LITTLE ROCK — Unveiling the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s much-awaited employee morale survey provided palpable drama in the commission’s boardroom Wednesday.
To everyone’s disappointment - but to no one’s surprise - the most controversial elements of the survey were excised from the report by a private law firm to which the agency’s chief attorney frequently outsources his work. Many of the 413 employees who completed the survey penned their thoughts about the members of the commission, the agency’s director, at least one upper administrator and certain division chiefs. It was all deleted. Only general comments were left in the public version.
Responsive Management, which conducted the survey, not only removed the names of respondents, but also any other information that might provide clues to their identities. Mark Damian Duda, executive director of responsive management, was adamant in insisting that anonymity was crucial for getting honest, reliable data.
“We were asked for the raw data,” Duda said. “That cannot happen and will never happen.”
I am familiar with Duda and his work from my eight years on staff with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Missouri Department of Conservation. He is supremely confident, and he does not like to be challenged or disputed, but he was especially edgy Wednesday in his exchanges with Commissioner Emon Mahony. As Duda began his presentation, Mahony interrupted him and asked for his qualifications. Duda whirled and said, “That’s in here, but I’ll tell you now, if you want.”
When finished, he asked, “Are you comfortable with that?” His tone was icy.
Duda turned and delivered a dismal report about the opinions of AGFC employees regarding the AGFC’s senior leadership and the agency’s working environment. Some of the main points of the report’s executive summary were in the story that ran in Thursday’s edition of this paper. Other complaints did not make that edition, such as the perception that politics often trumps biological and resource data in decision-making.
“We saw that over and over again,” Duda said.
Or the perception that “some in upper management do not hold proper qualifications for their positions.”
Or, in tandem with the above, the perception that “hiring and promotions are not merit-based, but are politically motivated.”
On a positive note, the AGFC’s fisheries division and its chief, Mark Oliver, rated high in areas of trust, competence and professionalism.
On the other end of that scale, the agency’s legal division rated very poorly in those areas, barely above the commission and the director’s office, as it was referred to in the survey.
Also, the survey revealed that 83 percent of the 413 respondents said they are proud to work for the AGFC, and that 97 percent believe the AGFC is a credible source about fish and wildlife.
Using a scale of 1-10, however, with 10 being highest, the director’s office rated 3.1 in trustworthiness, and the commission rated 3.3. The legal division rated 5.6.
They rated the respect they receive from the director’s office at 3.4, from the commission at 3.7 and from the legal division at 5.7.
The director’s office rated 4.2 in professionalism, and the commission rated 4.4. The legal division rated 6.6.
In leadership, the director’s office rated 3.6, and the commission rated 3.8.
In management capabilities, the director’s office rated 4.3, and the commission rated 4.
As role models for the agency, the director’s office rated 3.3, and the commission rated 3.4.
In all those areas, the fisheries division consistently scored in the 7-8 range.
“I do 25 to 30 presentations a year,” Duda said. “When I got up this morning, I thought, ‘I don’t want to do this.’ Some of this is not wonderful news.
“The overall perception is that this agency has got a lot of incredibly dedicated people. Somewhere along the line things got off track. There’s been a separation of upper management and the commission with the employees.”
Duda would not say how this survey compares with similar surveys he’s done for other agencies, but he said the bad feelings between AGFC employees and their leaders can escalate.
A member of the public who attended the meeting said that redacting the names of problem commissioners and administrators taints the innocent.
“I’m not sure how you’re going to deal with that,” Duda said. “This is like ‘whole group punishment.’ That’s the 900-pound elephant in the room. It’s out, and it’s up to commissioners themselves to figure out how to fix this.”
Sports, Pages 26 on 07/22/2012