeting? Really? He mentioned it on August 27, 2015 -- 4 days before the deadline to submit applications under R657-55-4? 8 months after the amended Expo Tag rule had been adopted by the Wildlife Board? Was the public provided notice on the agenda for that Board Meeting that the DWR would be announcing a significant change to the Expo Tag program? No. Did that supposed announcement go out to the RACs in August of 2015? No.

In conclusion, the DWR's response to FAQ #11 is superficial response that attempts to gloss over the problems, questions and mistakes that surround the DWR's move to a formal RFP process. If the DWR wanted to use a formal RFP process to award the Expo Tag contract, so be it. But own up to that decision and implement the RFP in a timely, open and transparent matter. And most of all, amend your own administrative rule to reflect that change.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Again, I can come to only one conclusion. They used to RFP as a cover. By submitting to the RFP process, it gives the impression that someone else is backing, or even making the decisions on granting the Expo besides the DWR, when that is not the case at all. In Private industry we call it CYA. I believe in certain circles at the Division it is called "strategic planning". In clandestine circles it is refereed to as "plausible deniability". But this is thinly veiled, barely strategic(sloppy), and hardly plausible. 

The submission into the RFP is a false attempt to abdicate responsibility, for the outcome of the process to award the Expo tags. And if the RFP is the law of the land. We need to see it utilized across the board WRT purchases of seed, fencing, equipment contractors, etc. Especially when these are associated with "conservation projects" involving Expo money. If the DWR is willing to mediate their authority through outside agencies in the case of the Expo, they should be more than willing to do so in other areas of conservation.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

LT-

I agree with your comments. The DWR's approach and response is total CYA. 

I also had the same thoght with regard to the DWR's position that it was required by state law to use a formal RFP to award the Expo Tag Contract because the groups were providing a service to the state. If true, where does that logic end? Should the DWR be using a formal RFP to award the hundreds of Conservation Permits that it hands out on a yearly basis to be auctioned off by conservation groups. Aren't the groups providing a service there too? Raising conservation revenues for the DWR? There should be consistency and fairness in the whatever approach is employed by the DWR.

Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Exactly, Like Mr. Beers pointed out, it is not a requirement, and just from an efficiency point of view, no one in a business or other endeavor wants to have to clear every purchase and decision through an external process. That is what leadership is all about, owning it, the good, the bad, and ugly.

This strikes at the heart of so many problems we see with DWR and so many conservation organizations and wildlife. They are all so intrinsically connected and related. It is just human nature to some degree to want power, control and praise, when things are going well, yet not want to have the responsibility, and culpability when things are not going well. To err is human, and I think to most understandable, we all know it and understand it from our own experiences. But it becomes inexcusable when we see something that is wrong, and know that it is wrong. We expect that to change, and when we see the efforts that lead to these errors redoubled it makes them all the more inexcusable.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

RFP's are tailor-made for awarding contracts this way. They can be written with any criteria the agency wants. As a result they are commonly used when bias toward specific contractor is desired. It should be obvious to everyone why the DWR made the switch - because the Admin Rule wasn't sufficiently biased to guarantee SFW would win. 

Those of us who are informed are not buying the excuses put forth by the DWR.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

As a further example of how this is a long standing culturally ingrained practice, we can look at Option 2 a few years ago, regardless of which "option" you were for. In that case we have _the_ DWR and _the_ SFW calling the shots, but laying cover with things like public meetings, so they can say they listened to the public. This played out as well within the RAC process. Ultimately, despite what the public actually wants as a whole, or the science behind conservation, that ultimately can provide the public what they want. The DWR and it's cronies are, and have been doing what ever they want for the last 20 years, regardless of how detrimental that is to wildlife and hunting, laying "cover" and excuses all the way.

If the DWR was just doing its job, and wildlife and hunting were the actual focus, none of this process would even matter. But that is not the focus or the goal in any of this. The current DWR regime, and SFW were born out of wildlife declines, and are currently operated and funded under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo tags would not even be worth anything if the focus was where it was supposed to be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful. But under the current business model, that is how the money and power is generated. It is generated through the rising "value"(monitization) of a declining resource. A resource that is supposed to be being beneficially managed for the masses that own that resource, ie. US. The problem is obvious, hedging is not a long term sustainable strategy, and others have to lose, for some to win. In this case it is us, the many, and our resources, that are being forced to lose, because there is a minority who's power and money is derived from our loses.

At the very basis of all of this, and many other entangled issues, lies these facts in very shallow grave, refusing to die.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #12 - Q12: When was the RFP open for organizations to submit proposals?
State Purchasing issued the RFP on Oct. 8, 2015. It remained open until Nov. 24, 2015. This was after the application period of Aug. 1-Sept. 1 outlined in DWR's administrative rule for the expo permits contract. Although the release of the RFP through State Purchasing was intended to coincide with that timeframe, there were unexpected delays in issuing it. (These delays were due to personnel changes and the complexity of the issue.)

The DWR stated during the public Utah Wildlife Board meeting on Aug. 27, 2015 (see timestamp 05:22:24) - before any proposals were submitted - that DWR personnel were in the process of working with State Purchasing to issue the RFP. The DWR regretted the delayed release of the RFP, but felt it was important to get the process right.

RESPONSE:*

In the first paragraph of FAQ #12, the DWR admits that the RFP was issued "after the application period of Aug. 1-Sept. 1 outlined in DWR's administrative rule for the expo permits contract. Although the release of the RFP through State Purchasing was intended to coincide with that timeframe, there were unexpected delays in issuing it." The DWR's formal RFP was not issued until over two months after the application period set forth in R657-55-4(3) opened. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. The DWR attributes those delays to "personnel changes and the complexity of the issue." However, in FAQ #11 the DWR admits that they did not begin "formally working with State Purchasing to develop the RFP document" until May 2015. That is seven months after the DWR claims to have first discussed the change to the formal RFP during a private meeting with conservation groups in October 2014. If this change was so significant and complex then why didn't the DWR start working on it immediately? Why wait seven months? In addition, I served a GRAMA request on the State Division of Purchasing and asking for "any correspondence, emails, notes and/or other written communications between the Division [of Purchasing] and the DWR . . . relating to the Expo RFP." The earliest email or written communication that the Division of Purchasing produced in response to that GRAMA request was dated July 1, 2015. Therefore, even if the DWR starting working with the Division of Purchasing in May 2015, it does not appear that there was any significant written communications between the groups until July 2015.

It is also curious that the DWR expresses concern with the fact that the RFP was not issued until well after the application period set forth in its administrative rule. While that may be a concern to me and many other sportsmen, the fact is the DWR violated the terms of its administrative rule in a number of ways by moving to the formal RFP without amending its rule. So why worry about the application time period? Let me give you a few examples:

1.	Under R657-55-4(3) the application period ran from "August 1 and September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of each wildlife exposition term." In contrast, under the RFP, the DWR unilaterally changed the application period to October 8, 2015 to November 25, 2015.
2.	R657-55-4(4) spells out the information that must be included in an application for the Expo Tag. The 38-page RFP document issued by the DWR changed and expanded those criteria. See Section 2.2 and 2.3 of RFP - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.
3.	R657-55-4(6) and (7) states that the Wildlife Board (with a recommendation from the DWR) would determine which group would receive the contract. Under the RFP a selection committee was created and tasked with reviewing the applications and their recommendation was then presented to the Wildlife Board.
4.	R657-55-4(7) set forth the criteria that should be considered with by the Wildlife Board. In contrast, the RFP set forth a different set of criteria and a scoring formula for weighing those criteria. See Attachment C to RFP.

Thus, by moving to a formal RFP, the DWR was acting in a manner that was inconsistent with the application process set forth in R657-55-4. Now, I want to be clear that I have no objection with the DWR moving to a formal RFP process. However, if that is what the DWR wanted to do then they should have done it in a timely, transparent and fair manner. And most importantly, they should have amended their rule to allow them to use a formal RFP. All the DWR would have needed to do was modify the procedure in R657-55-4 to state that they would be issuing a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing and then take those proposed amendments to the RAC meetings in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board Meeting in January 2015 where the rule amendment was discussed. However, that did not occur.

In an effort to cover their tails, the DWR has searched the meeting minutes for any reference or mention of the word "RFP" and they point to a statement during the August 27, 2015 meeting that "DWR personnel were in the process of working with State Purchasing to issue the RFP". Remember, the DWR's proposed rule amendments were presented at the December 2014 RAC meetings and January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting. Now, the DWR is justifying the move to a formal RFP by stating that they mentioned the change during the August meeting? Tune in and listen to the recording referenced by the DWR. What was happening there is Kenny Johnson was providing a report to the Wildlife Board on the annual Expo Permit "Audit." See Agenda and Packet for 8/27/2015 Board Meeting - http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-08_board_agenda.pdf . The public has absolutely no notice that the DWR was going to announce a major change to the Expo Tag Program. No announcement of a change to the Expo Tag program was on the agenda for that meeting. Nor was any announcement of a change to the rules governing the Expo Tags on the agenda. None of this was taken to the RACs for public input. As a result, the public was denied any opportunity to comment on this significant change and the conservation groups who did not have close relationships with the DWR and relied upon the process set forth in the DWR's own administrative rule were left in the dark.

In summary, the DWR's move to a formal RFP was poorly communicated, untimely and inconsistent with their own administrative rule. Take a minute and read through R657-55-4 as it exists today on the state's website? See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. It still says nothing about a formal RFP.

Tune in tomorrow. I believe that FAQ #13 is one of the most misleading statements in the DWR's document. I am looking forward responding to that one.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #13 - Q13: Did this delay cause confusion for any potential bidders?
Yes. Although the DWR openly referenced its plan to issue the RFP, one organization was unaware of that statement and submitted a proposal directly to the DWR. That proposal was from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), and it was delivered on Sept. 1, 2015. Because the proposal was submitted outside the RFP process, the DWR encouraged RMEF to resubmit a proposal when the RFP was open. RMEF later submitted a proposal in accordance with the terms of the RFP.

RESPONSE:*

In FAQ #13, the DWR misstates what actually occurred and attempts to blame RMEF for following the DWR's own Administrative Rule. This is complete nonsense and ignores the binding effect of the DWR's Administrative Rules and the history of the DWR's own actions.

In the two sentences of FAQ #13, the DWR states that "Although the DWR openly referenced its plan to issue the RFP, one organization was unaware of that statement and submitted a proposal directly to the DWR. That proposal was from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), and it was delivered on Sept. 1, 2015." The DWR is correct that on the afternoon of September 1, 2015, RMEF hand-delivered to the DWR its application for the upcoming 5-Year Expo Tag Contract. See Initial RMEF Proposal - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gc0M2a3lIUV9VRlE. In preparing its application, RMEF carefully followed the DWR's application requirements, including the September 1st deadline, set forth in the DWR's own Administrative Rule. See R657-55-4(3) - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/981-r657-55--wildlife-convention-permits.html. Remember, this is the same rule that the DWR had previously used to award the two prior 5-year contracts to MDF and SFW, and the same rule that was just recently amended by the DWR in January 2015.

The DWR is still clinging to its position that although it "openly referenced its plan to issue the RFP," but RMEF was "somehow unaware of that statement." As explained in my response to FAQ #12 above, the DWR is referring to the fact that Kenny Johnson mentioned that change during the August 27, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting while presenting on another topic. As explained before, that statement by Mr. Johnson occurred roughly 7 months after the Wildlife Board adopted the current version of the rule (that does not even mention an RFP), 27 days after the application period opened pursuant to R657-55-4(3), and 4 days before the deadline to submit applications pursuant to R657-55-4(3). More importantly there was nothing on the agenda for the August 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting to suggest that the DWR was going to announce a monumental change the Expo Tag program. Is this how the DWR conducts its business? It does not have to follow its own rules? It does not have to amend its rules to reflect significant changes to programs? It does not have to provide notice to the public of those changes? It is pathetic and embarrassing for the DWR to attempt to blame RMEF for submitting an application pursuant to the terms of the DWR's own Administrative Rules.

The next sentence of the FAQ #13 states: "Because the proposal was submitted outside the RFP process, the DWR encouraged RMEF to resubmit a proposal when the RFP was open." Just to be clear, RMEF's proposal was not submitted outside the "RFP process" because the "RFP process" did not even exist as of September 1, 2015, when RMEF submitted its initial application. The DWR did not even issue its RFP until October 8, 2015, and there is nothing in the Expo Tag Rule requiring or even referencing a formal RFP. Therefore, the DWR should have followed the information application process set forth in R657-55-4, which is the same process that the DWR relied upon to award the two prior Expo Tag contracts.

I also take issue with the statement from the DWR that it "encouraged RMEF to resubmit a proposal when the RFP was open." The DWR makes it sound as if when it received RMEF's proposal it merely contacted RMEF, apologized for the confusion about the move to the formal RFP, and encouraged them to resubmit when the formal RFP was open. That is not what happened here. After receiving RMEF's initial proposal on September 1st, one week later the Director for the DWR sent a letter to RMEF informing them that their proposal was deficient and failed to comply with the requirements of the DWR's administrative rules. But fortunately, RMEF would have an opportunity to "correct" that deficiency during the upcoming formal RFP process. Specifically, the letter states as follows:

"*This RFP process will offer RMEF an opportunity to correct and elaborate on certain aspects of your original proposal that would have disqualified RMEF in the initial submission*. More specifically, from the application, it appears that RMEF is the only conservation organization that would be involved in the exposition. Although the rule frequently speaks of conservation organizations in the singular, R657-55-2(2)(c) defines "wildlife exposition" as a multi-day event held within the state of Utah that is _sponsored by multiple conservation organizations as their national or regional convention or event_ that is open to the general public and designed to draw national attendance of more than 10,000 individuals." (Emphasis added). *Partnerships are critical to preserving our hunting heritage and reaching a broader audience with our wildlife message. As such, the involvement of two or more conservation organizations is a regulatory condition to awarding the exposition contract. This is not a new requirement or concept, and in fact this was an underlying theme of this permit program when it was initially created in 2005*."

See 9/8/2015 Letter from Sheehan to Allen - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GLWVwaFVIQWpNZFE.

Now, I have to state that both RMEF and I were completed shocked when we received this letter from the DWR. We had carefully complied with the requirements set forth in the DWR's own rule and we were dumbfounded by the suggestion that the DWR was now moving to a formal RFP process in violation of its own rule and the suggestion that RMEF's proposal failed to meet the requirements of the DWR's rule.

The irony of the DWR's attempt to "CYA" by pointing to an alleged deficiency in RMEF's proposal is that the DWR had actually removed the requirement that the Expo be hosted by "multiple conservation organizations" as part of the rule amendments that were presented during the December 2014 RAC meetings and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. Surprisingly, the DWR did not know about its own rule changes and relied upon language that it deleted from its own rule in an effort to try to disqualify RMEF's proposal. Fortunately, I had attended the Central RAC meeting and the January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting so that I would be aware of any such changes. As a result, I understood that the DWR had removed the requirement that the Expo be sponsored by "multiple conservation organizations" and replaced it with language stating that the Expo must be sponsored by "one or more wildlife conservation organizations." See R657-55-2(2)(c). Once again, this underscores the importance of making changes to the Expo Tag program through the formal rule making/amendment process and public meetings.

Determined to get to the bottom of the situation, I immediately contacted the lawyer for the DWR. When I asked him about the alleged deficiency in the RMEF proposal, he reiterated what was stated in the Director's letter and told me how important the "multiple conservation organizations" requirement was because it promoted partnerships, attracted a broader audience and was in fact a regulatory condition for the Expo Tags from the beginning. When I explained to him that the DWR had deleted that requirement as part of the recent rule amendments, he asked me how I knew that to be the case. I responded by saying that I knew about the amendment because I attended the public meetings and I was looking at a redline copy of the rule amendments presented by the DWR and adopted by the Wildlife Board. See DWR's Redline Version of R657-55 (attached to email) - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GU19XQTlnVWxRMzA. The DWR's lawyer said he would look into the issue and be in touch.

Three days later, the Director of the DWR sent a second letter to RMEF correcting his prior misstatements about the "multiple conservation organizations," acknowledging the mistake by the DWR, and conceding that RMEF could apply for the Expo Tag contract on its own. However, the DWR confirmed that it still intended to move forward with the formal RFP process. The relevant portions of the Director's second letter provide as follows:

"I am writing to correct a statement made in the letter that I sent you earlier this week concerning the expo rule requiring eligible applicants to consist of two or more conservation organizations. Yesterday, it was brought to my attention that the proposed amendments to the exposition rule provided to our regional advisory councils and the Wildlife Board last winter modified, among other things, the definition of "wildlife exposition." The proposed amendment eliminated the multiple conservation organization requirement, allowing one or more conservation organizations to participate.

Yesterday, we learned that the Division inadvertently provided the Division of Administrative Rules an earlier draft of the expo rule amendments that did not modify the multiple conservation organization requirement in the definition of "wildlife exposition." We plan to correct this oversight by immediately refilling the appropriate rule with the Division of Administrative Rules.

What this means for RMEF is that it may alone respond to the upcoming RFP and proceed without a cooperating conservation organization. I apologize for the confusion and thank you for your patience. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me personally."

See 9/8/2015 Letter from Sheehan to Allen - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GbGtablcxNjR4Q2s.

Had I not reached out to the DWR and informed them of their mistake, they would not have even known that they filed the wrong version of the rule with the Division of Administrative Services. And they almost certainly would have maintained that RMEF's initial application was disqualified for failing to meet an "important regulatory condition" and they likely would have continued to enforce the "multiple organization" requirement on RMEF even though it no longer existed. I understand that everyone makes mistakes from time to time. But for the DWR to make a complete mess out of this process and then attempt to blame RMEF is unacceptable.

In conclusion, the DWR's FAQ #13 is inaccurate, self-serving and unfairly blames RMEF for the DWR's repeated mistakes and refusal to follow their own Administrative Rules. RMEF submitted a proposal to the DWR that met all of the requirements of the DWR's rules. Any confusion on the part of RMEF was not the result of the fact that RMEF was "unaware" of some "statement" by the DWR that it wanted to used a formal RFP process. Rather, the confusion was the direct result of the fact that RMEF followed the DWR's Administrative Rules by the DWR chose to use an alternative process that conflicted with its own rules. Moreover, when the DWR received RMEF's 9/1/2015 proposal, it did not politely contact RMEF and encourage RMEF to resubmit a proposal in response to the not yet release RFP. Rather, the DWR sent RMEF a "gotcha letter" stating that RMEF failed to meet one of the fundamental "regulatory requirements" of the Expo Tag rule and as a result RMEF's proposal would be disqualified. But the "good news" was that RMEF could correct that deficiency as part of the upcoming RFP process. I believe that the DWR had an "oh sh!t" moment when it received RMEF's proposal and attempted to rely on a requirement in the rule that no longer existed in an attempt to cover its tail and force RMEF into the formal RFP process. The irony of the situation is the DWR was not even aware of the fact that it deleted the requirement 8 months earlier.

I would also point out this the DWR has demonstrated a pattern of sloppiness and carelessness when it comes to the rule making/amendment process. Consider the following: First, the DWR struck the "multiple conservation organization" requirement from the Expo Tag rule but somehow was unaware of that change 8 months later when it was lecturing RMEF on the importance of that critical "regulatory condition." Second, after the DWR removed the "multiple conservation organization" from See R657-55-2(2)(c), it apparently filed the wrong version of the amended rule with the Division of Administrative Rules (which then published the incorrect version), forcing the DWR to go back and republish the correct version. Third, when the DWR presented all of the other changes to the Expo Tag rule during the December 2014 RAC Meetings and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting, it did not bother to amend R657-55-4 to include the most significant change of all - the planned move to a formal RFP process. And finally, when the DWR formally notified RMEF of its intention to use the formal RFP process after receiving its 9/1/2015 proposal, and we expressed our concerns that the DWR could not move to a formal RFP without violating R657-55-4, the DWR elected to press forward with the formal RFP process without taking the time to amend its rule to allow it to do so.

I wonder how the DWR would react if we as the public decided that we did not need to follow the DWR's rules? What would the consequences be for us?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Hawkeye,

Thanks for putting all this information together. It is truly eye-opening how this whole process was handled.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Hmmmmm... 



-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"I wonder how the DWR would react if we as the public decided that we did not need to follow the DWR’s rules? What would the consequences be for us?"--Hawkeye

As well as following their rules, why do we have to do their job for them? They are hired, retained, and paid to complete assigned tasks, that on 20 different levels they appear to be either completely incapable of doing, or incompetent in the execution of. Most likely, they are simply just fraudulently, and intentionally negligent in the abdication of their responsibilities and duties as they choose to cater to special interests with their own personal intent in mind above and beyond those they are employed to serve.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

LT-

I agree. But the most frustrating part of all of this for me is that in an effort to cover their own tails, the DWR seems to be more than happy to throw the RMEF under the bus, despite the fact that RMEF has taken the high road through this entire process. Pathetic.

Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hawkeye said:


> LT-
> 
> I agree. But the most frustrating part of all of this for me is that in an effort to cover their own tails, the DWR seems to be more than happy to throw the RMEF under the bus, despite the fact that RMEF has taken the high road through this entire process. Pathetic.
> 
> Hawkeye


Yes, I absolutely agree with you on that point. I don't think that some people, in their echo chamber, realize just how bad all of this looks. The vast majority of people understand where RMEF is coming from, and appreciate the way they have conducted themselves in all of this.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #14 - Q14: Who submitted proposals during the RFP process?
Two conservation organizations submitted proposals during the RFP process: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

RESPONSE:*

Before we get to the issue of who submitted proposals during the RFP process which was open from October 8th to November 24th, we should consider who submitted proposals during the application period forth in the DWR's own Administrative Rule that ran from August 1st to September 1st? See R657-55-4(3) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. According to the DWR, RMEF was the only group that submitted a proposal for the Expo tag contract during the application period. See DWR's FAQ #13. I have attached a copy of RMEF's proposal that was hand-delivered to the DWR on September 1, 2015. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gc0M2a3lIUV9VRlE. If you compare RMEF's application to the requirements set forth in the DWR's own Administrative Rule, you will see that RMEF complied with all of those requirements. See R657-55-4. Contrary to the position taken by the DWR in an effort to "disqualify" RMEF's initial application, RMEF's proposal was fully compliant. If the DWR would have followed the process set forth in its own Administrative Rule, the contract would have been awarded to RMEF because they were the only group who submitted a proposal and their proposal met all of the necessary requirements. As a side note, take a minute to compare RMEF's initial proposal to the 2010 proposal submitted by MDF under 657-55-4. You will see that RMEF's application was frankly much more detailed than what the DWR had received and relied upon in the past to award prior contracts. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gc0M2a3lIUV9VRlE and https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GSzQtSG9FT1JoT1U.

Moving now to the formal RFP process, I agree with the DWR's statement that "Two conservation organizations submitted proposals during the RFP process: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife." I am attaching links to the two proposals for your convenience: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E and https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.

I will break down the two proposals in future posts responding to other FAQ's from the DWR.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #15 - Q15: How could the DWR have improved the RFP process?
We could have been more proactive in communicating the fact that we were using an RFP process through State Purchasing. We assumed that mentioning it in public meetings would be sufficient, but in hindsight, we should have made an additional effort to reach out to all interested parties. We also regret the delayed release of the RFP. We're sorry for any confusion and concern these issues may have caused.

RESPONSE:*

I appreciate that the DWR acknowledges that it "could have been more proactive" in communicating that they were moving to a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing. I also appreciate that they are apparently sorry for any confusion and concern that they caused. However, I don't know why they continue to state that they believe simply "mentioning it in public meetings would be sufficient." Even with the benefit of hindsight, the DWR still does not understand or appreciate that if they wanted to move to a formal RFP then they should have amended their Administrative Rule accordingly and taken that rule amendment through the public input process.

There are consequences resulting from the DWR's cavalier decision to move to a formal RFP in violation of its rule, including the following: (1) the public was denied an opportunity to comment or provide input on this significant change at a RAC or Wildlife Board Meeting; (2) RMEF submitted a proposal pursuant to the DWR's rule and disclosed the terms of its proposal before the RFP was even released; (3) SFW had the benefit of knowing the key terms of RMEF's proposal when it responded to the formal RFP; (4) the DWR has established a precedent and example of violating its own administrative rules.

Just to be clear, the DWR did not even do a good job of "mentioning the rule change" at public meetings. The amended Expo Tag rule was presented at the December 2014 RAC meetings and January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting. As explained before, most of the instances where the RFP was "mentioned" consist of someone randomly using the word "RFP" to discuss the informal application process set forth in R657-55-4. I personally attended the Central RAC meeting and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting and the DWR never clearly disclosed that they were abandoning the informal RFP process set forth R657-55-4 and moving to a formal RFP process through the Division of Purchasing. The DWR continues to hang its hat on the fact that it finally described the change with some clarity during the August 27, 2015 Wildlife Board meeting but that was 7 months after the amended rule was adopted by the Wildlife Board.

I also understand that at some point during the application period set forth in the DWR's own rule (August 1st to September 1st) SFW/MDF contacted the DWR and asked if they should submit an application pursuant to the DWR's Administrative Rule because the DWR had not issued a formal RFP yet. The DWR apparently told SFW/MDF not to submit an application because the RFP was forthcoming. If the groups that have the closest relationship with the DWR were confused about the process then the DWR should have know there was a problem. I don't know why at that point the DWR did not contact all conservation groups, including RMEF, to let them know what they were doing. The only thing I can think of is the DWR did not think any other groups would be interested in the contract.

In summary, I appreciate the DWR apologizing for the confusion created by the move to a formal RFP. However, I am surprised that the DWR still does not see the problem with making significant changes to programs by merely "mentioning" them at meetings and DWR's the complete disregard for the rule making/amendment process. The DWR still has not amended its rule to reflect the formal RFP process that it implemented last year. See R657-55-4.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #16 - Q16: Who was on the State Purchasing committee that selected the expo permit distributor?
The State Purchasing committee consisted of one person from each of the following offices, departments and divisions:

Governor's Office
Department of Natural Resources Administration
Department of Technology Services
Division of Wildlife Resources
Division of Purchasing and General Services (assisted with the process in an advisory capacity but did not score proposals)
These five individuals were selected for their ability to objectively and impartially assess the criteria outlined in the RFP and included in the proposals.

RESPONSE:*

FAQ #16 explains who participated in the selection committee for the Expo Tag contract. As a result of the GRAMA request that I served on the Division of Purchasing, I know the names of the five individuals who served in the selection committee. I will not post their names in this post because I don't want people to harass or malign them. However, everyone already knows that Mike Canning from the DWR was one of those five people. Mr. Canning acknowledged his participation during the December 18, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting when he declared that after reviewing the proposals "it was not even close."

My only comment regarding FAAQ #16 is that the DWR states that the purpose of selecting these particular individuals was "to objectively and impartially assess the criteria outlined in the RFP and included in the proposals." When I first saw SFW's proposal, I wondered why they included so many photos and marketing pieces in the proposal when Section 3.1 of the RFP specifically stated: "*Proposals should be concise, straightforward and prepared simply and economically. Expensive displays, bindings, or promotional materials are neither desired nor required.*" When you review SFW's proposal, you will notice multiple photos of Governor Gary Herbert, Natural Resources Executive Director Mike Styler, DWR Director Greg Sheehan and Wildlife Board Chairman John Bair speaking or making other appearances at past Expos. See SFW Proposal at 4, 13, 14, 30, 31, 56, 100, 110, 113, 120 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E. One has to wonder what impact these photos and related information had on the representatives on selection committee from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources and the Governor's Office during the review process. Would it influence you if you knew that your boss supported a specific group or event? I think the answer to that question depends on the person.

Those of you that heard Mike Canning speak at the December 18, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting can reach your own conclusions regarding his objectivity and impartiality. You can also consider the "canned" response that the Governor's office has been sending out in response to emails from the public expressing frustration and concern about the Expo Tag issue. That response was prepared in large part by Mike Canning and provides as follows:

March 2, 2016

Dear XXXXX:

Thank you for your email to the Office of the Governor regarding the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Governor.

Our office appreciates hearing from constituents and your comments and opinion on this issue have been noted. *As much misinformation has circulated, I wanted to share a statement from Michael Canning, Assistant Director at DWR. I hope the below details remove any doubt you may have had regarding the expo selection process.

"The purpose of the wildlife expo permits is to raise revenue for conservation, but also to bring a large wildlife exposition to Utah for all of the economic benefits such an exposition would provide to the state. Whenever the state desires to procure goods or services, we follow the process described in state procurement code. In this case, state procurement code required that the state issue a formal "Request for Proposal", which not only asks that proposals be submitted, but it also clearly defines how those proposals will be scored. The RFP for the expo permit distributor clearly stated that proposals would be scored on: 1) the viability of the business plan and potential to put on a high quality expo (40% of total score), 2) the ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20%), 3) the commitment of the organization to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30%), and 4) the historical contribution and previous performance of the organization in Utah (10%). All of this information was made available to potential applicants before proposals were written.

After proposals were received, an independent four-person committee (comprised of members from the Department of Information Technology Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Division of Wildlife Resources) reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the pre-established criteria. The independent committee unanimously agreed that the proposal submitted by Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) was the superior proposal, because it better addressed the criteria in the RFP, and consequently had the highest total score. The SFW proposal scored particularly well because it contained a detailed expo business and marketing plan that included data to support the claims in the proposal, and it also provided a detailed data security plan to protect the personal information of the state's customers, as well as the credit card information of people that attend the expo. The other proposal provided a much less detailed business plan, and its data security plan provided little to no detail. The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could cost the state millions of dollars. As I'm sure you can understand, we could not put the social security numbers and credit card numbers of our customers at risk due to the lack of a detailed data security plan. If you would like more information about the committee's decision, please read the justification statement for their selection, which is located at: Caution-http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf.

As many have noted, the SFW proposal did not directly return the most money to the state on a percentage basis (and as you can tell by the justification statement, that component of the SFW proposal was scored accordingly). However, it was the only proposal that provided enough detail to give the state certainty that a high-quality expo would occur and that customer data could be secured. Because of these concerns with the losing proposal and the lack of detail it provided, there is no way to say with any certainty that the total amount of money directly provided to the state would have been higher if the losing proposal was selected. In fact, the losing proposal may have cost the state money if the expo was not economically viable or if there had been data security issues. Although both proposals had their strong points, the state purchasing process selected the best proposal in a fair and unbiased manner. Finally, it is important to note that the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to "support conservation initiatives in Utah". No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."*

Again, we appreciate your communication and thank you for taking time to contact us regarding this matter. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact the Governor's Office again.

Sincerely,

Austin Cox
Constituent Services

For those of you who may be wondering if the Governor and his office have any bias as to who should receive the Expo Tag contract. Please also take a minute to listen to the speech that Governor Herbert delivered at the most recent Expo hosted by SFW and MDF: 



 My favorite part of the speech is when the Governor announces that after "significant negotiation" the State Department of Purchasing" has awarded the next Expo Tag Contract "for the next 10 years to the Mule Deer Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife." "Put it on your calendars." I wonder who wrote his speech?

Let's not pretend that existing relationships between SFW/MDF and various state agencies had no impact on the Expo Tag decision.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

hawkeye said:


> .........*As much misinformation has circulated, I wanted to share a statement from Michael Canning, Assistant Director at DWR........... *
> *
> .............After proposals were received, an independent four-person committee (comprised of members from the Department of Information Technology Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Division of Wildlife Resources) reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the pre-established criteria.............*
> 
> ...


 An independent four-person committee? They must have a different definition of "independent" than the rest of the world.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Has anyone GRAMA requested the names and notes of this independent committee?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Hawkeye mentioned in the first paragraph of this post that he GRAMA'ed and got the names of the members, but he doesn't want to disclose them publically (or maybe even privately) lest they get harassed for the decision. I certainly can respect that, but wouldn't it be interesting to see some notes or minutes of the meetings that took place. Maybe he got those too.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Lee, no notes from the selection committee were produced in response to my GRAMA request. The closest thing was the official score sheet.

Hawkeye


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #17 - Q17: Which criteria did the committee assess?
The committee used the following weighted criteria to evaluate the proposals:

Business plan - Expo operations (20% of total score)
Business plan - Economic considerations (10% of total score)
Business plan - Promotion of hunting, fishing and trapping in Utah (10% of total score)
Ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20% of total score)
Commitment to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30% of total score)
Historical contribution and previous performance of organization in Utah (10% of total score)

These criteria were published and publically available before proposals were submitted. Any potential vendors who had concerns with the scoring breakdown had the opportunity to discuss those concerns with the Division of Purchasing while the RFP was open. There were no formal objections to the criteria or the scoring breakdown.
RESPONSE:*

The scoring criteria outlined by the DWR in FAQ #17 correctly represents the six general categories of information requested by the DWR in the formal RFP. However, each of those general categories were then broken down into further detailed questions in the actual RFP. For example, "Business Plan" was addressed in Section 2.3.1 of the RFP, which provides as follows:

*1. Business Plan.* For all descriptions and topics provided for this section, *provide support and verification of your assertions and expectations, such as historical documentation of past performance, any market analysis or projections your organization may have performed, or other materials that may lend credibility to your business plan*.

a.	_Expo operations_. Discuss the past performance of your organization in planning and operating large scale events, conventions, and expositions, including activities undertaken in support of the conservation permit program described in Utah Admin. Code R657-41. Describe in detail how you will organize and run the expo. Provide an estimate of the number of attendees expected per year, the number of expo permit applications expected per year, the proposed location of the expo, proposed dates of the 2017 expo, and a detailed description of the proposed venue, including whether the venue is secured or if there is a reasonable expectation that the venue can be secured. List conservation and business organizations you expect to draw to the expo.

b.	_Economic considerations_. Discuss your past performance in advertising and marketing large scale events, conventions, and expositions, including activities undertaken in support of the conservation permit program described in Utah Admin. Code R657-41. Describe your advertising and marketing strategy for the expo and how it will result in expanded attendance and participation by conservation organizations, vendors, and the public. Describe the projected economic benefits to the State of Utah stemming from the expo on an annual basis.

c.	_Promotion of hunting, fishing and trapping in Utah._ Describe how your operation of the expo will benefit Utah sportsmen and women and wildlife conservation in Utah. Describe how your expo will result in recruitment, retention, and reactivation of Utah sportsmen and women of all ages. Describe how your operation of the expo will help further UDWR's mission, including the square footage of floor space you would donate to UDWR, if any, for administration and outreach activities for items such as National Archery in the Schools Program (2 day state championship), Help Stop Poaching, Outreach, DWR Information, and general meeting space.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GcmpTbVJnTU5SeFU.

These criteria were much more detailed and in some case different than the criteria set forth in the DWR's Administrative Rule. For example, under R657-55-4(4), an application for the Expo Tag Contract only had to include the following:

(a) the name, address and telephone number of the conservation organization;

(b) a description of the conservation organization's mission statement;

(c) the name of the president or other individual responsible for the administrative operations of the conservation organization; and

(d) a detailed business plan describing how the wildlife exposition will take place and how the wildlife expo permit drawing procedures will be carried out.

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4.

Consider the 2010 proposal that MDF submitted pursuant to R657-55-4, which the DWR relied upon to award the prior five-year Expo Tag contract. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GSzQtSG9FT1JoT1U. It consisted of a three -page application, and that is after MDF and SFW had already been hosting the Expo for five years. Why didn't the DWR require the same level of detail and documentation for the prior two contracts? What prompted the move to the formal RFP for this contract?

In a nutshell, my concern with the formal RFP issued by the DWR was not that it asked for very detailed information but that it then requested historical documentation, actual numbers and analysis, and in some instances it suggested that you should have actual subcontracts in place even though the first Expo under the contract was over 15 months away. In essence, the formal RFP and the scoring system set forth therein established a precedent where the DWR values certainty and past performance from the incumbents over a proposal from a new bidder that may result in even greater returns for sportsmen, wildlife and the state's economy. Both RMEF and I had this concern the first time we read through the formal RFP document.

Some might ask why didn't RMEF file a formal protest to the RFP during the RFP process? The DWR is correct that there is a protest procedure available under the formal RFP process. See RFP at 8/38 and Utah Code §63G -6a-1602. If RMEF would have filed a protest to the format of the RFP pursuant to Utah Code §63G -6a-1602 that would triggered an administrative action and would have resulted in a hearing. See Utah Code §63G -6a-1603. As I have explained before, RMEF was willing to submit a very generous and competitive proposal for the Expo Tag contract. However, it was not interested in litigating against the State of Utah or other conservation organizations. As a result, RMEF decided to press forward and submit its best proposal and hope that it would be enough. At the end of the day, RMEF was committed to putting its best offer on the table and would leave it up to the State of Utah and the DWR to determine whether they wanted to do business with RMEF. You can ask a girl to dance with you but it is her choice whether she will accept the invitation.

In conclusion, FAQ# 17 correctly states the six general categories of information requested by the DWR in the formal RFP. These criteria were much more detailed and in some case different than the criteria set forth in the DWR's Administrative Rule and the criteria used to award the prior Expo Tag contracts. The formal RFP and the scoring system set forth therein established a precedent where the DWR values certainty and past performance from the incumbents over a proposal from a new bidder that may result in even greater returns for sportsmen, wildlife and the state's economy. Under this system, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for outside group to compete with SFW and MDF for future Expo Tag contracts. The DWR should not interpret RMEF's decision to not file a protest to the formal RFP as an agreement that the terms of the RFP were fair and competitive. Rather, RMEF was simply not interested in litigating with the DWR in an effort to force the DWR to do business with RMEF.

Additionally, given that the move to a formal RFP process substantially changed the process utilized and the criteria considered in awarding the Expo Tag contracts, the public should have been given an opportunity to review and comment on a proposed rule amendment addressing this change. Unfortunately, the public was denied any opportunity to do so because the DWR moved to the formal RFP process without amending its corresponding Administrative Rule. See R657-55-4.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #18 - Q18: Which organization was awarded the expo permit contract?

The independent State Purchasing committee scored all of the criteria, and the organization with the highest point total was Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW). It more thoroughly addressed the criteria in the RFP and, consequently, had the highest total score. The committee recommended the SFW proposal to the Wildlife Board for approval. RESPONSE:*

As explained in response to FAQ #17, the RFPs were not scored by an "independent State Purchasing committee." Rather, the RFP were scored by a five-member selection committee made if up of representatives from the DWR, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, the Department of Technology Services, and the Division of Purchasing (assisted with the process in an advisory capacity but did not score proposals). The DWR is correct that the selection committee gave the SFW the highest score based upon the scoring criteria set forth in the RFP and recommended the SFW proposal to the Wildlife Board for approval. Read the detailed summary of the committee's analysis and scoring: http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf.

Much has been said on these forums about the requirements and the grading criteria in the RFP. Many have claimed that the criteria favored SFW and MDF. I will simply reiterate that when I first saw the RFP, it was clear to me that that it would be difficult for RMEF to respond to many of the criteria with the same level of specificity as SFW/MDF, who already had the Expo Tag contract and had the benefit of a decade of experience working with the DWR on those very issues. I knew that RMEF's proposal would be very strong as far as money generated for actual conservation and tourism dollars (the two purposes for creating the Expo Tags under R657-55-1). However, there were a number of additional criteria included that would be difficult to address when you are a new party seeking the contract. On those items, RMEF did its best to explain what it would do if it was awarded the contract and made it clear that it would comply with all of the DWR's requirements and recommendations. However, if you look at the selection committee's Justification Statement (http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf), you will notice that they repeatedly stated that RMEF's proposal lacked detail, documentation and evidence in certain categories whereas SFW's proposal contained documentation, specific numbers and historical information.

Section 4 dealing with the Permit Drawing and Data Security Plan is perhaps the best example. In its proposal, SFW spelled out in detail the process that it has had out in place over the last 10 years for conducting the drawing and maintaining data security (most of that information has been redacted by SFW so the public cannot see what was actually stated in the proposal). See SFW Proposal at 16-21, 68-75 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E. That process described by SFW has been jointly developed by SFW, MDF and the DWR over the last decade. In contrast, RMEF committed to meeting all of the DWR's requirements, noted that it was in discussions with two potential subcontractors who can provide this service and whom "currently work with the DWR in a similar capacity," and noted that it would have everything in place well in advance of the Expo. RMEF also stated that "in the last year, RMEF completed more than #13 million in credit card transaction sales nationally with less than 0.05% of these sales disputed as fraud." Thus, it had significant experience in credit card transactions and data security. See RMEF Proposal at 13-14 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.

However, the selection committee stated the following with regard to the RMEF proposal: "The Offeror B response addresses the main components of this category, but omits the details necessary to effectively review the proposal. The proposal states Offeror B will comply with the standards in the RFP, but gives few details on how they will do so. Offeror B states that they will hire a contractor in the future, but the proposal gives no details on how they will run a complex drawing, maintain data security, manage data, or interface with DWR databases. The proposal contains minimal details on PCI compliance at the expo." Justification Statement at 5/7. This section of the RFP alone resulted in a 40 point swing to SFW. This is just one example but the Justification Statement confirms repeatedly what I first thought when I saw the RFP - that it would very difficult for any conservation group seeking the contract to respond to many of the criteria with the same level of specificity, documentation and history as the incumbent groups that already had the contract and the experience of hosting the Expo.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #19 - Q19: What was the Wildlife Board's role in awarding the expo permit contract?
The Utah Wildlife Board's role was limited by state procurement code. These restrictions were explained to board members and the public at multiple Wildlife Board meetings in late 2015. In this case, the Board's only options were to either approve the proposal scored highest by the independent evaluation committee or to cancel the RFP. This ensured the contract was awarded based on the merits of the proposals and not on other factors.

After reviewing the two proposals and the State Purchasing committee's justification statement, the Wildlife Board chose to accept the committee's recommendation. The contract was then awarded according to state procurement code. Watch the Wildlife Board meeting held Dec. 18, 2015.

RESPONSE:*

While the DWR is correct that the Wildlife Board played a limited role when it came down to actually awarding the Expo Tag, it plays a major role in enacting/modifying the Expo Tag rule and ensuring that the DWR follows those rules. In prior posts, I have outlined in detail the fact that the DWR's own Administrative Rule describes the process that the DWR must follow in awarding the five-year Expo Tag contracts. See R657-55-4 - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. That rule/process has been in place in March 2005 and the DWR/Wildlife Board amended that rule as recently as January 2015. As we all know, however, the DWR did not follow that process in awarding the most recent Expo Tag contract. Instead, the DWR chose to move to a formal RFP process administered by the Division of Purchasing even though that formal RFP process conflicts with its own rule. The Wildlife Board, as the governing board of the DWR, could have and should have required the DWR to either follow the process set forth in its Administrative Rule or to amend the process set forth in its rule to allow them to move to a formal RFP. That did not happen.

Once the DWR moved to the formal RFP process, the DWR is correct that the scoring of the proposals was performed by the five-person selection committee and the Wildlife Board's involvement was simply to determine whether to accept the recommendation from the selection committee. The Wildlife Board was required to accept the highest scoring proposal unless that proposal was otherwise disqualified. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf. The DWR explained these limitations during the December 2, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. However, if you go back and watch the video from that meeting, you will see that the attorney for the DWR actually had to explain the entire formal RFP process to the Wildlife Board. See 



 - (starting at 3:54 to 4:06 - the DWR's video recording deleted the first few minutes of the presentation). Why was this necessary? Because the DWR was not following the process set forth in the DWR's Administrative Rule, the attorney for the DWR had to explain to the Wildlife Board how the formal RFP process worked and what the Board's role would be in the process.

The most interesting part of the presentation was when the DWR's lawyer explained to the Wildlife Board what would constitute a conflict of interest. He stated that mere membership in one of the conservation groups alone probably would not be a conflict so long as you do not socialize with the groups and have not been an officer, director or employee of the groups. That statement prompted a follow up question from Byron Bateman who asked "are you talking about past officers and directors or current"? At that point, the lawyer explained that a current officer or director would certainly have a conflict but there is also a broad prohibition of participating in the process if you participation would create "the appearance of impropriety." The DWR's lawyer agreed to work with each Board Member individually to answer questions regarding potential conflicts. Finally, Steve Dalton asked how many Board Members need to be able to vote in order to make a decision. The DWR's lawyer explained that they needed 4 of the 7 Board Members in order to have a quorum. See 



 - (starting at 4:06 to 4:09). Thus, the DWR and the Wildlife Board were concerned about the conflict issue well in advance of the December 18, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. And given the makeup of the Wildlife Board, it was unclear if they would have a quorum at the upcoming meeting.

Finally, the DWR is correct that the Expo Tag Contract was awarded to SFW at the December 18, 2015 Board Meeting. Three of the seven Board Members recused themselves. The four members of the Wildlife Board who did not recuse themselves voted to accept the recommendation of the selection committee. Watch the Wildlife Board meeting held Dec. 18, 2015.

In summary, description of the Wildlife Board's role in the decision to award the Expo Tag Contract to SFW is generally correct. However, the DWR ignores the fact that the Wildlife Board, as the governing board of the DWR, could have and should have required the DWR to either follow the process set forth in its Administrative Rule or to amend the process set forth in its rule to allow them to move to a formal RFP. I assume that the Board relied upon the advice of the DWR's lawyer to press forward with the formal RFP process even though it was inconsistent with their own rule.

I do not personally blame the Wildlife Board for the decision to award the Expo Tag Contract to SFW. Nor do I blame the selection committee. I believe that both groups were doing their jobs and following the process and criteria laid out in the formal RFP. That criteria and the scoring of the criteria was provided by the DWR. As I have stated many times, I personally believe that the formal RFP was drafted in a way that favored certainty and past performance from the incumbents over a proposal from a new bidder that may result in even greater returns for sportsmen, wildlife and the state's economy. Under this system, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for outside group to compete with SFW and MDF for future Expo Tag contracts. If the DWR is content with the status quo and what SFW and MDF have delivered with regard to past Expos then so be it. But let's not pretend that RMEF was not capable of hosting a similar or perhaps even bigger event, that RMEF did not meet the DWR's requirements, or that RMEF does not understand data security. Just simply state that we are more comfortable doing business with our current partners.

Tomorrow I will address the alleged conflicts of specific Wildlife Board Member in my response to FAQ #20.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #20 - Q20: Did Utah Wildlife Board members have conflicts of interest when they assessed the expo permit contract decision?
Although the Wildlife Board's role was minimal in this process, three board members declared a conflict of interest and recused themselves. Each of the remaining board members signed a conflict of interest form before evaluating the RFP materials at the December 2015 Wildlife Board meeting, and the DWR has no reason to suspect that their decisions were biased in any way. Per the Division of Purchasing and legal counsel, belonging to an organization - or conducting unpaid volunteer work - does not automatically result in a conflict of interest.

RESPONSE:*

While the DWR's statement in FAQ #20 is generally correct, I believe that we should all take a closer look at the conflict of interest question. The current makeup of the Wildlife Board demonstrates the level of influence that SFW has over wildlife management in this state. The Wildlife Board consists of 7 individuals appointed by the governor and they are essentially the governing body for the DWR. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-members.html. As explained in response to FAQ #18 and #19, a selection committee recommended that the next Expo Tag contract be signed with SFW but that recommendation had to be voted on and approved by the Wildlife Board. You would think that would be a simple administrative matter. However, during the December 18, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting, 3 of the 7 Wildlife Board Members recused themselves due to conflicts of interest relating to SFW. See 



. The members who recused include the following:

1.	John Bair - Chairman of the Wildlife Board and former President and Chairman of SFW (http://www.zoominfo.com/p/John-Bair/332099644) 
2.	Byron Bateman - Wildlife Board Member and former President of SFW (http://sfw.net/2015/07/06/sfw-board...governor-gary-herbert-to-utah-wildlife-board/) 
3.	Steve Dalton - Reportedly a lifetime member of SFW.

That left the following 4 Wildlife Board Members to participate in the vote:

1.	Kirk Woodward
2.	Calvin Crandall
3.	Mike King
4.	Donnie Hunter

There has been much discussion as to whether Donnie Hunter should have also recused himself due to his involvement with SFW. According to SFW's own materials, Mr. Hunter is or has been a member of "SFW's Mission Fulfillment Board" (http://www.huntexpo.com/pdfs/Expo_Auction_Catalog_Final.pdf) and he is also listed repeatedly as an "Iron County Chapter volunteer and long-time SFW supporter" (http://sfw.net/2014/05/20/sfw-plants-bitterbrush-on-parowan-front/). In an effort to explain away Mr. Hunter's participation in the December 18th decision, the DWR states that "Per the Division of Purchasing and legal counsel, belonging to an organization - or conducting unpaid volunteer work - does not automatically result in a conflict of interest." While it may be true that mere membership in an organization does not always result in a conflict. That is not the end of the analysis. Under Utah law, a government employee should recuse himself "*if they have any type of personal relationship, favoritism, or bias that would appear to a reasonable person to influence their independence in performing their assigned duties and responsibilities.*" (R33-24-106). You can be the judge of whether Mr. Hunter should have recused himself due to his substantial involvement with SFW. The question is not whether Mr. Hunter believed that he could be fair and unbiased but whether his participation in the decision would undermine the confidence of the public. One thing is for sure, if Mr. Hunter would have recused himself, the Wildlife Board could not have made a decision because they would not have had a quorum (only 3 of 7 Board Members). That would have created a real problem for the DWR.

As I have explained before, don't get too caught up in the conflict issue as it relates to the vote that took place during the December 18th meeting because the reality is that the Wildlife Board was considering a narrow issue - whether to accept the recommendation from the selection committee. The decision to go with SFW was made long before the December 18th Wildlife Board Meeting. Rather, I point to that conflict issue to highlight a much larger problem. How did we end up with majority of the Wildlife Board Members having strong relationships and ties to a single conservation group (including two former Presidents of SFW)? What does that say about SFW's influence on the DWR, the legislature and the governor? How does that influence impact the decisions made by the Wildlife Board? How does that influence impact decisions made by the DWR? How does that impact the confidence of the general public in the Wildlife Board to deal fairly with issues involving SFW?

-Hawkeye-


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

Agreed. The SFW has way too much pull to get its members onto the wildlife board. By nature of filling the Wildlife Board with past SFW presidents and other prominent SFW members, the Wildlife Board will always lean in the direction that the SFW desires. Often those leanings and/or goals are in conflict with what the majority of sportsmen want.

Yet the current process of getting onto the Wildlife Board appears to favor those with strong ties to the SFW/MDF. 

That needs to change or we'll just get more of the same.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #21 - Q21: Why wasn't any public input allowed concerning the expo permit contract bid?
As is the case in any sealed-bid process, state procurement code does not allow public input into proposal selection because those proposals are not open for public review during the evaluation process. Public perception of a preferred organization's proposal should not have any influence on the evaluation committee - the contract should go to the most qualified applicant based on the review of the disclosed evaluation criteria.

RESPONSE:*

The DWR is correct that the provisions of the Utah state procurement code dealing with RFPs do not allow public input into the proposal selection process. See http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63G/Chapter6A/63G-6a-P7.html?v=C63G-6a-P7_1800010118000101 However, the DWR continues to overlook the fact that the public was also denied any opportunity to provide input regarding the decision to move from the informal RFP process set forth in R657-55-4 to the new formal RFP process utilized by the DWR in 2015.

As explained before, one of the fundamental purposes of the rule making/rule amendment process is it allows an opportunity for public input. One simple example of this is the changes to the Expo Tag program that the DWR made in late 2014/early 2015. The DWR implemented these changes by preparing a redline version of their Administrative Rule showing the proposed changes and then presenting those changes at the December 2014 RAC Meetings and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. See DWR Packet for Meetings - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GRzVGSTdqOV9NZ2c. If you look at the packet distributed by the DWR, it included the following documents: (1) an agenda showing "Convention Permit Rule Amendments" as one of the three items to be covered at the upcoming meetings; (2) a letter from Kenny Johnson at the DWR to the Wildlife Board summarizing the "three changes to this rule"; and (3) a redline version of the rule showing exactly which provisions in R657-55 were being modified. The three proposed rule amendments outlined in the DWR's packet were then presented at the RAC and Wildlife Board Meetings, and the public had an opportunity to ask questions and comment on the proposed changes before the Wildlife Board voted on them and they became law.

That is exactly how significant changes to the Expo Tag program are supposed to be made. Unfortunately, the DWR chose not to clearly disclose to the public the most significant change being made to the Expo Tag program - the move to the formal RFP process. Why not? I do not know. I assume that it was simply a mistake and oversight on their part. Although it makes no sense that they would prepare documents showing the "three changes to the rule" and a redlined version of the rule and not bother to even address the most significant change. This is particularly true given that the DWR actually amended Section 4 of R657-55, which is the Section that spells out the informal RFP process that was utilized by the DWR to award the two prior Expo Tag Contracts. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GRzVGSTdqOV9NZ2c. It is shocking that the DWR would amend those provisions without thinking to themselves that perhaps they should spell out the proposed move to the formal RFP process, especially since that process is not consistent with the process set forth in R657-55-4. Plus, the DWR sat through five RAC Meetings around the state and the Wildlife Board Meeting without it dawning on them that they should include that change in their proposed rule amendments. And then to top it all, after RMEF submitted its initial application on September 1, 2015, and the DWR formally notified RMEF that it was moving forward with a formal RFP, I personally notified the DWR that to do so would be a violation of the process set forth in their own Administrative Rule, which they just amended a few months earlier. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. I encouraged the DWR that if they were going to proceed with the formal RFP process then they should first go back and modify their Administrative Rule to allow them to do so. However, the DWR elected to press forward with the formal RFP process even though it was in conflict with R657-55-4. As a result of the DWR's actions, the public was denied an opportunity to ask questions and comment on that significant change.

Going back to the "Dual Purpose of Administrative Rules" as spelled out on the website of the Utah Department of Administrative Services:

"An administrative rule serves at least two purposes. *First, a properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law. Therefore, a rule affects our lives as much as a statute passed by the legislature, restricting individuals AND the agency that issues it.*

*Second, an administrative rule is a messenger of sorts. It informs citizens of actions a state government agency will take or how a state agency will conduct its business. It provides citizens the opportunity to respond -- whether by providing public comment, or becoming involved in some other way.*"

See http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm. As a result of the DWR's failure to clearly disclose the decision to move to the formal RFP process through the Division of Purchasing, the public was denied an opportunity to ask questions, provide public comment, send emails or become involved in some other way. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, the DWR circumvented that process. Now, at some point the DWR will have to go back and amend R657-55-4 to allow it to do what it had already done. Sportsmen can certainly attend those meetings to express their comments and concerns but the reality is that the change was already made and therefore the public input on that issue will be pointless.

When the DWR and others ask why more sportsmen do not attend RAC and Wildlife Board Meetings and get more involved in the public process, the public often states that they feel like their participation it is a waste of time and their comments fall on deaf ears. This is just one example where the DWR and the Wildlife Board did not appear to be interested in receiving public input on an important change.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Given that there are only five FAQs left to respond to, I decided to take Easter weekend off to spend time with my family. I will finish responding to this DWR's FAQs this Friday.

*FAQ #22 - Q22: Why was SFW awarded the expo permit contract when RMEF offered to give a higher percentage of revenue back to Utah for conservation?
The RMEF proposal scored very highly on its commitment to return revenue to the DWR for wildlife conservation in Utah. Its score in that category was much higher than SFW's score. However, the State Purchasing committee was not evaluating the proposals on just that category. Committee members had to examine all of the details submitted for each of the evaluation categories. SFW's proposal contained much more detail in the business plan and data-security categories. Only the SFW proposal provided sufficient detail in explaining how the organization planned to secure customers' identities and credit card information.

RESPONSE:*

The DWR was correct in stating that RMEF's proposal outscored the SFW proposal on its commitment to return revenue to the DWR for wildlife conservation in Utah. In fact, RMEF's proposal outscored SFW's proposal 142.5 to 97.5 in that particular category. However, RMEF's proposal was significantly outscored in the other categories set forth in the RFP and lost overall with a score of 387.5 to 435. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf. As I have explained in prior posts, the formal RFP issued by the DWR in 2015 contained criteria that valued certainty and past performance from the incumbents over a proposal from a new bidder that may result in even greater returns for sportsmen, wildlife and the state's economy. The DWR is the party that determined those criteria and their respective scoring weights.

My only comment on this point is that we need to remember the two purposes for which the Expo Tags were created. As set forth in R657-55-1, the Expo Tags were created "for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah." See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. Ask yourself how the DWR's formal RFP and the criteria set forth therein compare to the actual purposes for creating the Expo Tags. Then ask yourself how the RMEF proposal would have compared to the SFW proposal if they were being scored based upon the actual purposes for the Expo Tags: (1) generating revenues for actual conservation activities/projects; and (2) bringing a national convention to Utah and generating tourism dollars. Feel free to compare the two proposals and reach your own conclusions. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM and https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E.

Hawkeye


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Hawkeye-
I've been following this over the past couple weeks, and it is pretty amazing what you're bringing out. That said, and with you being familiar with the RMEF players that put the RMEF proposal together, why are they not fighting this?? As has been brought forward in other threads (johnnycake's responses are what I'm alluding to), the only organization that has any standing to stand up to the DWR's blatant disregard of its own rules w/r/t the expo is RMEF. If I, being a lay individual, can see the corruption and foul play in all this, wouldn't a judge be that more attuned to it??

I understand that the RMEF probably doesn't want to cry about spilled milk or litigate this and be potentially seen as a poor loser, BUT once this stuff that you have been writing about comes to light 1) to the judicial community and 2) to the general public at large, I can't help but see how this would ferret out the corruption and get the DWR back to working for the Utah sportsman alone instead of Utah sportsman through the eyes of a non-governmental organization that is pulling the DWR's strings.

I guess, I'm just thinking that the current system will not change unless there are those willing to take it on. If the general public does not have legal standing in this case, it would certainly seem like RMEF does. What is their reticence towards standing up to this crap?? If a stand isn't taken now, does anyone doubt that this corruption only becomes worse and more widespread in the future?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Thank you for putting this together! Very comprehensive and well done.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

As I have explained in prior posts, RMEF was disappointed in the process and did not feel like they got a fair shake. I have tried to be careful not to say too much on this issue but any of you who have heard or read David Allen know that he spoken very plainly on the subjecty.

That being said, RMEF has also made it clear that it is not going file a lawsuit or even a protest in an effort to overturn the decision. David Allen and Randy Newberg have publicly stated that this is a Utah problem and it is up to Utah sportsmen to fix this problem. RMEF is taking the high road on this issue and I don't think RMEF wants to spend sportsmen's dollars litigating with a state or a state agency. Plus, when you make an extremely generous offer and it is rejected do you fight in order to force the other person to accept it? No. You move on to better things.

Hawkeye


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Hawkeye, I appreciate all the hard work and time you've put into this. 
Keep up the good work!


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #23 - Q23: What about claims by the public that RMEF should have been awarded the expo permit contract because it has more members, has hosted a successful convention and has securely conducted numerous online transactions?

Regardless of whether those statements are true, the State Purchasing committee could only evaluate the details provided in the proposals. The SFW proposal scored well because it contained a detailed expo business and marketing plan that included data to support the claims in the proposal. It also provided a detailed data security plan to protect expo attendees' personal information and credit card data. In contrast, the RMEF proposal provided a much less detailed business plan, and its data security plan was brief and vague. The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could have severe financial impacts on expo attendees and cost the state millions of dollars.

RESPONSE:*

As explained in prior posts, the RFP was drafted in such a way that it favored the incumbent groups that already had the Expo Tag contract and years of experience in working with the DWR on the very issues addressed in the RFP. RMEF's proposal was very strong as far as money generated for actual conservation and tourism dollars (the two purposes for creating the Expo Tags under R657-55-1). However, there were a number of additional criteria included that were difficult to address when you are a new party seeking the contract. On those items, RMEF did its best to explain what it would do if it was awarded the contract and made it clear that it would comply with all of the DWR's requirements and recommendations. With regard to data security, RMEF's proposal stated the following:

"RMEF understands the critical nature of data security. We believe personal identification and other information stored in our systems is one of our most valuable assets and understand the risk associated with any breach in our systems.

*RMEF will maintain network security that conforms to the standards in RFP Attachment B, current standards set forth and maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the standards Utah applies to its own network as outlined in the State of Utah's Department of Technology Service Policy 5000-0002 Enterprise Information Security Policy.

Application data will be properly encrypted at rest and in transit. In the unlikely event of a data breach, RMEF will provide necessary remedies to applicants and will notify UDWR as required in the RFP Attachment B, and state and federal law. Further, RMEF agrees to execute the event and all surrounding activities in accordance with the requirements outlined in the RFP Attachment A, State of Utah Standard Terms and Conditions for Services.

RMEF uses standard computational randomization algorithms to perform random selections from data sets and will ensure that the Wildlife Exposition Permit Series drawing is executed in a fair manner. We invite any necessary oversight by UDWR and are happy to conform to your standards.

RMEF is currently certified as PCI DSS compliant by Trustwave through September of 2016 and uses Trustwave's vulnerability and fraud protection scanning services on a regular schedule. In the last year, RMEF completed more than $13 million in credit card transaction sales nationally with less than 0.05% of these sales disputed as fraud.

RMEF's technological systems used today are a mix of internally-developed and pre-packaged software. While we are fully capable of executing all technological aspects of the Wildlife Exposition Program internally, we are currently in negotiations with multiple firms that are highly regarded for their expertise in performing the desired services at a level that meets or exceeds the requirements defined in the RFP. These firms include contractors that currently work with the UDWR in a similar capacity. In addition, our goal is to have the least possible impact on UDWR while executing the technological portion of the event. If successful with this proposal, RMEF will immediately finalize negotiations with an appropriate contractor that has the technical expertise and capability to protect application data, and that can deliver services compatible with UDWR and the State of Utah's systems."

RMEF's Proposal at 13-14 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.

In summary, RMEF committed to meeting all of the requirements of the DWR and the State of Utah. It specifically agreed to all of the requirements set forth in the RFP. It noted that it was in discussions with two potential subcontractors who can provide this service and whom "currently work with the DWR in a similar capacity." It stated that if awarded the Expo Tag Contract, it would have everything in place well in advance of the Expo. RMEF also stated that "in the last year, RMEF completed more than $13 million in credit card transaction sales nationally with less than 0.05% of these sales disputed as fraud." Thus, it had significant experience in credit card transactions and data security. I am not sure why the DWR would conclude that based upon those representations, "The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could have severe financial impacts on expo attendees and cost the state millions of dollars."

In contrast, we don't know what information SFW provided in its proposal because most of that information has been redacted and withheld from the public. See SFW Proposal at 16-21, 68-75 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E. However, SFW likely described in detail the exact process that it has had in place over the last 10 years for conducting the drawing and maintaining data security. That process described by SFW has been jointly developed and refined by SFW, MDF and the DWR over the last decade.

Now, if you look at the selection committee's Justification Statement (http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf), you will notice, once again, that they state that RMEF's proposal lacked detail, documentation and evidence when compared to SFW's proposal: "The Offeror B response addresses the main components of this category, but omits the details necessary to effectively review the proposal. The proposal states Offeror B will comply with the standards in the RFP, but gives few details on how they will do so. Offeror B states that they will hire a contractor in the future, but the proposal gives no details on how they will run a complex drawing, maintain data security, manage data, or interface with DWR databases. The proposal contains minimal details on PCI compliance at the expo." Justification Statement at 5/7. This section of the RFP alone resulted in a 40 point swing to SFW.

In conclusion, RMEF's proposal addressed each of the criteria set forth in the RFP. Moreover, RMEF outlined its substantial experience in hosting similar events and dealing with data security. RMEF also agreed to comply with each and every requirement set forth by the DWR and the State of Utah, and even invited additional oversight and input from those groups. What RMEF did not do (and frankly could not do) is regurgitate the exact processes that SFW, MDF and the DWR had jointly developed for the prior Expos over the last decade. If that is the type of criteria the DWR wants to rely upon in awarding the Expo Tag Contracts then so be it. But let's not pretend that RMEF ignored the DWR's requirements, does not understand data security, or would have contributed to "a data breach that could have severe financial impacts on expo attendees and cost the state millions of dollars."

Hawkeye*


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

hawkeye said:


> As I have explained in prior posts, RMEF was disappointed in the process and did not feel like they got a fair shake. I have tried to be careful not to say too much on this issue but any of you who have heard or read David Allen know that he spoken very plainly on the subjecty.
> 
> That being said, RMEF has also made it clear that it is not going file a lawsuit or even a protest in an effort to overturn the decision. David Allen and Randy Newberg have publicly stated that this is a Utah problem and it is up to Utah sportsmen to fix this problem. RMEF is taking the high road on this issue and I don't think RMEF wants to spend sportsmen's dollars litigating with a state or a state agency. Plus, when you make an extremely generous offer and it is rejected do you fight in order to force the other person to accept it? No. You move on to better things.
> 
> Hawkeye


 I certainly understand their decision not to pursue this because it is a Utah problem, RIGHT NOW. But what happens if/when it comes to other states that the DWR and SFW claim are looking at it favorably? Will they wait until it hits Montana before doing anything?

Also, this impacts any other conservation organization who may have interest in participating in this program. Utah not only told RMEF that their chances of winning this contract are snowball in Hell chances, they've told ALL the rest of World.

As your are aware, there are efforts by some Utah sportsmen to nip this in the bud, but if we fail, I'm afraid the high road they've taken could lead us all to a dead end.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> I certainly understand their decision not to pursue this because it is a Utah problem, RIGHT NOW. But what happens if/when it comes to other states that the DWR and SFW claim are looking at it favorably? Will they wait until it hits Montana before doing anything?
> 
> Also, this impacts any other conservation organization who may have interest in participating in this program. Utah not only told RMEF that their chances of winning this contract are snowball in Hell chances, they've told ALL the rest of World.
> 
> As your are aware, there are efforts by some Utah sportsmen to nip this in the bud, but if we fail, I'm afraid the high road they've taken could lead us all to a dead end.


 This is kinda what I was getting at, and Hawkeye, I'm not taking a shot at you or RMEF. I just believe that if something isn't done now while the iron is hot and the corruption and disregard for their own rules is so blatant, the same situation and events will play out elsewhere. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

MWScott72-

No offense taken. I personally would have liked to see RMEF push back against the DWR but I understand their reasons for moving on to other things. I am doing everything I can to highlight this problem and put it under a microscope. However, we need everyone to do the same. Change is going to be difficult given how entrenched the groups are and their incluence within the DWR, the WB, the Legislature and the Governor's Office. Feel free to share any ideas that you have to help correct the problem.

Jason


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Sportsmen need to form a superpac and get some commercials on the air showing legislators (and gov) who are mucking things up. Too late for this year unfortunately.


-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I hope mentioning stream access won't get this thread moved to general fishing, but when that issue first hit, a small group of anglers got pizzed off enough to get a group of neighbors organized, show up at a caucus meeting, and vote Ben Ferry (at time, chair of the House rules committee) out of his seat in the legislature. 

I think a lot of us, if we wanted, could do similar things. Go talk to your legislator. Feel him/her out a little bit, see if they are concerned about these issues. Ask them directly about how they feel about the expo fiasco/controversy. Ask them about why they voted to give BGF huge amounts of money with no accounting required. 

If they are in bed with these same folks, and make no mistake that many are, then organize and get them out. Very few republican incumbents will lose in a general election in Utah. But our system allows other ways to address those issues, if people want to. 

Be involved in the political process. This is where this is going to have to change. You think SFW's over-influence on the Wildlife Board is going to go away if you write angry emails? It's going to take some time, but we absolutely can make a difference in the politics here...if we want to.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

hawkeye said:


> MWScott72-
> 
> No offense taken. I personally would have liked to see RMEF push back against the DWR but I understand their reasons for moving on to other things. I am doing everything I can to highlight this problem and put it under a microscope. However, we need everyone to do the same. Change is going to be difficult given how entrenched the groups are and their incluence within the DWR, the WB, the Legislature and the Governor's Office. Feel free to share any ideas that you have to help correct the problem.
> 
> Jason


Well, in this political season, if you were elected as a State or County Delegate, you can definitely push this with the candidates. I was elected as a county delegate from my Salt Lake County precinct, and plan on doing just that when I speak to candidates at the county convention or before. B/t/w - I received a response from Senator Hatch when I wrote him and others about this, and he specifically kicked it back to the State level, so I would doubt this gets so much as a glance from a Federal perspective.

Thanks again for putting all this info out there as it has been enlightening. Now we just need to get it out of only the sportsman's realm and push it into the general public's eye even more.

Question - if you have to pick one of your responses that would be the most damning, which would it be? As much as I'd like to give the political candidates a detailed account of the Expo shenanigans, it would probably be like trying to drink from a fire hose for them, and I'm afraid it could be counter productive. Better to give them something short, concise, and intellectually challenging to follow up with later once they've had a chance to digest the scope and magnitude of things.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Exactly what I'm talking about there! Good work.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #24 - Q24: Will the proposals from the conservation organizations be available to the public?
Individuals who wish to review the proposals may obtain them from State Purchasing via the Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA) request process.

RESPONSE:*

The DWR is correct that "individuals who wish to review the proposals may obtain them from State Purchasing via the Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA) request process." However, the DWR has ignored the fact that it was required by law to make copies of the proposal available to the public. Section 5.2 of the RFP specifically states that:

*5.2 PUBLICIZING AWARD

UDWR shall, on the next business day after the contract between UDWR and the selected conservation organization is executed, make available to each offeror and to the public a written statement that includes:*

(a) the name of the selected conservation organization and the total score
awarded by the evaluation committee to that Offeror;
(b) the total score awarded by the evaluation committee to each conservation
organization not selected; and
*(c) the proposals submitted in response to the RFP.*

See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GcmpTbVJnTU5SeFU. This same requirement also exists under the state procurement statute. See Utah Code Ann 63G-6a-709.5 - http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63G/Chapter6A/63G-6a-S709.5.html?v=C63G-6a-S709.5_2014040320140329.

The contract between the DWR and SFW was signed on February 2, 2016. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. Therefore, the DWR should have issued a statement to the public that included copies of all proposals submitted in response to the RFP the next business day - February 3, 2016. When that did not happen, I contacted the DWR and reminded them of their obligation under the statute and the RFP to formally publish notice of the award. In response, I was told by the DWR that they were not going to do that because the groups had supposedly made their proposals available on the internet and/or social media and the public could obtain copies through a GRAMA request to the Division of Purchasing. I responded to the DWR as follows:

"This is yet another instance of the DWR failing to follow simple legal requirements. The fact that the groups may have posted the proposals on social media does not relieve the DWR of its obligation to publicize the award. There is nothing in Section 5.2 of the RFP that allows DWR to avoid publishing the award just because it thinks it is unnecessary."

Email dated 2/26/2015. The DWR responded by stating that they are "working under the guidance of the Division of Purchasing on this issue of publicizing the award and distributing the proposals."

So in a nutshell, the DWR has ignored is legal obligation to publish the award, which includes making copies of the proposal available to the public. Instead, the DWR is putting the burden on the public to go through time and headache of issuing a formal GRAMA request to the Division of Purchasing to obtain copies of the proposals that should have already been made public. However, I have already gone through that process and have included links to the SFW and RMEF proposals. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E and https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM. It should also be noted that significant portion of the SFW proposal have been redacted by SFW so the public has no ability to review key components of the SFW proposal, including its information regarding its drawing process, data security plan and how the $5 application fees will be spent. See SFW Proposal.

Hawkeye


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

Everyone needs to remember this stuff, share it with your friends, and vote with your dollars by not attending next years tag expo.
When revenues fall off drastically, a bean counter high up in the State WILL notice.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #25 - Q25: In the future, how can sportsmen and sportswomen share their thoughts about the Wildlife Expo Permit Program?
The DWR understands that people have a variety of opinions about the Wildlife Expo Permit Program. Comments on the program - and ideas for change - should be expressed through the established Regional Advisory Council process.

RESPONSE:*

Once again, the DWR's statement is not consistent with its actions. If the DWR feels so strongly about the RAC process and the public input received through that process then why didn't the DWR present a proposed rule amendment in the RACs that clearly disclosed to the public the DWR's decision to move to a formal RFP process to award the Expo Tag Contract? As a result of the DWR's actions, the public was denied any real opportunity to ask questions or provide comment on this significant change to the Expo Tag program. However, now that the public is frustrated with the DWR and the Expo Tag program, the DWR is directing the public to the RAC process - the very same process that it previously ignored. Plus, the DWR and SFW just signed a five-year contract with a five-year extension provision. Therefore, it will likely be another decade before the DWR accepts any real public input from the RACs regarding the Expo Tag program.

Hawkeye


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

*FAQ #26 - Q26: Does all Utah conservation work need to be conducted through the DWR?
Not necessarily. The DWR enjoys working with its many partners but wants to emphasize that there's more than one channel for wildlife conservation efforts. There are hundreds of conservation organizations throughout the country that use their funding to support and promote outstanding wildlife conservation. Many DWR conservation partners - including both SFW and RMEF - have historically conducted these types of activities.

RESPONSE:*

There is not a lot to say about FAQ #26 other than the DWR acknowledges that there are "*hundreds of conservation organizations throughout the country that use their funding to support and promote outstanding wildlife conservation.*" According to the DWR's own Administrative Rule, any one of those groups had the right to apply for and be considered for the Expo Tag Contract. See R657-55-4(3) and R657-55-2(2)(a) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T3. That is why it is so ridiculous for the DWR to claim that it announced the move to the formal RFP process in a private meeting attended by several local conservation groups that were invited by the DWR. The reality is that any qualified conservation organization had the right to apply for the contract and rely on the process set forth in the DWR's own Administrative Rule. Hopefully, the DWR has learned a lesson through this process about the importance of following its own rules and, when necessary, amending those rules through the public process.

*CONCLUSION*

I am happy to finally be finished responding to the DWR's 26 Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html#q1. As I stated when I started this thread nearly a month ago, I am disappointed as a concerned sportsman at the position the DWR has taken on this issue. Rather than recognizing the legitimate concerns expressed by sportsmen and owning up to the mistakes that have been made, the DWR prepared a self-serving, one-sided statement that does little to resolve the concerns of sportsmen. Frankly, the DWR's FAQ's are merely an attempt to calm the waters and steer public attention away from the core issues. Although some of the DWR's points are accurate, many of them are confusing, misleading or inaccurate. The DWR's statement also unfairly portrays the RMEF in a bad light. For those of you who are sincerely interested in this issue, I hope that these posts helped shine a light on the problems that surround the Expo Tags and the way the DWR awarded the last Expo Tag Contract. Thank you for your patience, questions and comments. Although we have made some progress on this issue over the years, and begun to shed a light on what is occurring, there still remains a lack of transparency and accountability for the funds generated from these tags. The DWR and the groups claim that more transparency and accountability is forthcoming under the latest contract. I intend to keep pushing for real change and accountability.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Just a quick update on this. Keep shining the light on this folks. I just got off the phone with a State Senator (trying to conduct my duties as a County delegate), and there has been a legislative audit requested in the next legislative session on the DWR's handling of the Expo contract. This senator's thinking was that there will be alot of the mishandling of the Expo contract and cronyism brought to light. Will it change things over the next 5 years of the award? Too soon to tell, but the heat will definitely continue to be applied.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MWScott72 said:


> I just got off the phone with a State Senator (trying to conduct my duties as a County delegate), and there has been a legislative audit requested in the next legislative session on the DWR's handling of the Expo contract.


That is terrific news! The legislature is sometimes unwilling to do these types of audits, because it has the potential to expose members of their own body in the process. I will keep my fingers crossed that they take a very long hard look at this. No so much to change the current expo contract, but if the improper influence between SFW and the Wildlife Board and DWR are exposed, that is where changes can take place.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> That is terrific news! The legislature is sometimes unwilling to do these types of audits, because it has the potential to expose members of their own body in the process. I will keep my fingers crossed that they take a very long hard look at this. No so much to change the current expo contract, but if the improper influence between SFW and the Wildlife Board and DWR are exposed, that is where changes can take place.


Yeah, I agree it's a good step in the right direction. I won't, however, hold my breath that the relationships between these orgs will be scrutinized very much. The 'good ol' boys' back slapping permeates the political scene to a degree that would surprise more than a few folks... I do hope something positive comes forth; bated breath and all that.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> Yeah, I agree it's a good step in the right direction. I won't, however, hold my breath that the relationships between these orgs will be scrutinized very much. The 'good ol' boys' back slapping permeates the political scene to a degree that would surprise more than a few folks... I do hope something positive comes forth; bated breath and all that.


Yeah, the 'good ol'boys' per the coyote bounties and wolf and sage grouse handouts. But this isn't the only clean-up effort still going on. Somewhere along the line, it'll catch up to them enough to make a difference.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Said from the GET GO-------- FOLLOW THE MONEY..


----------

