Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/31/2021 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HB10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 26-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
1:02:44 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 26, "An Act relating to participation in
matters before the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game by
the members of the respective boards; and providing for an
effective date."
1:02:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, gave a
brief history of HB 26 on behalf of the House Special Committee
on Fisheries, sponsor. She said that it was a House Special
Committee on Fisheries bill previously introduced by
Representative Louise Stutes and that this is the third time
this legislation has been brought forth, having passed the House
during the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature before its
progress was interrupted by the COVID-19 mitigation measures.
She noted that many of the issues previously raised have been
addressed, and that this is a committee bill that has the
support of all members of the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
1:04:25 PM
THATCHER BROUWER, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr, Alaska State
Legislature, began by directing attention to items in the
committee packet, including a document prepared by
Representative Stutes containing background information on the
Board of Fisheries (BOF) and Board of Game (BOG), and
information prepared by Glenn Haight, the Executive Director of
the Board of Fisheries, detailing the recusal process and
providing information on the number of times board members have
declared a conflict of interest.
MR. BROUWER said that HB 26 would change the way BOF support BOG
function by "allowing the members to deliberate on subjects in
which they have a declared personal or financial interest, as
defined by the Legislative Ethics Act." Currently, he said,
members are required to divulge a conflict of interest if they
or their immediate family members are involved in the subject on
which the board is deliberating. He offered the definition of
"immediate family members" as defined under AS 39.52.960, which
read as follows:
(11) "immediate family member" means
(A) the spouse of the person;
(B) another person cohabiting with the person in
a conjugal relationship that is not a legal marriage;
(C) a child, including a stepchild and an adopted
child, of the person;
(D) a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or
uncle of the person; and
(E) a parent or sibling of the person's spouse;
MR. BROUWER said Title 39 currently prohibits a public officer,
including a BOF member from taking or withholding official
action in order to affect a matter in which the member has a
personal or financial interest. He explained that official
action includes advice, participation, and assistance.
MR. BROUWER said the Ethics Act defines "financial interest"
[under AS 39.52.960] as follows:
(9) "financial interest" means
(A) an interest held by a public officer or an
immediate family member, which includes an involvement
or ownership of an interest in a business, including a
property ownership, or a professional or private
relationship, that is a source of income, or from
which, or as a result of which, a person has received
or expects to receive a financial benefit;
(B) holding a position in a business, such as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, employee, or the
like, or holding a position of management;
MR. BROUWER noted that the Act defines stock ownership in a
business to be significant if valued greater than $5,000. He
stated that "personal interest" is defined [under AS 39.52.960],
as follows:
(18) "personal interest" means an interest held
or involvement by a public officer, or the officer's
immediate family member or parent, including
membership, in any organization, whether fraternal,
nonprofit, for profit, charitable, or political, from
which, or as a result of which, a person or
organization receives a benefit;
MR. BROUWER commented that, as members of BOF and BOG are
selected for their diversity of interest, HB 26 would promote
the sharing of knowledge among members by clarifying that
members are allowed to "lend their expertise" during
deliberation, but they would not be allowed to vote on the
issue. He explained that this would "allow members to make
sound management decisions with all available information." He
remarked that a board member who has a permit or guide license,
or has a relative with such a license, could be "the only person
on the board who understands the nuances of the proposal being
discussed." He noted that during the 2017-2018 Board of
Fisheries meeting cycle a member was recused from 54 proposals
representing 22 percent of the total proposals.
1:09:22 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked for more information on the number of
recusals.
MR. BROUWER clarified that out of 244 proposals, board member(s)
had to be recused 54 times, and recusals are more common on the
Board of Fisheries.
1:10:12 PM
MR. BROUWER covered the Sectional Analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section One
Section one amends AS 39.52.220(b), to allow a Board
of Game or Board of Fisheries members to take official
action, defined by section three of the bill, as
deliberating but not voting, on a matter that they
have a personal or financial interest in.
Section Two
Section two amends AS 39.52.220(a) to exempt Board of
Fisheries and Board of Game members from the provision
in the Executive Branch Ethics Act that prevents them
from deliberating on matters, they have a personal or
financial interest in.
Section Three
Section three amends AS 39.52.220 by adding a new
section that allows Board of Fisheries and Board of
Game members with a personal or financial interest in
a matter, to deliberate, but not vote, on that
proposal or subject being considered by the board.
Section Four
Establishes an immediate effective date.
1:12:21 PM
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director II, Board of Fisheries, Boards
Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
provided information and answered questions on HB 26. He
explained that prior to each meeting the board members are asked
to review the proposals and work with the board chair and the
attorney general, so that when the meeting starts everyone
understands what they'll recuse themselves from and why. He
directed attention to the document titled "Background
Information on the Alaska Boards of Game and Fisheries Ethics
Act Process" [included in the committee packet] which included
the number of board member recusals compared to total proposals.
He described examples of personal and financial conflicts of
interest that significantly increase the percentage of proposals
recused and explained that if a member is recused from a
proposal they may stay during reports and public testimony but
not participate in the deliberation of proposals. Under HB 26
the individual would be allowed to participate in deliberations
and ask questions, but would not vote on a proposal.
1:17:51 PM
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska,
testified in support of HB 26. She said that members of BOF and
BOG are chosen for their expertise in their region or fishery;
however, they currently may not be allowed to participate in
deliberations due to conflicts of interest. She noted that
prior to her current position she worked with the Board of
Fisheries as support staff, and she described board meetings in
which a board member "conflicted out" of a proposal and couldn't
participate in the deliberations while the remaining members
"struggled to comprehend the nuances" of the issue and could
have been assisted by the non-participating member. Allowing
members to participate fully in deliberations, she said, builds
a better record and makes for a more transparent discussion
clearly established on the record. She said that HB 26 would
also help the boards attract more qualified people, as members
would not have to dedicate time to the board only to be forced
into a non-participatory role. She emphasized that this bill
would not allow conflicted members to vote, only to put their
opinions on the record.
1:21:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked Ms. Leach whether she believes board
members are under pressure to have off-the-record conversations
with a conflicted member in order to get information.
MS. LEACH answered yes, then gave the example of a board meeting
in which there was discussion of a subject in which one board
member had experience. She said that the board took an at-ease
while a member went to the back of the room to ask the
conflicted member questions on the subject.
1:22:21 PM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska
(RHAK), testified in support of HB 26. He said that he's
attended BOF and BOG meetings for the past 15 years and has
observed many instances in which a board member was recused, but
in which he was certain that the issue had been discussed with
the member in question. He stated his belief that HB 26 would
not change the outcome of any proposals, as it's often the
recused member who is the most knowledgeable in the subject
matter. He said it would be beneficial to both the board and
the public to have all deliberations open and on the record. He
clarified that RHAK would not support allowing a conflicted
member to vote on the issue.
1:25:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked how restrictive this rule would be
compared to the rules of other boards and commissions.
1:26:06 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, indicated that
he would research the question.
1:26:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked why this bill is aimed specifically
at BOF and BOG.
MR. BROUWER replied that this bill addresses BOF and BOG because
the issue of recusals exists within those boards.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked Mr. Brouwer to confirm whether he
would be correct in saying that, because there is a higher
occurrence of recusals in BOF and BOG, HB 26 is intended to
affect those two boards.
MR. BROUWER replied that is his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the boards in question were
created at statehood and include very general language regarding
board membership. For example, she said, there is discussion of
representation but there are no requirements in statute, whereas
other boards have specific requirements for membership.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE referred to language in Section 3 of HB
26, on page 3, lines 3-4, which would provide that if a member
of BOF or BOG "discloses a personal or financial interest
relating to the involvement of the member, or an immediate
family member of that member, in a business or organization
relating to fish or game resources, the member is not
disqualified from deliberating or participating in the matter."
He asked how well-defined "participating" is and if it could be
construed to mean that the member could vote.
MR. BROUWER responded that HB 26 is drafted to make it clear
that the members are allowed to deliberate but not to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the continued language [of
Section 3] , page 3, beginning on line 4 through line 6, which
read, "If the supervisor or a majority of the members of the
respective board determine that the member's further involvement
will result in a violation of AS 39.52.110-39.52.190, the board
member may not vote on the matter." She indicated that this
clarifies the intent of the legislation.
1:30:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that he sees several letters of
support from fishing organizations but not from hunting
organizations. He asked if it's the fishing organizations
asking for this legislation.
MR. BROUWER referred to the document titled "Background
Information on the Alaska Boards of Game and Fisheries Ethics
Act Process" [included in the committee packet] provided by Mr.
Haight and said that while recusals do happen on the Board of
Game, it's much more common on the Board of Fisheries.
1:31:48 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked why the Board of Game is included in HB 26.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that BOF and BOG are addressed in
statute in the same manner, so the Board of Game is included for
consistency.
1:32:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN commented that the BOF and BOG are
"allocative decision makers", while other boards are
professional boards making recommendations. She said the State
Board of Education is an example of one whose decision must then
be carried out by 54 school districts. She suggested that BOF
and BOG are much more like legislative bodies in that their
decisions aren't filtered through different organizations. With
respect to HB 26, she noted that a board member may be the only
one who has expertise in a certain area and the other members
need that knowledge. She noted the high number of Alaska
residents who are intertwined in related areas and how common
conflicts of interest are, and she opined that local knowledge
should be used "to its fullest extent possible."
1:36:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said that a board member who has a conflict
of interest can still have their expertise on the record by
testifying as a member of the public. He opined that public
trust is at an all-time low and said that he does not support HB
26 because it's not needed.
1:38:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM said that the only support he has
observed for HB 26 is from fishing organizations. He explained
that even though he owned a fishing charter business, he
represents all of the people of his district, and that he became
a representative so he could decrease regulations; therefore, he
does not support this bill.
1:39:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY said that he is a member of the Kenai River
Sportfishing Association and sportfishermen "dominate" his
district; he said that since they oppose this bill, he will be
voting no.
1:40:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said that he won't be supporting HB 26
due to many of the points already discussed.
1:41:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that she hopes the committee members
will hear the public testimony and that the only organization
that has expressed opposition to HB 26 is the Kenai River
Sportfishing Association, while there are multiple fishing
organizations on record supporting it. She referred to
Representative Cronk's comment about transparency and said that
even in the Alaska State Legislature committee members are able
to not only deliberate, but vote, in matters where a personal or
financial conflict exists. She said that HB 26 is intended to
allow for a more thorough conversation to exist on the public
record.
1:43:12 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 26.
1:43:38 PM
JAMES MOORE, testified in support of HB 26. He said that he has
fished in Alaska for over 50 years and is appreciative of the
Board of Fisheries process, and noted that Alaska's publicly
vetted system provides more common sense and reality-based
management than other states he has experience with. He said
that he has served on the board of directors for several fishery
organizations including the Alaska Trollers Organization and
that he has experienced firsthand the benefit of a well-
functioning board with the balanced perspective and solutions
that come from the experience of all members working together.
He said HB 26 addresses a weakness in the process by allowing
full participation in the discussion by the members most
familiar with the issues.
1:46:53 PM
BEN MOHR, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), testified in opposition to HB 26. He said
that the current procedures already allow members with a
conflict of interest to participate in the board process as a
general member of the public and explained the process of the
testimony and deliberations phases. He opined that "allowing a
conflicted individual to have influence over how allocations or
regulations are interpreted or implemented, even if that
influence isn't a final vote, is completely inappropriate" and
that conflicted members already have a greater degree of
influence over the general public than non-conflicted members.
1:50:28 PM
MALCOLM MILNE, Executive Director, North Pacific Fisheries
Association (MPFA), testified in support of HB 26. He expressed
his agreement with the statements made during invited testimony
and said that HB 26 would support more informed management and
would allow BOF and BOG to better serve the people of Alaska.
He noted the letter of opposition from the KRFA and said that
it's "almost inevitably the commercial fishermen" who have a
conflict of interest, and he stated his belief in the importance
of having informed discussion on the record.
1:53:13 PM
MATTHEW DONOHOE, President, Alaska Trollers Association,
testified in support of HB 26. He said that he doesn't
understand the opposition and that allowing a board member to
comment on a proposal doesn't seem like a major change from how
business is currently done. He opined that it's important for
the board to hear from the commercial interests' point of view.
1:55:48 PM
SUSAN DOHERTY, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association, testified in support of HB 26. She stated that she
has "witnessed firsthand how the most educated and experienced
board members" have been left out of deliberations because of a
conflict of interest and noted that HB 26 would not let
conflicted members vote. She noted that in the next board cycle
there will be contentious allocation. She described
experiencing board members with minimal knowledge of an issue
give inaccurate testimony, harming the process.
1:58:21 PM
DON JOHNSON stated his opposition to HB 26.
1:59:52 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 26.
2:00:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Mr. Haight about the phrasing
"personal or financial interest" and asked for examples of a
board member being conflicted out due to personal interest which
wasn't directly financial.
MR. HAIGHT responded by describing a situation in which a board
member had a sibling who worked for an organization that had
submitted a proposal. He also recalled an occasion during which
the spouse of a board member testified on a proposal and the
chairman ruled that the board member had a personal conflict;
the member challenged the ruling, after which the board voted
that the member be recused.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted comments saying that a conflicted
board member could testify during the public testimony portion
of a board meeting and asked Mr. Haight to describe that
process.
MR. HAIGHT explained that the meetings consist of introductions,
ethics disclosures, staff reports, public testimony, committees,
and then deliberations. He said that if a member is recused,
they would need to sign up for public testimony or participate
in the committees as a member of the audience.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether it would be accurate to say
that public testimony happens before any discussion of
particulars.
MR. HAIGHT replied that public testimony comes early in the
meeting, and that board members learn a lot in the public
testimony and committee steps, which both happen prior to
deliberations.
2:05:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the term "personal" on
various pages of the text of HB 26 and wondered aloud whether
anyone will be left on the boards to vote on the proposals,
since there is no definition of "personal conflict".
MR. BROUWER reiterated the definition of "personal interest"
from his introduction of HB 26 and said that based on this
definition, whether a family member is part of an organization
is the question.
2:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked about the last time the ethics
guidelines were changed.
MR. HAIGHT said that he would follow up with an answer.
2:08:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted that for a personal conflict to
exist, the board member or a member of their immediate family
must be part of an organization and he asked whether those
entities would be conflicted out due to the personal conflict of
interest.
MR. HAIGHT replied that he cannot recall anyone being a member
of an organization while serving as a board member; he referred
to his earlier notes on personal conflicts.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, in clarifying his original question,
asked whether someone who advocates for fish or game harvest,
but has no financial interest, would be conflicted out due to a
personal interest conflict.
CHERYL BROOKING, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Department of Law, replied that it would
depend on the circumstances. If someone is simply a dues-paying
member and gets e-mails, they may not be conflicted; however, if
an individual is actively engaged in the organization and has
taken a position on a proposal prior to the board meeting, they
would have a conflict of interest and would be precluded from
voting. She explained that the goal is for board members to not
make up their minds on an issue until deliberations, after
they've received and had the opportunity to understand the
information presented on the proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Representative Cronk's note
that there are "multiple opportunities for input" at the
advisory committee level and asked whether board members could
be forming an opinion well ahead of time, as they receive
information.
MS. BROOKING replied that when a member is attending a meeting
of an advisory committee they're listening and gaining insight
on a subject; in their capacity as board member, however, a
decision isn't to be reached until after deliberations. She
clarified that board members are not also members of the
advisory committees, but they do attend those meetings to learn
about the issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS opined that having all board members "on
the same footing" when arriving at the meeting would be
beneficial.
2:13:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK stated his opinion that the issue of
excessive recusals "really appears to be a Board of Fisheries
problem that we're extending into the Board of Game" and that it
should be addressed solely with the Board of Fisheries.
2:14:27 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 26 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 10 Letter of Support Reed Stoops 3.29.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Support Photographs of Cemetery 3.29.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 26 Boards of Game and Fisheries Ethics Process Overview and Recusals 2.1.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/16/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Informational Document BOF-BOG History and Process 03.06.19.pdf |
HFSH 3/16/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Letters of Support 3.15.21.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Letters of Support 3.16.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/16/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Email of Opposition 3.16.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Sponsor Statement 3.16.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Sectional Analysis 3.14.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Email in Support - Dunaway 3.17.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 10 Sponsor Statement 1.15.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Sectional Analysis Version A 1.15.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 26 Letter of Support CDFU 3.31.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 HRES Bill Hearing Follow-up Definitions 4.2.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HB 26 Research Legislative Legal Memo 4.6.2021.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |