Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/14/2017 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 87-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
10:09:27 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 87, "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."
10:09:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved Amendment 1, labeled, 30-
LS0376\U.1, Bruce/Bullard, 2/9/17, which read as follows
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to meetings of the Board of
Fisheries; and"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 16.05.251 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(j) The board shall meet on a five-year cycle to
consider regulatory proposals for management of a
specific fishery. The board shall rotate the location
of a meeting cycle for a specific fishery under this
subsection between at least three different
communities with populations of 4,000 or more within
the applicable fishery."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
10:10:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT explained that Amendment 1 will change
the current three year board cycle to a five year cycle. The
reason to take that action is to align with the fish life cycle,
and to allow information/regulations to be predicated in a more
useable time frame. The amendment also specifies that Board of
Fisheries (BOF) meetings will be held in communities with
population of 4,000 or more, in proximity to the applicable
fisheries.
10:11:22 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:11 a.m.
10:11:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the current locale choices
for convening BOF meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT reported that board meetings are
routinely held in the Wasilla, Anchorage, and Lower Cook Inlet
areas. He said the community where he resides doesn't meet the
current standard to host meetings. The Upper Cook Inlet is a
contentious fishery and interested residents shouldn't have to
foot the travel costs to present their issues before the board,
he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the purpose for extending the
meeting cycle from three to the five years.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT suggested that a longer cycle would
provide better information, and said a three year management
plan doesn't provide adequate comprehensive data. A five year
cycle would also result in fewer meetings, which should
represent a cost savings to the state, as well.
10:14:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS agreed with the intended merits of
Amendment 1, and said there may be other cost saving options to
consider as well.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked what impacts this measure will have
on the Board of Game (BOG), if any.
CHAIR STUTES confirmed that it applies to both boards, as BOF
and BOG are governed under the same statute.
10:16:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT added that Amendment 1 only relates to
the BOF.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER questioned why it should not also apply
to the BOG.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said the BOG has not been reviewed to
ascertain whether it would be benefited by inclusion in the
measure.
10:17:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES maintained her objection and suggested that
Amendment 1 would be better applied to HB 88.
10:17:44 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Tarr,
Fansler and Stutes voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 2-3.
10:18:34 AM
CHAIR STUTES moved Amendment 2, labeled, 30-LS0376\U.6,
Bruce/Bullard, 2/13/17, which read as follows
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "substantial"
10:18:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion.
10:18:58 AM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, presented Amendment 2, and said the intent is to
place on the record the definition of the term "substantial,"
and referring to BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 8th Edition, West
Publishing Company, 2006, he read: "Of real worth and
importance; of considerable value; or valuable." He reminded
the committee that the BOF executive director, Glenn Haight,
testified on members declaring conflicts, which are recognized
but not always considered substantial enough to recuse the
member from participation in deliberations and voting.
CHAIR STUTES withdrew Amendment 2.
10:21:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 4, labeled, 30-
LS0376\U.2, Bruce/Bullard, 2/10/17, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "personal or"
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
10:21:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 4 removes the
term "personal or" to ensure against its use being confused or
related to application of the term in context with a personal
use fishery.
10:22:43 AM
MR. HARRIS said the sponsor recommends retaining the original
language of the bill, and concurred that the use of "personal
or," in the context of HB 87, does not relate to language in
other contexts addressing a personal use fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 4.
10:24:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 3, labeled, 30-
LS0376\U.5, Bruce/Bullard, 2/10/17, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 12, following "subsection,":
Insert "(1)"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "(1)"
Insert "(A)"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "(2)"
Insert "(B)"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "(3)"
Insert "(C)"
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "(A)"
Insert "(i)"
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "(B)"
Insert "(ii)"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(iii)"
Following "member":
Insert ";
(2) "personal or financial interest" does not include
the involvement of a member, or an immediate family
member of a member, in personal use fishing, as
defined in AS 16.05.940"
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
10:24:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Amendment 3 would prevent an
unintended consequence and said, "Someone who participates in
personal use fisheries would unfortunately be wrapped up in this
... so this language would make sure that that never happens."
10:25:32 AM
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Boards
Support Section, Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said
anyone can participate in a personal use, or subsistence,
fishery and that participation doesn't rise to the same
threshold of conflicts that causes board members to be recused.
He deferred to the Department of Law (DOL) for further comment.
10:27:00 AM
CHERYL BROOKING, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law (DOL), agreed with the executive
director's explanation and said that, although the amendment
language would eliminate the possibility of confusion, there is
none initially, based on the existing statute. The general
applicability of a law allows that the activity would not
require a board member be recused from participation or a vote,
as the personal use fishery statute applies to all residents.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained that introducing the term
"personal or financial," into statute could result in confusion,
which Amendment 3 serves to clarify.
CHAIR STUTES maintained her objection.
10:29:01 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:29 a.m. to 10:32 a.m.
10:32:47 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Chenault voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Tarr,
Fansler, and Stutes voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3
failed by a vote of 2-3.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:34 a.m.
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
10:35:08 AM
WES HYUMBYRD, expressed concern regarding the level of conflict
that exists on both the BOF and the BOG, and opined that every
sitting member is conflicted. Three years ago, the BOF began
generating and introducing proposals, which represented an
illegal action, he said. The local advisory boards consider
this a circumventing of the process, and asked that DOL be
consulted.
10:36:52 AM
DUNCAN FIELDS, Representative, Cape Barnabas, Inc., stated
support for HB 87 and said it would resolve some of the concerns
that have existed for a number of years. "Substantial financial
interest" was well defined by the use of BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY,
however, regarding immediate family members, use of the
terminology as a qualifier, should be further addressed. He
suggested that clarification of the committee's intent for how
this language applies directly to a board member would be
helpful.
10:39:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS established that calibrating
"substantial financial interest" to apply the same for the board
member as it applies for an immediate family member would be a
positive change to the bill.
MR. FIELDS replied yes, and, without clarity, there could be
ambiguity that allows a board chairman latitude beyond the
intent of the committee. It may not be necessary to calibrate
the two entities exactly, but some legislative intent language
could prove helpful, he opined.
10:40:58 AM
JACK HOPKINS stated opposition to Amendment 1, opining that the
five year cycle would represent a detrimental action and
limiting meetings to locales with populations in excess of 4,000
would be unacceptable.
10:42:16 AM
ANDREW SMALLWOOD stated opposition to Amendment 1, and
acknowledged that it did not pass; however, he opined, that
consideration of a five year cycle to save the state $100,000
annually, would be detrimental to management procedures that are
considered the best in the world, and which serve to preserve a
billion dollar fishing industry. A shortened cycle would also
serve to limit public access to the board process.
10:43:45 AM
MARK RICHARDS, Resident Hunters of Alaska (RHAK), stated
opposition to HB 87, and referred to the RHAK detailed position
statement contained in the committee packet [dated 2/13/17, two
pages], to briefly review the contents. He added the bill may
work for the fisheries, but both boards should strive to be more
transparent. He expressed concern that the bill would allow
those with conflicts to participate, and suggested that the BOG
be removed from the bill.
10:45:54 AM
NATHANIEL ROSE stated support for HB 87 and said it allows those
with experience to participate which could be helpful especially
around highly contentious, fisheries issues.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony.
10:47:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the RHAK written testimony
and opined that it makes a valid point regarding statutory
application. He suggested constructing an amendment to resolve
the concerns held by the organization.
CHAIR STUTES requested the attorney respond to the statute
question and why AS 39.52.120 versus AS 39.52.220 is being
applied for this purpose.
10:48:08 AM
LINDA BRUCE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, said the bill outlines a separate procedure for
conflicts from the procedure outlined under AS 39.52.220. Thus,
it wouldn't be appropriate, given the current language of the
bill, to place it within AS 39.52.220.
10:49:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out the RHAK concern that the
bill language supersedes the currently held disclosure
requirements and activities such as serving on [boards] of
outside, organized interests.
MS. BRUCE said that HB 87 supersedes existing statute and
creates a separate procedure.
10:50:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER voiced support for the bill and said it's
important to have boards that operate to the benefit of all
concerned and embrace all user types. Having a voice at the
table is important and this bill will allow for additional
insights, without suppressing appropriate conflicts of interest.
10:51:56 AM
CHAIR STUTES concurred and said the intent of the legislation is
to acknowledge conflict while allowing participation by members
with specific knowledge.
10:52:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed support for HB 87, and said
comfort can be found in the fact that statutes are available,
which can be invoked should ethical expectations become a
concern.
10:53:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said testimony indicates that HB 87
language will supersede other statutes, and the committee is
specifically designed to deal with fisheries. The BOG
stakeholders have an interest to not have its board process
changed due to these actions. He said it would be good to see
statute reflect the overlap and not inadvertently, negatively
impact the BOG.
10:54:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report the proposed CS for HB
87, Version 30-LS0376\U, Bruce/Bullard, 2/9/17, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
10:55:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
10:55:08 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fansler, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Tarr, and Stutes voted in favor of HB 87.
Representatives Eastman and Chenault voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 87(FSH), was reported out of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB087 Amend #1 Chenault.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Amend #2 Stutes.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support SPC.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Oppose RHAK.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support PVOA.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Amend #3 Eastman.PDF |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Amend #4 Eastman.PDF |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support CDFU.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |