Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/30/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB212 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission; and providing for an effective
date."
3:18:27 PM
FATE PUTNAM, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION (CFEC), DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "CSHB 231(FSH) Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission." dated March 30,
2018 (copy on file). He began on slide 2 Titled "
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission":
The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) is a
regulatory and quasi-judicial agency that is tasked
to:
Limit entry of participants and vessels into the
commercial fisheries
Issue and transfer annual commercial fishing permits
and vessel licenses
Adjudicate appeals of actions including denials of
applications and transfers
Study, analyze, and report on the economics and
stability of commercial fisheries
Ensure reliable and timely access to fishery data; and
Promote the conservation and sustained yield
management of Alaska's commercial fishery resource
Assess demerit points against or suspend fishing
privileges of permit holders for convictions for
violations of commercial fishing laws
Mr. Putnam explained that the CFEC licensed all commercial
fisheries, whether limited or open. Limited fisheries
amounted to 68 and open fisheries totaled approximately
200. The CFEC charged .04 percent per year of ex-vessel
income on each licensee and was calculated retroactively.
He noted that the CFED had not limited a fishery since 2004
but could, based on monitoring conservation and management
data. The fisheries data the CFED collected was compiled
into reports and shared with different various state and
federal agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). He indicated that fisheries were
a sustainable resource providing a return year after year
and the CFEC monitored biomass data to ensure resources
sustainability as mandated by the constitution. The
directive to assess demerit points was adopted by the
legislature in 1998 for salmon fisheries and the commission
suspended other fisheries permit holders via court order.
The court had the ability to suspend fishing licenses in
all other areas.
3:22:32 PM
SYLVAN ROBB, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, moved to slide 3 titled "What HB 231 Does"
and addressed what the bill would do as follows:
? Reduces number of commissioners of the CFEC from
three to two
? Changes compensation for commissioners:
Commissioner serving as chair retains a Range
27($8789/month)
Pay for second commissioner is reduced to a Range
24 ($7225/month)
? Removes the CFEC staff from exempt service and
assigns them to classified service
Division of Personnel/Labor Relations will
perform a classification study and place
positions on appropriate classified pay scale
Current CFEC staff will not receive a reduction
in paytheir pay will be "frozen" until the pay
scale catches up to the newly classified position
New CFEC staff will start at the new Range/Step A
Staff will be represented by appropriate unions
Supervisors Union (SU) and General Government
Unit (GGU) or Confidential Employees Association
(CEA)
Ms. Robb advanced to slide 4 titled "Why is HB 231 Needed":
• Caseload is lighter
Decisions from the CFEC have declined over
time
• Save money
Align commissioners to similar ranges of
similar positions (OAH, Hearing Officers)
Align staff with similar positions in
classified service
Ms. Robb mentioned the organizational chart on slide 5
titled "Current CFEC Organizational Chart".
Vice-Chair Gara asked whether there were decisions
commissioners had to make that involved a tie breaking
vote.
Mr. Putman directed attention to page 2, Section 6 of the
legislation:
Sec. 6. AS 16.43.110 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) In case of a tie vote between commissioners in an
adjudicatory proceeding, the decision of the hearing
officer is the final administrative decision of the
commission subject to review by a superior court under
AS 44.62 (Administrative 22 Procedure Act).
Mr. Putman elaborated that adjudicatory decisions were
initially made by hearing officers. In the event the
current commissioner Dale Kelly and he could not arrive at
consensus the decision of the hearing officer would stand
subject to appeal by the Superior Court and possibly the
Supreme Court. Historically, hundreds of cases were
appealed to the Superior Court and 70 cases moved on to the
Supreme Court.
3:27:36 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if there was a reason for two
commissioners instead of one. Mr. Putman replied that he
had been on the commission for four months; there was a
tremendous amount of work and he was very pleased there was
a second commissioner. He spoke to the balance made between
the two commissioners due to their backgrounds; Ms. Kelly
with extensive fisheries experience and Mr. Putnam who was
an attorney. He believed reducing the number from three to
two was feasible. He related that the transfer decisions
the commissioners made were difficult and it was best to
utilize "two minds".
Representative Wilson asked how many cases historically had
been overturned by the commissioners from the hearing
officer's administrative decisions and how many cases had
the court overturned. Mr. Putman did not have the data. He
detailed that 2 or 3 cases out of the 70 Supreme Court
cases were overturned. In addition, the Superior Court
often remanded decisions back to the commission and the
commission could make a redetermination of its decision
that went back to the Superior Court. Representative Wilson
asked if the commission was necessary when ultimately a
licensee could use the courts. Mr. Putman responded that
the legislature had initially determined that three
commissioners were necessary to weigh and balance the
important decisions that were derived from a multimillion-
dollar industry.
3:32:12 PM
Representative Wilson referred to page 2 of the bill. The
bill specified that without two commissioners a single
commissioner may exercise all the powers and perform all
the duties of the commission. Mr. Putman replied she was
referencing Section 2 beginning on page 1, lines 1 through
3. He elucidated that the intent of the provision was only
on condition of a vacancy. The section allowed the
commission to continue to function.
Representative Wilson thought the interpretation was
concerning. She deduced that a commissioner may not be
appointed, and it would not be the fault of the commission.
She spoke to the salary ranges listed in the bill. She
wondered if pay increases applied. Ms. Robb answered that
the pay would increase over time due to step increases.
Representative Wilson asked if the commissioner designee
was currently employed by the state and would the starting
salary be commensurate with the individual's current
salary. Ms. Robb believed she was asking if the person
would retain their current step if their range was higher
than the starting salary listed. She answered in the
affirmative. Representative Wilson wondered why they were
unionizing employees. She had heard the only reason for
unions were because of bad employers. She wondered why the
staff would be unionized. She wondered if there was a
problem. Ms. Robb replied in the negative. She detailed
that the reason for the classification was the positions
were similar to jobs that currently existed in the
classified service and the change was appropriate based on
the principle of "like pay for like work".
3:36:06 PM
Representative Wilson requested a chart to further
understand the pay scale for non-unionized individuals. She
wanted to compare the current pay and how it would increase
over time. She also requested the information on appeals.
Co-Chair Seaton spoke to the testimony about a person
retaining their steps when transferring to a commissioner
position. He thought that if a person was currently working
at a lower range the starting salary would begin at a step
A of Range 24. Ms. Robb answered in the affirmative.
Representative Ortiz asked for a summary of the bill's
impact. Ms. Robb answered that the bill reduced the number
of commissioners from three to two. In addition, HB 231
reduced the pay range of the commissioner who was not the
chair and moved the commission's staff from the exempt
service to the classified service. Representative Ortiz
asked if the net impact would drive down the cost at CFEC.
Ms. Robb responded in the affirmative. She reiterated that
the current staff would be held harmless in terms of pay.
3:38:40 PM
Representative Pruitt asked for the current number of
positions. Mr. Putman referred to the organizational chart
on slide 5. He answered that there were 22 positions
however, one of the three commissioners were vacant, a
legal specialist, executive secretary, clerk, and the
research department was vacant. Currently, 15 employees
remained. He expected the commission to operate at the
reduced level except for possibly hiring one research
assistant.
Representative Pruitt asked if employees had asked to have
their status changed. Ms. Robb answered that there had been
some interest from current employees.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster announced that amendments were due by 5:00
p.m. on Tuesday April 3, 2018.
HB 231 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.