A long time ago, in what seems like a different lifetime, I took somebody else’s idea and ran with it. The result, after much discussion and amendment and under the leadership of Governor James Blanchard, was the creation of the Office of the Great Lakes in what was then the Department of Natural Resources.
The idea did not start out as an office. It began as a Great Lakes advocate within the department. The idea was to have someone actively advocating on behalf of the Great Lakes within government. Since the lakes could not advocate for themselves, a designated person or persons within the department would do so on their behalf.
That idea was considered far-fetched and unprofessional. The thinking was that people in government cannot advocate, but only administrate. I went along with this thinking. As a result, the department was given an office, which turned 38 this year.
Today, I wonder if the original idea was not a better one. Given that the Lakes are still in trouble, and in some ways worse off than they were in 1984, perhaps an advocate in government is needed. Somebody who will wholeheartedly and single-mindedly speak for the Great Lakes.
To be sure, the law creating the office includes the word “advocate” in several places. But in practice the office is a coordinator and clearinghouse. It does a good job of that, but more is required.
Conventional, existing means of protecting the environment aren’t doing a good enough job. Many are thinking of new ways to protect the Earth. There is talk of a need for an advocate for the future. And a few years back, the voters of Toledo approved a Lake Erie Bill of Rights, giving the lake itself standing in court. (Of course, a judge overturned this democratically-arrived-at decision at the behest of special interests.) Children are suing to halt the climate change compromising their future.
Yes, our elected and appointed officials should be advocating for the Great Lakes (and the future) already, in the normal course of their duties. But most of the time they live in the day-to-day, choosing or forced to choose to deal with the short run, not the long run.
An advocate does not rule, but only makes an impassioned (and factual) case on behalf of something bigger than itself. What is bigger than the Great Lakes and what needs more advocacy from within the government than 20% of the world’s accessible surface freshwater?
These are questions worth considering as the Office of the Great Lakes approaches the end of its fourth decade.
An interesting question. During most of my career I administered. My role in advocacy was always representing the Departmental view (even though I also did try internally to affect what that view should be). During the last five years I was the Environmental Coordinator for the Department of Transportation. In that role I found myself often caught between advocating for what I thought was the “right thing” for us to do and representing the other view that was the Department’s position. I was often beaten down by a large, sometimes moribund behemoth of an agency so resistant to change. I finally lost energy for these fights as my career neared its end. So what does all this mean to the origin question? In house advocacy is needed but it can not work unless the agency hosting the advocate supports what the advocate would advocate for. After I retired, MDOT eliminated my position and spread the functions around so there was no longer a single point of argument. That is always the danger of placing an advocate within an agency. If the agency decides it doesn’t like it, it is easy to realign it out of existence.