Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/20/2017 07:00 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 | |
| HB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 87-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
7:03:14 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 87(FSH).]
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on CSHB 87(FSH).
7:04:56 PM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska
(RHAK), recommended that the Board of Game (BOG) not be included
in this legislation. He explained that RHAK's concern is that
the bill would mandate the addition of a new subsection to
Alaska Statute (AS) 39.52.120 that begins with the language,
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter," which
means it would supersede the requirements in AS 39.52.120(c) and
39.52.220 of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act ("Ethics
Act"). This would open the door to allow someone to serve on
the Board of Game or Board of Fisheries while potentially having
a range of conflicts of interest that would not serve the boards
well and would be a detriment to a fair public process. Mr.
Richards said his organization also finds it odd that both
boards are aware of the bill, yet neither board has weighed in
on the bill and said whether the conflict of interest is an
issue that concerns them. While RHAK understands the rationale
for redefining an immediate family member within the Ethics Act
for Board of Fisheries members, he continued, therein perhaps
lays the entire crux of this bill that the sponsor has
recognized causes issues with the Board of Fisheries members.
The bottom line, he concluded, is that this bill goes too far
trying to fix an issue that is far and away only with the Board
of Fisheries.
7:08:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he questions whether it would be true
that the bill would trump existing AS 39.52.120(c) and 39.52.220
because the new subsection (g) that would be created by the
bill, still says, "Before deliberating the member shall disclose
the interest on the record." So, it would not be relaxed, he
continued, conflicts of interest would still have to be
disclosed. He requested Mr. Richards to provide clarification.
MR. RICHARDS replied that a memorandum from the Division of
Legal and Research Services [dated 2/9/17 to Representative
Stutes from Linda M. Bruce, Legislative Council] states that
including the language, "Notwithstanding any other provision of
this chapter," would cause the other provisions in AS
39.52.120(c) and 39.52.220 to be superseded and canceled.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said his understanding is that the first
sentence within the proposed new Subsection (g) of the bill says
that the person notwithstanding a conflict can still deliberate
and that is the only thing that is new there. Responding to Mr.
Richards, Co-Chair Josephson confirmed that Version R [30-
LS0376\R] is the version of the bill before the committee.
MR. RICHARDS responded that if the aforementioned were true,
then there would be no reason whatsoever to have the language,
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter," because
that would negate having that language in this bill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he does not read it that way.
7:10:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered his understanding that Mr.
Richards would like for the Board of Game to be excluded from
the bill.
MR. RICHARDS answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired whether someone is available to
interpret the [proposed] statute.
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Boards
Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, responded
that he is not an attorney and therefore may not be the best one
to provide an answer, but that he reads the bill the same way as
does Co-Chair Josephson.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said his concern is that the conflict of
interest is redefined in this section because the definition of
immediate family member is changed. He inquired whether his
concern is misplaced given the interpretations of Co-Chair
Josephson and Mr. Haight. Continuing, he clarified that his
question is whether the bill represents a substantive departure
from the status quo for purposes of determining whether a
conflict of interest exists.
MR. HAIGHT replied yes, it would narrow what an immediate family
member is; redefining that is the main thing the bill does. He
said he reads the language such that if a conflict is
determined, the board member is not fully recused - the member
is allowed to be involved in the deliberation but not to vote.
7:13:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired about the organization that Mr.
Richards' represents.
MR. RICHARDS answered that Resident Hunters of Alaska (RHAK) was
formed in March 2016 because of concerns with the Board of Game
and the decisions it was making about wildlife resources and
allocations to resident hunters. The organization is fast
growing, he said, representing over 1,000 Alaskan families in
advocating for resident hunter priority according to the state's
constitution.
7:14:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she is confused because the House of
Representatives is contemplating making conflict of interest
more stringent while this bill is asking to go in the other
direction. She inquired whether a legal opinion is available.
MR. RICHARDS replied that the [2/9/17] legal opinion from the
Division of Legislative Research and Legal Services should be
included in the committee's packet. He said the Board of
Fisheries and Board of Game operate differently in that during
meetings the Board of Fisheries has "breakout sessions" where
members separate into subcommittees in which the public
representatives and board members can be heard. In these
breakout sessions, board members with a conflict are still able
to speak to the issue openly and debate them with everybody.
This is a Board of Fisheries issue, he said, there is no need to
include the Board of Game.
7:16:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE thanked Mr. Richards for his testimony
and stated that this bill is about liberating those people who
have an expertise and can contribute to a policy discussion.
What is trying to be addressed in both boards, he said, is not
who someone is related to but what the [board member] can bring
to the table. It is being heard from people that the expertise
brought in [by the board member] is valued and yet [the board
member] is excluded; so even when there is a perceived conflict
people still want the board member's opinion. He asked whether
he is missing something here.
MR. RICHARDS responded that he doesn't think Representative
Westlake is missing anything, but said that the members of both
the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries have the
opportunity prior to deliberations to discuss these issues with
the committees, members of the public when they testify, and in
the Board of Fisheries' breakout sessions which the Board of
Game does not have. The main issue with this bill, he said, is
that for the Board of Fisheries it is hard to find members who
do not have a conflict. For example, in certain communities the
people that would be good to serve on the board may be
setnetters, dipnetters, or commercial fishermen and [the bill
sponsor] wants those people to be able to apply for the board,
sit on the board, and not be conflicted out when these issues
come up. The main issue deals with changing what is an
immediate family member. He said he has spoken with members of
the Board of Fisheries and the example given [to legislators] is
untrue - it was not somebody's "ex" but somebody's stepson. He
urged the committee to get more information on the issue prior
to passing the bill.
7:19:26 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said that regardless of whether it was a past
marital issue or something else in a conflict case, the
compelling testimony was that in 55 of 100-plus proposals a
board member had to sit out and could only testify as a member
of the public. It seems excessive, he continued, that the
system is requiring someone to sit down and not participate for
half the meeting. He asked Mr. Richards whether this doesn't
seem to be out of control.
MR. RICHARDS answered that Mr. Haight is available and has
already given the data on how many times this has happened.
This really only occurs with the Board of Fisheries, he said,
and RHAK's main point is that the Board of Game should not be
included in the legislation. The way the Board of Fisheries
operates, there is ample time during the breakout sessions for
members to discuss with the public and representatives of
organizations and to give their viewpoint. The only thing board
members are not allowed to do when they disclose a conflict is
deliberate and vote on the proposal. He said RHAK does not see
any reason why any board member should be allowed to deliberate
when that member has already basically been doing that during
the entire meeting.
7:21:23 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related that at least one hunters group
believes that it should stay connected to the Board of
Fisheries' conflicts legislation or it will be deemed an
institution that has a more strict standard. He asked for Mr.
Richards' comment in this regard.
MR. RICHARDS replied he has read the aforementioned group's
letter and concerns, and said it is a difficult situation. He
said the part of this bill that RHAK supports is changing the
definition of immediate family member and RHAK would support
that for both boards. However, RHAK cannot support the other
aspects of this bill that would go the other direction and allow
people to serve on the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries when
they have a conflict and to be allowed to deliberate on these
proposals and influence these decisions when they are clearly
conflicted out.
7:22:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated he needs clarification regarding
a board member [with a conflict] not being allowed to vote but
being allowed to take part in breakout session discussion. He
offered his understanding that the bill would broaden the types
of relatives that are excluded.
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor
of HB 87, addressed Representative Rauscher's questions. He
explained that CSHB 87(FSH) would do two things. First, it
would allow a member who has a declared conflict to deliberate,
but that member still could not vote. Currently, once a board
member declares a conflict, which must be done before the
meeting begins, that member cannot deliberate or vote. He said
the bill is before the committee because the sponsor has heard
that a lot of expertise is being lost on both the Board of Game
and the Board of Fisheries. The sponsor has further heard that
people with the expertise are unwilling to put forth their name
to sit on the boards because they will be spending half their
time recused and unable to participate and so there is no reason
for them to be on the board. Second, he continued, the bill
would narrow the scope of what is considered an immediate family
member of members of the Board of Game and the Board of
Fisheries. Currently, under AS 39.52.220 of the Ethics Act, an
immediate family member includes aunts, uncles, grandparents,
and a couple of other extended relatives.
7:25:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether he is correct in
concluding that, in someone's opinion, this situation is unlike
any other boards in the state.
MR. HARRIS replied that the state has a large number of boards
and commissions. This bill does not apply to all boards, he
explained, it is tailored at an issue that the sponsor sees
specifically with the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the problem is seen to
exist only in this particular arena and never the other boards,
and that is why there is the need to only call out these two
boards specifically.
MR. HARRIS answered that he cannot speak to all the boards, but
that these two specific boards were the ones brought before the
sponsor by interested parties.
CO-CHAIR TARR added that the Board of Fisheries and the Board of
Game are in the same section of statute, so what is done for one
is done for the other.
MR. HARRIS reminded members that at the bill's last hearing,
Kristy Tibbles, Executive Director of the Board of Game, stated
that the Board of Game is neutral on the bill and does not have
an opinion for or against it.
7:27:57 PM
AL BARRETTE stated he is representing himself today. He said he
is a former member of the Board of Game and has attended and
participated in Board of Game and Board of Fisheries meetings
for the last 17 years. He said he disagrees with the portion of
the bill regarding allowing a recused board member to still
participate in deliberations. At every meeting he has attended,
he has seen nonvoting people, including individuals and
attorneys from various divisions of the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), at the deliberation tables influencing
board members on how to make their votes. Well-prepared board
members, he said, who know they will have to recuse themselves
from proposals, are aware of the avenues for how to get their
expertise in front of the board, such as by written comments,
public testifying, submitting copies, and during breaks and
after hours. When expertise is wanted on proposals for a
certain region or area the local [fish and game] advisory
committee (AC) can be invited to be part of those deliberations.
7:30:19 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated that what Mr. Barrette is describing
is a comprehensive reform of this part of Title 39 or maybe some
parts of Title 16. He understood Mr. Barrette to be saying that
the committee doesn't know the half of it because it is not just
these [board] members who cannot vote or deliberate, but also
all this other influence that is going on. However, Co-Chair
Josephson said, that bill is not before [the committee].
MR. BARRETTE replied he was using the aforementioned as an
analogy of having a board member who has been recused and
currently is disallowed from participating in deliberations. If
someone is recused, yet allowed to participate in deliberations,
he or she still can profit from influencing less knowledgeable
board members or less seasoned board members in the region.
This is because [other board members] will pay attention to the
guy from the area and vote the way he is voting instead of being
well prepared as a board member and making their own decisions.
This is something he has seen from attending as many board
meetings as he has, he explained.
7:31:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked what level of administrative support
is available to Board of Game and Board of Fisheries members.
MR. BARRETTE responded that board members have the full staffing
of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, including the Division
of Subsistence, the "rules people" who help write the
regulations, and the personnel for wildlife enforcement from the
Department of Law. Further, he said, ADF&G and the [Department
of Public Safety's] Division of Wildlife Troopers actually
submit proposals to the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries
and then they deliberate on their own proposals that they have
submitted, and that is an issue.
7:33:41 PM
JERRY MACKIE stated that he is a lobbyist but is before the
committee today as a private citizen because this issue is so
important to him. He noted that he served in the Alaska State
Legislature for 10 years representing the same district as the
bill's sponsor. This issue has been around forever, he noted,
and is something he wishes he could have fixed, so he applauds
the sponsor. It is hard for a resident of Alaska to serve on
the Board of Fisheries or Board of Game, he said. First is the
politics of getting confirmed and then there is the amount of
time a board member must leave his or her family and job, which
can be many weeks. He said it is beyond him as to why an
Alaskan would be asked to serve in this position because he or
she brings some expertise to the table and then have that member
sit in the crowd not participating in the conversation. This is
not just with the fishermen, he noted. As a former seiner and
lodge owner who still fishes and hunts, he said it has always
bothered him that people are not allowed to bring their
expertise to the discussion table. He pointed out that the
legislature is an example of each person bringing his or her
expertise and declaring conflict when there is one, but he has
never seen where someone was not allowed to vote. Whether it is
a commercial fisherman, sport fishing representative, or a
scientist on the Board of Fisheries, that person was originally
appointed for his or her expertise that would be brought to the
process. Whether it is someone with a subsistence background or
representing hunting lodges on the Board of Game, everyone has
an inherent conflict one way or another, he said. Therefore, a
person [with a conflict] should be able to participate in the
discussion to bring that expertise to the table; the bill does
not allow that person to vote. The state would be well served
by passing this bill, he proffered, and allowing people to do
the job they were asked to do and making great sacrifice to do.
7:36:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH estimated that 250,000 out of 750,000
Alaskans probably have a fishing license. He therefore surmised
that there must be a large enough pool in the realm of fishing
that a handful of people could be found who are interested in
serving on these boards who aren't related to each other or have
a financial interest with each other and are independent of each
other. He said he is struggling with the concept that the bill
broadens the scope of potential conflicts that will be excluded
from the violations under the Ethics Act while at the same time
the House of Representatives is heightening the amount of
disclosure. He recalled previous testimony about someone on the
board who was getting a check every year from her husband and
couldn't participate and said he does not know that that is all
bad. He requested Mr. Mackie's opinion on whether there is a
large enough pool of people in which to find willing
participants in the betterment of the state's fisheries.
MR. MACKIE answered that an indication of how strongly he feels
about this issue is that this is the first time in his 15 years
of being a lobbyist that he has actually testified before a
committee. It must be narrowed down to a board member's
children, immediate family, adopted children, or some financial
dependency, he urged. For example, he is an Alaska Native who
grew up in a village and there can be an individual from a small
community who is the right person to serve and represent that
region or area or particular fishery, but technically that
individual could be related to the whole town if all the aunts,
cousins, and in-laws are included. Realistically, how far does
a financial conflict extend, he asked. He said he sees no
problem whatsoever with a board member disclosing a conflict and
the board member being able to offer his or her expertise in the
deliberation. So, while it could be said that 7 people could be
drawn from the 750,000 people in the state, if it is truly being
opened up to the whole state in every aspect, there must be some
boundaries and some realistic limitations. Using the Alaska
legislature as an example, he said he has never been a fan of
disallowing a legislator from participating in a conversation
because that person knows something about the issue. The Alaska
legislature is a citizen legislature and legislators come
together to have an open debate, disclose the conflict, tell it
like it is, and then vote. He said the bill is a reasonable
approach and a well thought out policy.
7:40:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER posited that this is about more than
just relatives because financial gain is also involved and there
are a lot of things to weed people out other than that they
happen to be fishermen. He said it is really hard to find
someone who is involved in the game and who does not have
relatives involved in the game who cannot take part in the
discussion. There are a lot of things thrown out, whether it is
financial gain and the amount of financial gain. He surmised
that it would have to be a combination of things rather than
just one thing.
CO-CHAIR TARR drew attention to page 2 of the bill and pointed
out that it includes specific things of who the person is and
more clearly defines that the person would have to reside with
the board member, be financially dependent on the board member,
or share a substantial financial interest. So, yes, there is
more than one, she concurred.
7:42:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said he hears what Mr. Mackie is saying
about being related to everyone in a town. For example, his
great-grandmother and another woman were cousins and so he
called the other woman's granddaughter "auntie" because she was
family. Addressing the earlier comments about the House of
Representatives currently moving to tighten rules about conflict
of interest, he noted that right now there are functionally no
rules of conflict of interest because a representative with a
conflict declares, then one person objects, and then that
legislator participates in the discussion and the body moves on.
So, he continued, in his opinion it would be okay if there could
be a meeting in the middle it would be okay. He inquired as to
where Mr. Mackie thinks the ideal balance falls between the
legislature where a member with a conflict still votes at the
end of the day and the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game
where a member with even a distant conflict of interest is
prevented from voting or even talking.
MR. MACKIE replied that this issue has been around for a long
time and he is unsure where that line would be drawn. For
example, a person from King Cove could be related to half the
community with cousins and if one distant cousin has a setnet
permit, one has a gillnet permit, and another has a seine permit
there is the possibility - if this extends far enough - that
that board member could not even deliberate on any of the issues
of importance to that region, yet people supported that person's
appointment as a way to give them some representation. It is
ridiculous and needs to be fixed, he said. There is a certain
trust and responsibility on elected and appointed persons to
provide disclosure, he continued. There is an honor system that
when a person knows he or she has a conflict it is incumbent
upon that person to disclose that conflict and there are
ramifications if this is not done. Given the many people he
knows who have served on the boards, and those who haven't
wanted to serve because of these things, he added, the bill's
sponsor has done a nice job in finding a balance on this
particular issue. However, he said, the issue about the
legislature is a little broader and his intuition tells him not
to comment on that.
7:46:37 PM
THOR STACEY, Lobbyist, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), first noted that he holds a registered guide license.
He related that APHA discussed this legislation at a meeting
last week and APHA's concern is that the Board of Game not be
stripped out of the bill. The two boards were treated similarly
to begin with, he pointed out, and APHA supports that policy
moving forward. Treating the boards differently at this time on
an issue as important as conflict of interest could have
unintended down-range effects in the courts that would
disadvantage the Board of Game unfairly in the discussion. He
then spoke to the points of conservation, allocation, and the
appointment process. Addressing the point of conservation, he
said that knowledgeable persons with a financial conflict in an
area also have information to add to discussions on conservation
of a resource. Addressing the point of allocation, he said it
comes down to an issue of trust. When the general public, the
legislature, and the governor trust someone, it allows for
feeling good about the votes that are made for divvying up the
resource. The APHA would be concerned if there were anything in
this bill perceived to undercut the public's trust in the board.
In the long run, stable allocation decisions based on a trusting
public is in the interest of hunting guides. Addressing the
appointment process, he said conflict of interest has become
increasingly used as a weapon during the confirmation of board
members. For example, last year in regard to the Board of Game
a group filed a conflict of interest complaint with the attorney
general. Then, during the confirmation process before that
complaint had run its course and been decided upon, the group
used the conflict of interest complaint as justification for
turning votes in the legislature.
MR. STACEY stated that when it comes to divvying up the
resource, the legislature takes conflict of interest and persons
trying to enrich themselves or their family members very
seriously. Legislators, he continued, might ask the question of
how to ascertain whether somebody is really using their position
on the board to enrich themselves and their family members.
Allowing a board member to go on the record and deliberate a
proposal would give legislators evidence of that board member's
thoughts or motives and how the board member may or may not be
influencing the process, he said. Currently, because a board
member is excluded from debating, there is no hard evidence to
support or refute accusations of conflict of interest. He
reiterated that APHA's specific interest is the Board of Game.
7:50:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recalled testimony by the Resident Hunters
of Alaska that supported the bill's redefinition of an immediate
family member but not the [inclusion of the Board of Game in the
bill]. He requested Mr. Stacey's response to this concern.
MR. STACEY replied that APHA supports the bill's clarification
of family members and therefore would agree with RHAK in that
regard, but APHA does not support removing the Board of Game
from the bill. While the legislation is designed to fix an
issue with the Board of Fisheries, he said, this issue obviously
occurs on the Board of Game. A problem identified on the Board
of Fisheries should be fixed on both boards at the same time
versus stripping one board from the bill and seeing what happens
later. Hunting guides are not the only group that can have
conflict of interest, he said. Credible argument could be made
for wildlife viewing and transporter issues because they could
have larger conflict of interest or much broader implications
where board members may have to recuse themselves. While he
speaks from the perspective of hunting guides, he continued,
there are many other potential commercial users who could be
appointed to the Board of Game who would be excluded from
deliberating and voting if the former testifier's suggestions
were taken up by this committee in the form of an amendment.
7:52:43 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony on CSHB 87(FSH).
7:52:55 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he disagrees with the [2/9/17] legal
memorandum from the Division of Legislative Research and Legal
Services. The bill talks about disclosing something on the
record, he explained, and when he looks at the legal memorandum
and section 39.52.220(a) he sees that there is a very involved
process that he presumes must occur prior to the meeting because
it involves contacting a supervisor, the attorney general, and
so forth. He inquired whether the bill's aim is to trump this
entire process or to merely say that, for the purposes of a
potential conflict, one may deliberate.
MR. HARRIS answered that what is seen in the legal memo is still
maintained. Qualifying that he can speak to the Board of
Fisheries more than he can speak to the Board of Game, he
described the current process: before the meeting happens,
proposals are brought to the board and a list is compiled of the
things that will be considered; board members who know they have
conflicts are requested to make a note so it can be spoken about
before the meeting; at that point the chair will say, "Yes, you
have a conflict, you will not deliberate or vote on this." He
advised that that process would remain in statute under this
bill and would not be changed at all. Mr. Harris offered his
belief that it is generally up to the chair of the board and
that the attorney general's office is usually not notified
unless it is questionable. That process would still be left in
place under CSHB 87(FSH), he continued, and the person who
filled out the form for having a conflict of interest would be
allowed to deliberate, but as is the case under current law,
would not be allowed to vote.
7:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that there are many boards in the
state, as well as many boards in municipal government and said
that all of these boards seem to use the same protocol as far as
what they do and don't allow. The only thing he has heard so
far, he said, is that [the Board of Fisheries] has breakout
sessions, which are important. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough
has executive session, he continued, which to him are breakout
sessions. He requested Mr. Harris to provide clarification
about the importance to this particular committee, which is
completely different than every other committee in the eyes of
this legislation.
MR. HARRIS replied that for example he would assume the "Board
of Hairdressers" is mostly made up of hairdressers because they
know the most about that profession. The Board of Fisheries
tends to consist of fishermen, he continued, whether they are
personal use, subsistence, commercial, sport fish, or other.
The Board of Game tends to be guides, transporters, and other
people involved in that industry. The sponsor has this bill
before this committee, he explained, because expertise is being
lost from these boards. Addressing Representative Rauscher's
earlier question about why the boards of game and fisheries are
being treated differently, he said that the problem brought to
the sponsor was that these two boards are having this issue. No
other boards or commissions have brought forward any issues.
This bill is specifically tailored towards these two boards,
which sit under the same statute, he added.
7:57:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he sees the "Board of Hairdressers"
members all working together for the benefit of the business.
To the particular boards in this bill he sees them working
together for the benefit of fish or game. However, there are
many facets to it, he continued. There are guides, sports,
subsistence users, people of all different types of interests
and all different types of personal gain, and they compete in
this arena. There are billions of dollars on different facets
of this industry where these people are saying wait a minute.
One facet in which a person is involved may gain very heavily
from what he or she is doing and his or her input and exposure
to the conversation, and the exposure of others to the
conversation, is the difference that he is seeing. He said he
is trying to understand how that would be different than other
agencies that are involved in government where industries
compete with each other and which is why some of these ethical
standards were put into place.
MR. HARRIS said it is in statute that members on both these
boards be appointed for their knowledge of public affairs, good
judgment, and ability in the field of action. They are supposed
to be upstanding people who are vetted by the legislative body.
Sometimes things go exceedingly awry for these appointees, he
continued, and it can be rather hard to watch in the public
forum because sometimes an issue comes out and the question is
why this issue wasn't made known since these people are supposed
to be upstanding individuals. Second, as discussed by Mr.
Barrette about undue influence, the board process is that all
members sit at a dais, as does this committee. However, once a
board member is recused, that board member sits in the audience
and is then immediately asked questions by people in the
audience and now that board member is not on the record but is
having an influence on the process at that point. Under this
bill, he said, that board member would still sit at the dais and
that would actually limit the amount of influence because
everything said by that board member would now be on the record.
8:01:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted that he is a registered engineer who
for 35 years has dealt with the Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors, which is a board that
has mapped out how the profession works in Alaska. Given that
250,000 people in Alaska have a fishing license and given that
someone doesn't have to be of any particular type of fishing
discipline to participate in the Board of Fisheries, he said, it
would seem that seven people could be found who are not tied at
the shoelaces with somebody else and who could do good work,
particularly since board members have access to the abundant
resources existing in advisory committees and ADF&G. So, he
continued, he is still struggling with how broadening,
eliminating, and basically covering over the conflicts is good
for the public as it is basically getting past the Ethics Act.
MR. HARRIS answered that the engineer and the architect on the
Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors are professionals who have studied their topics. He
said that while he could make a drawing he doesn't think that
that would qualify him as a professional who should be sitting
on that board. It is much the same thing that someone who owns
a fishing license may not be qualified to sit on the Board of
Fisheries. It would be hoped to have people who are high
caliber professionals, not that they are professional fishers,
but that they are very well learned in the industry, have a
great depth of knowledge, and are able to lend their expertise
to the board. That is why those people are on the board, not
because they are able to fish.
8:03:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH read from statute, noting it says that
members are appointed on the basis of their interest in public
affairs, good judgment, knowledge and ability in the field of
action of the board, and a view of providing a diversity of
interest and point of view in the membership. While he is
unfamiliar with the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game, it
seems that there is no compelling reason that someone must have
been a seiner for 10 years. While the person filling the
architectural slot on the Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors must be an architect, he said he
does not see that kind of demand for the Board of Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE STUTES, Alaska State Legislature, replied
that someone applying for a board seat is usually a fisherperson
of some sort. If, for example, a commercial fisherperson fishes
a setnet site three months of the year and is on the board, this
person would currently be excluded from board discussions about
salmon fisheries in that area. When this person cannot
participate in the conversation, this person's knowledge goes by
the wayside. Whereas under this bill, the person involved in
this particular fishery would be able to participate in the
discussion and impart his or her knowledge to the board
regardless of whether he or she is allowed to vote on it. If
this person is conflicted out then he or she certainly would not
vote, but it would not preclude the person from allowing the
board to have his or her information and knowledge of that
particular fishery.
8:05:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH gave an example of 40,000 people wanting to
use a personal use dipnet fishery on the Kenai River and said it
would obviously be of some benefit to them to haul home a big
pile of fish. He asked whether that would take away from their
ability to participate in this case.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES replied yes, currently they would most
certainly be conflicted out if the board was discussing the
dipnet fishery.
8:06:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether only board members are
allowed at the breakout sessions.
MR. HARRIS deferred to Thor Stacey to answer the question.
MR. STACEY replied that the breakout session in the subcommittee
work is a Board of Fisheries function. Proposals before the
Board of Fisheries have a lot of complexity, plus there is the
number and the duration of the meetings. That same complexity
does not exist at the Board of Game, so the Board of Game does
not do the breakout session in the work group like the Board of
Fisheries. The Board of Game is different in that regard and is
based on a little bit simpler process and a little bit simpler
suite of proposals.
JERRY MCCUNE, lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska, at Co-Chair
Tarr's request explained that the Board of Fisheries has a
process where it takes so many proposals and puts them in a
committee. Two members are assigned to each committee; this is
because there may be three committees meeting at the same time
and a member couldn't attend both. This process lets people go
to the committee meetings handling the proposals that they are
interested in. Sometimes the board will hold a "committee of
the whole" where everybody can sit in the audience and testimony
is taken. The committees take up the proposals and hear from
everybody and the board member that is the chair reports to the
full committee. While it is called a breakout committee, it
doesn't mean that [a conflicted member] will still get to take
part - board members with a financial conflict will still be
conflicted out. So, these conflicted members have the same
chance as he does to sit in the audience, put up their hands,
and maybe say something. What is trying to be achieved [with
the bill] is that a conflicted board member could sit around the
table and answer board members' questions during deliberations
on that one particular proposal that he or she may have the
expertise on. Currently, that person cannot do that, he or she
must sit in the audience and not say anything except for the 2-5
minutes in which a regular person is allowed to testify.
8:11:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER reiterated that he is still at a loss as
to how no one else is able to supply this information that [a
conflicted board member has] and cannot talk about.
MR. MCCUNE answered that he is an expert in the fisheries of
Prince William Sound because he has fished there for over 50
years. He knows a little bit about Southeast fishing, a little
bit about Kodiak fishing, and a little bit about Bristol Bay,
but he is not an expert in Bristol Bay and may call a friend in
Bristol Bay or King Cove to ask questions. He posed a scenario
in which he is sitting on the board as a permitted gillnetter
and is conflicted out, and since he also has a son who is a
gillnetter he would probably be conflicted out and not able to
vote because of a financial conflict. The current chairman
comes from Southeast, he continued, and doesn't have expertise
in Prince William Sound, so the chairman would have to rely on
him to tell his thoughts, but that wouldn't mean the chairman
would believe everything he said or agree with him. However, at
least he would have had the chance [to speak to the chairman] as
an expert in that area.
8:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether Mr. McCune would be the
only one who could provide information for Prince William Sound.
MR. MCCUNE replied that if he were sitting on the board there
would be other people in the audience who would speak to the
proposals for two minutes; but he would probably be the only
board member. For example, he continued, Mr. Huntington on the
board is from up north, Mr. Jensen is from Southeast, and Mr.
Payton is from Wasilla and doesn't know much about commercial
fishing but knows a little bit about dipnetting.
8:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that he asks witnesses questions
when they are testifying because they can provide information
based on their expertise and therefore he is able to gather
information from all of the witnesses and there could be 20
witnesses. He said he thinks this provides the same information
as being able to sit directly in a conversation.
MR. MCCUNE concurred that questions can be asked of the people
who are testifying. But, he explained, different things come up
as the board is deliberating on a proposal and those questions
that come up during deliberations may not have come up during
testimony. For example, he sitting here [at the witness table],
Jerry Mackie and Richie Davis [in the audience] know a lot about
Southeast fisheries, but they do not know that much about Prince
William Sound fisheries; they may know what type they are but
they don't know about the issues. Regarding 750,000 people, he
quipped that anybody wanting to sit on the Board of Fisheries is
crazy. Once upon a time he wanted to do it, he said, but he has
lost his enthusiasm for it. It must be a certain kind of person
to start with and the person must have the time and the money
because members do not get paid very much for sitting on the
board - and that is where the pool gets cut down.
8:15:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND allowed she has never been to a Board of
Fisheries or Board of Game meeting, but said legislative bodies
and boards have differences in the way they operate. She asked
whether the rules require that members of the Board of Fisheries
be chosen based on region or whether it is left up to the
selection process to get an even spread around the state.
MR. MCCUNE responded that the statute doesn't say a whole lot,
only that it should be qualified people. There are some people
who think it should be designated seats, he said, and some who
think it should be one member from each area, but [the statute]
doesn't really say that. It is totally up to that governor as
to how he or she puts his or her boards together.
8:18:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled the earlier testimony about the
Board of Fisheries having breakout sessions and that there are
advisory committees (ACs). She asked whether the AC's are only
a Board of Fisheries process or also a Board of Game process.
MR. MCCUNE explained that each region has an AC; for example,
Prince William Sound has one and Anchorage has one. The AC's
are made up of different gear types, they take up all of the
proposals, and an AC may get a little more time, five minutes,
to have its representative testify before the boards. The idea
is that local people will be able to get a little bit more say
through their advisory committee for their area.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether an advisory committee does
or does not include a board member of the Board of Fisheries.
MR. MCCUNE replied no, not usually, but the Board of Fisheries
will sometimes send a panel somewhere, such as to Fairbanks, to
take testimony. The AC's are funded through the Board of
Fisheries and the AC's hold elections for the members.
8:20:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out that it is heard from people
in the industry and from sport fishermen that there is the
unwritten rule to have balance on that work. While that will
not be said in public, everybody knows that there is going to be
X amount of sport fishermen and X amount of commercial
fishermen. Given that conflicts are always about financial
interest, he asked whether there is ever a situation where a
sport fisherman would declare a conflict.
MR. MCCUNE recalled there was a situation where a board member
had a lodge but that he couldn't remember exactly what it was.
Another time a recreational sport fisherman was conflicted out
because his aunt had a permit in the setnet fishery and while
this member did not have any financial gain from that he was
conflicted out. He added that there may have been other
situations but he does not remember them.
8:22:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated he has no problem with the actual
close affiliations here. He related that he has had to declare
a conflict before because he has a 38-year-old son who has been
on his own for 18 years, owns two homes, raises his own family,
and happens to work for the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities. He and his son do not share any financial
interest. The hard part here is the public perception, he said.
While he understands the deliberation provision, the hurdle he
has to get over is putting a bigger target on board members by
letting them deliberate. It is not the expertise side but
rather the public's perception of what is happening there.
Reality and facts don't matter, occasionally perception can be
reality and that is probably the toughest thing that committee
members are looking at. There is no question that if someone's
expertise can be used it should be used, but it is likely that
each of this committee's members has been attacked for his or
her expertise when the committee utilized it and then the public
said there must be some gain for that committee member. So, he
continued, while he thinks that a board member's expertise is
incredibly valuable, the public may think differently on that.
The close family association has gone way too far for way too
long, he added, given that there can be family members with whom
someone has not spoken to in a decade and yet they would be
considered a close association and that would not be fair. But,
he reiterated, the hurdle here for him is the deliberation part.
MR. MCCUNE offered a different way to look at it. He noted that
the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game have a yellow line
that cannot be crossed. He presented a scenario in which he is
serving as a board member [with a conflict] and two other
members call him over and ask him some questions, so he answers
those questions on the side and the audience doesn't get to hear
the conversation. He said he would rather have the [conflicted
board member] up at the table answering those questions where
the answers can be heard [by everyone]. He presented another
scenario in which he is a board member who owns a $2 million
lodge and he decides to take fish away from the commercial guys
and allocate them to the sport guys. That would be a direct
financial gain for his lodge, he said, and so he assumes that
someone would call that.
8:26:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER reported that there were 4 conflicts of
interest out of 34 cases for the Board of Fisheries and that for
the Board of Game there have been none over the last two years.
8:27:21 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR requested that the staff for the Board of Game and
Board of Fisheries address the differences between the statutes
for the two boards, which are very general in description,
versus the much more specific descriptions for other boards like
the "Board of Hairdressers" or "Board of Engineers." She
further requested that the staff address, should the bill pass,
whether there would still be a process through the Ethics Act to
challenge any decisions or behavior.
8:28:11 PM
MR. HAIGHT confirmed that the statute is very general; it states
that a board member be qualified, have good judgment, and have
some understanding of the area of the Board of Game or Board of
Fisheries. The statute also specifically states that it is not
based on geography. Regarding inappropriate behavior or not
providing disclosure, he advised that board members who have
been recused to vote would need to work a fine line between
advocating too much and providing good information; it is a
personal challenge that individuals must deal with. He said he
doesn't see anything that would come back to eliminate them
further - they would be up in front of people deliberating on a
proposal but not voting on it, but allowed he does not know what
would happen in that situation.
MR. HAIGHT addressed the discussion about the Board of Fisheries
process as opposed to the Board of Game. He explained that
first of all there is the ethics disclosure where the board
members provide the disclosure and that happens in meetings.
From there it goes into staff reports and then public testimony.
After public testimony is when the Board of Game and Board of
Fisheries have a departure. The Board of Game will generally go
into deliberations right there and deliberations are where a
board member shares his or her thinking and works to sway other
board members to his or her position. The Board of Fisheries
will break out into committees and just by public testimony in
committee board members don't deliberate, don't state their
positions, and don't tell people what they are thinking - they
ask questions of people. Therefore, a board member who has been
recused from a particular proposal will still engage in those
committees because they are asking questions, although not
sharing their opinions.
MR. HAIGHT explained that a proposal is basically a regulatory
petition. Under the Administrative Procedures Act the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game are allowed to accept petitions
of the department for regulatory changes. The boards open up
regions and species every year on a three-year basis for
whatever petitions/proposals that people want to send to them.
8:32:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired whether the Board of Fisheries
or Board of Game engage in executive session and whether the
parameters of change proposed in the bill would apply to the
rules for an executive session in which the public does not have
access to the members.
MR. HAIGHT replied that both boards can and do go into executive
session, but not for purposes of deliberating a proposal.
8:33:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH requested clarification of the proposal
process.
MR. HAIGHT explained that the Board of Fisheries and Board of
Game each receive hundreds of proposal requests every year,
which is too much to handle. Therefore, currently, on a three-
year cycle each board will make a call for proposals on specific
topics that goes out in November or December each year and the
proposals are due in April or May depending on which board.
Those proposals are put into a proposal book that is made
available to the public every summer. The advisory committees
go through the proposals and provide recommendations to each
board about those proposals. Then at their regulatory meetings
the boards will take up each proposal, listen to the public,
deliberate, and make decisions.
8:35:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH requested an example of how a proposal is
actually configured.
MR. HAIGHT replied that there is a proposal form that people
fill out where they are asked to cite a specific regulation that
they would like to change or a brand new regulation that they
would like to suggest. For example, it could be to change the
bag limit in a particular fishery from three fish to five fish,
or to close a fishery entirely because of conservation concerns.
For example, the Board of Fisheries is currently in Anchorage
taking up statewide King Crab and Tanner Crab proposals - there
are proposals for the Bering Sea for Tanner Crab, a proposal for
Prince William Sound to create a Tanner Crab season, and a
proposal for Cook Inlet. It is very specific for certain areas
in the big ocean.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled that four or five years ago the
Alaska Dispatch News, then called the [Anchorage] Daily News,
ran a story about a 12- or 13-year-old kid from Chugiak who had
filed a proposal on some game issue. This boy was literally
trying to write a law no different than a law that would be
written by the legislature. Those proposals are the ultimate in
democracy in that respect, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether the boards get any guidance
from the professionals at ADF&G regarding the proposals.
MR. HAIGHT replied that in their calls for proposals the boards
specifically list which regions and which species that they will
accept proposals on. Staff within the divisions of ADF&G will
provide very detailed comments and will prepare very detailed
management reports that provide years and years of context. The
department staff provides statements of positions on the
proposals and staff is at the board meetings to provide
assistance to the board members.
8:38:53 PM
KRISTY TIBBLES, Executive Director, Board of Game, Boards
Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, addressed the
aforementioned questions on proposals as they relate to the
Board of Game. She said Mr. Haight covered the various topics
very well. Both boards have pretty similar processes, although
the one that is a little bit different is the breakout sessions.
Otherwise, the appointment of members is very similar and the
language in statute is nearly identical. Regarding the Ethics
Act, conflicts of interest, and executive sessions she said she
doesn't have any more to add.
8:40:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated that this bill is about deliberating.
While the team at the Division of Legislative Research and Legal
Services is very skilled, he said he thinks there is more
caution in the [2/9/17] memorandum than needs to be. The reason
he thinks this, he explained, is because for the definition of
immediate family member CSHB 87(FSH) states on page 1, line 12,
"In this subsection". So the bill is not changing the world, it
only says that for purposes of whether a board member can
deliberate it is just in subsection (g), not anywhere else.
Additionally, the legislative history from Mr. Harris says that
AS 39.52.220 would not be repealed, so the hugely complicated
vetting process would remain. According to this, the attorney
general must be written to, so this is extensive. This is a
narrow thing; this bill is about deliberating, nothing is
repealed. The memorandum states that if this bill became law
there would be this subsection (a) of AS 39.52.220 that says a
member cannot deliberate in certain circumstances and this would
sort of trump that single word and so he thinks that this word
"deliberate" might have to go away, but this looks like a
revisers note kind of thing. Regarding the discussions about
influencing others, he said that all of these things are human
institutions just like in this building. People respond to
kindness and honesty in communication, and he does not know that
that ought to be changed. The case was made and not rebutted
that there is excessive situations where Board of Fisheries
members are recused and cannot contribute anything. Therefore,
it would be fantastic if [conflicted] board members could
deliberate in these committees and they would ask questions that
no one else would ask. He said he likes the bill.
8:43:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE related that he comes from a long line
of miners and many of his family members are currently miners.
Miners know it is a finite resource and when it is played out it
is played out, he said, but [these two boards] deal with
something that is volatile and illusive. He can see where the
angst comes from and commends the sponsor for bringing this bill
forward. He pointed out that there is no mine in Alaska where
he wouldn't have family relatives. His family owns Native
allotments together, as well as family camps together, and these
things are financial interests. In looking at what the sponsor
is trying to do with [fish and wildlife] resources and trying to
find best practices to bring it forward, he offered his
agreement that it really does need revamping. He thanked the
sponsor for bringing it to legislators' attention.
8:44:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled a film called "Six Degrees of
Separation" and remarked that she is going to start calling this
the "six degrees of separation bill becomes half a degree of
separation" because in Alaska it is one degree or half a degree
of separation. She said Mr. Stacey clarified it best when he
described the three areas of concern as being conservation,
allocation, and conflict and he laid it out clearly for how
these boards need to operate. She said she sees no reason to
make people with a great deal of knowledge sit on the sidelines
when they've been sent by their community to contribute and she
therefore supports this bill.
8:46:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated he is not a fan of this and still
struggles with the availability of people. Modifications could
perhaps be made to make the bill acceptable, he said, but in its
current form he doesn't support it.
8:46:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said he still has the high hurdle that
he mentioned earlier, but because he thinks it is the role of
the committee to move the bill he will not try to stop it. He
noted that he thinks about these people when they are put in
that situation and if it came down to a decision where there was
a vote and either the chairman or the committee decided that
someone had a conflict of interest, he would recommend to that
person to go get a cup of coffee instead of staying in the room
and have someone send a text when the deliberation is over.
Even though the boards could really use the expertise, he said
he is concerned about the public's perception and doesn't want
to put a bull's eye on anyone as a target. It takes very
special people to serve on these boards because there are fish
wars as well as game wars and he has never been to a meeting
where everyone in the room is satisfied. This is probably
because these fish and game resources are incredibly precious to
Alaskans, whether for consumption or making a living. While he
has not gotten over the aforementioned hurdle to be a supporter,
he said he appreciates that the reigning in of how far out the
conflict of interest extends probably helps substantially.
8:49:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER shared that the e-mails he has received
and the testimony are almost dead even. He said he is not a big
fan of what is trying to be done here. Making special cases for
a group or several groups of people is not a good way to write
legislation and he questions writing law for certain isolated
cases. He said he will have a hard time voting yes for the
bill, but he will not stand in the way.
8:50:52 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that confirmation hearings are forthcoming,
so committee members will be provided with the statutory
language for the various boards. This will highlight where
there is a difference, she noted, because the statute related to
the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries is very general
versus for other boards. For example, statute for the Big Game
Services Board specifically states that it shall be people
within the industry and they are expected to vote.
8:51:40 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to report CSHB 87(FSH) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 87(FSH) was reported from
the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB046 Sponsor Statement 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Ver J 3.14.17.PDF |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Fiscal Note - DOA - DGS 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Fiscal Note - DNR - AGS 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Docuemnt - A Performance Audit of the Alaska Agriculture and Fisheries Products Preference.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Document-AlaskaAgFacts08.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB046 Supporting Document-Articles 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 46 |
| HB172 Sponsor Statement 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Ver A 3.14.17.PDF |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note - LAW-CRIM 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Fiscal Note - DNR-PMC 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Section Analysis 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of support-Constance Fredenberg 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support-Jack Bennett 3.14.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - 2014 Farm Bill Sec. 7606 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Kenai Peninsula Borough 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Kenai Soil & Water Conservation District 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Industrial Hemp Updated Slide Presentation 3.15.17.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB172 Supporting Document - Modern-uses-for-cannabis-Chart3-640x453 3.15.17.jpg |
HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB087 Sponsor Statement 2.7.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 ver O 2.7.17.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 ver A.PDF |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Fiscal Note DFG-BBS-01-31-2017.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support ATA.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support ver O SEAFA.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Supporting Document Historic Bills.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support SEAFA.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support USAG.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
|
| HB087 Supporting Document APHA 3.13.17.pdf |
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 Supporting Document - Letter of Support UFA 3.13.17.pdf |
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 ver R H FSH CS 3.12.17.PDF |
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 Support Lynch.pdf |
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 |
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 Sponsor Statement ver R 3.10.17.pdf |
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 Summary of Changes A to R 2.17.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
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 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 |
| HB087 Support PVOA.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HJR012 Sponsor Statement 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Version D (FSH) 3.12.17.PDF |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS-02-23-17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Alaska Trollers Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Seiners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Fishermen of Alaska.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Alaska Dispatch News Article 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Reps. Young and Defazio 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Sen. Murkowski 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 ver A 2.22.17.PDF |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Presentation House Resources Committee 3.12.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from SalmonState.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Nelson 3.13.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from Trojan 3.14.17_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HB032 Supporting Document - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 version A 3.12.17.PDF |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 Fiscal Note - DEC 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - GMO Q & A 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - HB 92 - AK Trollers Association Letter of Support.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - HB 92 Consolidated Letters of Support 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - Info Graphic 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - Letter of Support for HB 92 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #2 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #3 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #4 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #5 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - NY Times Article 3.12.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 Supporting Document - Letter of Support UFA 3.13.17.pdf |
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 HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note - CORREECTED DCCED-CBPL 3.20.17.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB087 Supporting Document - John Murray Letter 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |