Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
05/07/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game - Denby Lloyd | |
| Board of Fisheries | |
| HJR12 | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 15-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 2:25:30 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of Fisheries by members of the board; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 15(FSH).] 2:26:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, speaking as the sponsor of HB 15, explained that HB 15 better allows members of the Board of Fisheries to perform their duty and represent Alaskans. Under this legislation, members of the Board of Fisheries who participate in the sport or commercial fishery or have immediate family members who do so are allowed to participate but not vote on related matters before the board. He noted that [under HB 15] the definition of "immediate family member" is defined as those [family members] living in the household of the Board of Fisheries member. This has been problematic, particularly in rural Alaska where there is such a wide interconnected family relationship. The previous definition of "family" included aunts, uncles, and step children whether they resided in the household or not. Therefore, in areas where fishing is the predominant activity in the region, the member from that region was likely to be conflicted out and couldn't participate and vote. This legislation doesn't allow those members of the Board of Fisheries to vote on matters that in which they or family members living in their household have a financial interest. 2:29:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the committee packet should include an amendment that addresses the fiscal note from the Department of Law (DOL). The DOL said that the location of the definition of "immediate family" would only apply to Board of Fisheries members who participated in the fishery, but not board members who had a relative that was financially connected to the industry. Therefore, the amendment specifies a new applicability section so that the definition of "immediate family" would apply to all members of the Board of Fisheries. Furthermore, it's very clear as it sets out this definition in Title 39. Representative Seaton clarified that the amendment doesn't change the intent of HB 15, but rather specifies that it applies to all members of the Board of Fisheries not just those with a participatory interest. 2:30:35 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS0114\M.1, Kane, 4/27/07, which read: Page 1, line 2, following "board": Insert "and to the definition of 'immediate family member' under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act as that Act applies to members of the Board of Fisheries;" Page 2, lines 4 - 5: Delete "In this subsection, "immediate family" has the meaning given in AS 24.60.990." Page 2, following line 5: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 3. AS 39.52 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 39.52.915. Applicability to the Board of Fisheries. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, with respect to the application of this chapter to a member of the Board of Fisheries, "immediate family member" means (1) the spouse or domestic partner of the member; or (2) a parent, child, including a stepchild and an adoptive child, or sibling of the member if the parent, child, or sibling resides with the member, is financially dependent on the member, or shares a substantial financial interest with the member." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, line 14: Delete "sec. 6" Insert "sec. 7" Page 2, line 16: Delete "Section 3" Insert "Section 4" 2:30:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected, but subsequently withdrew his objection. 2:31:06 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected in order to see what is being deleted by Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that Amendment 1 deletes the reference to the definition of "immediate family" in AS 24.60.990, which is a different chapter. This amendment then inserts the actual definition [of "immediate family"] in AS 39.52, the Board of Fisheries statutes. 2:32:44 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON withdrew his objection. 2:32:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned attention to page 2, line 4, of HB 15 and inquired as to whether the term "may" is the same as "shall" in this case. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that "shall" and "may not" are both a permissive determiner. 2:33:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, referring to page 2, line 6, then inquired as to what is AS 39.52.120(f), which is being repealed. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained, "We've got a repealer here and that reinstates the current language so that it sunsets it." Therefore, this is basically sunset language. In further explanation, Representative Seaton explained that AS 39.52.120(f) is the new definition section where the definition is applied to the Board of Fisheries. On June 30, 2011, this definition is repealed and it will return to the definition the Board of Fisheries currently uses. 2:35:42 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired as to who determines that a conflict exists. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that the chair of the Board of Fisheries makes that determination. 2:35:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to what happens if the chair of the Board of Fisheries has the conflict. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that it's similar to what occurs in legislative committees in that the chair can pass the gavel to the vice chair. Furthermore, the board can vote to override the ruling of the chair. He noted that anyone can make a motion regarding a conflict. 2:36:29 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if there was any further objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:37:05 PM STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, said that although he hasn't seen the amendment language, he has been working with the sponsor's staff and it sounds like it would address all the legal issues. There may be some policy issues, he remarked. He related his understanding that the intent is to make the legislative definition of "immediate family" apply to the Board of Fisheries for all purposes. The prior language would have accepted the close family, but didn't provide an exception for more distant family. 2:38:15 PM ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), related that legitimizing all government processes is important to AOC, which wants to ensure that the board process doesn't have the appearance of conflict. Therefore, AOC opposes the passage of HB 15 at this time. 2:39:19 PM JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Boards Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), addressed the approach the Board of Fisheries uses for the conflict of interest disclosures. He explained that prior to each of the regulatory meetings, the board members will go through the proposals up for discussion at the meeting. A list of proposals to which there will be conflicts is compiled. At the beginning of the meeting, the chair calls on each of the board members and the chair will pass the [gavel] to the vice chair for purposes of the chair disclosing. 2:40:21 PM MR. MARCOTTE, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, clarified that it's the responsibility of the board members to identify when there is a potential conflict. He pointed out that there is a guideline that is followed such that the member describes his/her income sources, lists any personal or financial interest that he/she or family members may have as well as any fishing businesses, and they'll identify any personal or financial interest that he/she or family members may have with any of the proposals/issues before the board at the meeting. Anything in the gray area [of conflicts] is discussed by the board. The chair will invite questions from fellow board members, sometimes there will be discussion about potential conflicts. Based on that discussion, the chair will make a ruling. As Representative Seaton mentioned, that ruling of the chair is subject to being overruled by the body as a whole. The aforementioned occurs about once a year, he related. When board members are found to have a conflict with any given proposal, they do not participate in the committee process, the deliberations, or the voting of that proposal. He noted that each quarter Mr. Marcotte files a report on that to DOL's ethic's attorney. 2:42:43 PM MR. MARCOTTE highlighted that the Board of Fisheries is on a three-year cycle and addresses fisheries in various geographic regions of the state once every three years. Each year approximately 10 percent of the proposals before the board have been subject to a conflict, although the rate has varied from 3- 20 percent as measured by the number of proposals. Typically, conflicts occur during regional meetings when a board member actively participates in one or more of the fisheries in that region. 2:43:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related his understanding that when a member has a conflict, he/she can't participate or vote. The member with the conflict doesn't sit with the body and must sit in the audience as a member of the general public during the proposal with which there is a conflict. MR. MARCOTTE said that's correct. A good example would be with board member John Jensen, who is an active fisher from Petersburg, when the board is having a Southeast regional meeting. Rarely would more than one board member have a conflict because of the diverse background of the board members, he stated. Mr. Marcotte directed attention to tables 1-6 in the summary of proposals over the last six years titled "Summary of Board of Fisheries Vote Abstentions (2001-2006)." Table 7 provides a summary over the six-year period. Since October 2001, the Board of Fisheries has addressed a total of 2,458 proposals of which 253 were subject to board member recusals. Therefore, in a typical year that amounts to about 410 proposals of which 42 would be subject to recusals or a conflict. The aforementioned results in an overall rate of 10.3 percent. Table 8 provides the same information over the same time, but it's per board member rather than per meeting. He noted that for seven of the board members it's an incomplete term, and thus the study period represents only a portion of their overall voting record. 2:46:02 PM MR. MARCOTTE told the committee that the Board of Fisheries & ADF&G have not taken an official position on HB 15. 2:46:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if Mr. Marcotte viewed HB 15 as working in favor of or against Mr. Marcotte's ability to do the job necessary on the board. MR. MARCOTTE said that he doesn't have a position as there are pros and cons. He characterized it as a judgment call with regard to how the board functions in light of the public's perception of fairness. On any given day, depending on how a vote goes, some interest group might feel the process was compromised. The aforementioned would occur, no matter the guidelines, he opined. 2:47:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if the conflicts that Mr. Marcotte has observed have arisen mainly as a result of the geographic area for which they serve or the broad definition of "immediate family." MR. MARCOTTE pointed out that the current version [of HB 15] makes two significant changes. One such change is that it allows the board members to participate in the deliberations, but not the voting [when he/she has a conflict]. The narrowing of the definition of family is also a substantive change. During the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting it was pointed out that often members will have many extended family members involved with fisheries if sons and daughters with fishing permits in other households are included. Therefore, having a more narrow definition of family will make a substantial difference in the number of conflicts before the board. 2:49:32 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted he also sits on the House Special Committee on Fisheries. He informed the committee that when the legislation was first before the House Special Committee on Fisheries, it removed all conflicts of interest. Therefore, this current legislation represents a compromise. Co-Chair Johnson expressed concern if HB 15 returned to the original version once leaving this committee. He noted that the sponsor has assured him that the aforementioned won't happen, and if it does he wouldn't advance the legislation. 2:51:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he fully supports the amendments made in the House Special Committee on Fisheries. He said that [CSHB 15(FSH)] wasn't really a compromise, but rather a discussion as to how best to meet the goal of maintaining a high ethical standard while allowing the people of Alaska to effectively participate in the management of the fish resource. Representative Seaton said that he fully supports the existing version of HB 15 and wouldn't support returning to the previous [original] version. 2:53:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON highlighted the importance of realizing that all legislation that leaves the committee is subject to change. In reviewing the data provided, it seems that those with expertise in a particular area aren't allowed to provide that expertise, which is important because they may be the only ones with expertise on a particular subject. 2:54:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that he also sits on the House Special Committee on Fisheries, and stated that the legislation before this committee does get the job done. He also noted that all three of the appointees to the Board of Fisheries were on the record as basically supporting the notion encompassed in this legislation. He, too, stated his agreement with previous speakers that this legislation needs to move forward as currently written [and amended]. 2:55:08 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON clarified that his use of the term "compromise" wasn't meant to impugn anyone. 2:55:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that [CSHB 15(FSH)] was a compromise, and a good one at that. 2:55:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report CSHB 15(FSH), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 15(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|