Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 211
04/02/2009 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Statehood Anniversary Celebration | |
| SB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 137-REPORT ON MEETINGS OF BOARD OF FISHERIES
4:25:55 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced the consideration of SB 137.
SENATOR CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 137,
said he fishes but he doesn't have a dog in this fight. The
legislation addresses the concern that the Board of Fisheries
(BOF) meetings may not be on an optimal schedule. He explained
that there are people in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) who take almost a year to prepare data and
recommendations for a BOF meeting. Once the policies are in
place there might not be enough time between meetings for the
department to collect and review data to prove or disprove the
efficacy of the policy before they need to prepare for new
proposals. This bill simply asks the Board of Fisheries to tell
the Legislature the time interval that should pass between
meetings.
SB 137 further asks the BOF to recommend a plan that does not
disenfranchise the public process, but that helps ADF&G to be
more efficient in addressing repetitive proposals.
4:28:37 PM
SENATOR BUNDE noted that the Southeast Seiners recently provided
a letter of support.
SENATOR MENARD commented that there isn't a fiscal note and
asked if BOF members get a stipend when they meet.
CHAIR OLSON clarified that there is a fiscal note and it is
zero.
SENATOR BUNDE explained that they get per diem, but this bill
would not add costs.
CHAIR OLSON asked if there isn't a cost attached to a biologist
looking at the proposal.
4:30:17 PM
SENATOR BUNDE said yes, but those costs are built into the ADF&G
budget.
SENATOR MENARD said she just wanted to understand the fiscal
impact.
CHAIR OLSON asked who would come out on the short side if this
bill were to pass.
SENATOR BUNDE replied he really doesn't know, but someone who
wants their good idea to be heard immediately may be
inconvenienced.
4:32:00 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if he heard anything from fishers.
SENATOR BUNDE replied he has not heard anything negative. If
there is concern he suspects it will be sport related.
SENATOR THOMAS summarized that the bill does two things. It asks
for a recommendation as to whether the time between meeting
dates should be expanded from the current three years, and it
asks for a policy to deal with repetitive proposals.
SENATOR BUNDE reiterated that the bill asks for those
recommendations and makes no suggestion as to what the right
answers might be.
SENATOR THOMAS reviewed the zero fiscal note and the
approximately $300,000 for the Division of Commercial Fisheries
to attend each meeting. He asked how BOF members are
compensated.
4:34:38 PM
SENATOR BUNDE said they receive per diem. He surmised that there
could be a negative fiscal impact if the time between meetings
were extended.
CHAIR OLSON asked why this wasn't addressed years ago.
SENATOR BUNDE replied he would have acted sooner had it been
brought to his attention.
4:36:26 PM
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, said he hopes his comments
will provide a context for the bill. He explained that the Board
of Fisheries is on a three-year cycle. It meets about 35-40 days
per year, generally October through March, in different
geographic areas. Meetings can run for 10 or 11 days. Prior to
1990 the board dealt with every issue each year, which was a
huge workload. Switching to a three-year cycle was a way to
balance the needs of the public and the department in getting
through the workload. Now they get around to the different
sections every three years, which generally serves the process
quite well. There are procedures for the Board of Fisheries to
respond more quickly if needed. There is an agenda change
request policy and the ability to respond to emergency
petitions. The downside to out-of-cycle actions is that they
tend to have less public input. If the three-year cycle were to
be lengthened, more out-of-cycle requests would be anticipated.
4:39:42 PM
MR. MARCOTTE said the packet contains a list of where the BOF
meetings have been held and the pattern for the past six years.
The meeting schedule for next year and a pie chart showing the
source of the various proposals are also included. About half of
the proposals come from the public. Sometimes local fish and
game advisory committees, stakeholder groups, village councils,
and other entities submit proposals; and the department submits
proposals through the same mechanism. Neither the department nor
the Board of Fisheries has developed a formal position on the
bill, but both would like to review the assumptions built into
that three-year cycle and make recommendations.
ADF&G submitted a zero fiscal note because there is just a small
workload to have a discussion and develop recommendations. If
the meetings cycle were to change, he would submit another
fiscal note. He appreciates that the bill is asking for
background information before taking an action; that's always a
healthy approach. Finally, he said this is just one aspect of
the BOF process. There are many other elements in having an
effective board process. This is one of several kinds of things
that might be on an overall list looking for improvements.
SENATOR THOMAS asked if $296,000 is an annual number because the
BOF is meeting every year.
4:43:09 PM
MR. MARCOTTE replied the information he provided is intended to
give the committee an idea of costs to the department. This is
the cost for one division for one 12-day meeting. It's not an
annual cost, but it does show that there is considerable cost to
the state coffer to prepare for these meetings. It's not a
comprehensive cost of a BOF meeting because other divisions and
support costs are involved.
SENATOR THOMAS said but this is just part of the expense
incurred on an annual basis because the BOF meets every year.
MR. MARCOTTE replied there is more than one meeting a year.
Typically there is just one large meeting every year, but there
may also be smaller meetings that add costs.
SENATOR THOMAS said now he understands that the board meets
every year and the meeting cycle repeats itself every three
years.
MR. MARCOTTE said that's correct. The handout of all the
meetings held in the last six years shows that the overall cycle
repeats every three years. The individual meetings vary in
length, but they total about 35-40 days per year.
SENATOR THOMAS noted that there are between 200 and 500
proposals each year and one meeting had 258 proposals on
finfish.
SENATOR MENARD asked if it's fair to say that he is neutral on
the bill, but can be supportive in conversation.
MR. MARCOTTE said yes.
CHAIR OLSON asked why the Board of Fisheries is hesitant to
endorse the legislation if it saves money for the state.
4:46:37 PM
MR. MARCOTTE replied there isn't any hesitancy to endorse the
legislation, it's the workload. They just got through dealing
with 390 proposals and that kept their plate full. They do track
the legislation.
CHAIR OLSON asked if they are finished for 2009.
MR. MARCOTTE explained that they are finished with the October
2008 through March 2009 meeting cycle. He added that the Board
of Fisheries does not oppose having a discussion. An ongoing
theme is to look at ways to do things better.
SENATOR THOMAS observed that the language in the bill talks
about a recommendation to expand the interval between meeting
dates, but it doesn't talk about a recommendation to compress
the time frame.
MR. MARCOTTE said that is the wording of the bill, but a review
wouldn't necessarily be limited by looking at only an expansion.
It is looking at whether the current three-year cycle is the
best model.
4:48:40 PM
SENATOR MENARD said many citizens want to have a conversation on
how the Board of Fisheries operates. The timing is excellent and
she looks forward to a healthy debate.
CHAIR OLSON said the priority to save money is admirable, but
his priority is the fisher. He asked if this legislation would
in any way affect the person in a small skiff who is trying to
make a living.
MR. MARCOTTE said the bill wouldn't have an adverse affect; it
only requests a discussion. The Board of Fisheries is very aware
of being responsive to the resource and the stakeholders, and
that it is a potential barrier if people have to wait five years
to get their issue heard. As previously mentioned, there ways to
deal with issues on a shorter timeframe. He agreed with Senator
Menard that the process is the out-of-cycle requests and added
that there are pros and cons to that.
4:50:41 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, stated support for SB
137. Crab fishers are concerned about moving away from a three-
year cycle, but they are willing to have the conversation.
There was a meeting in Cordova in early December and the next
meeting, which won't be in Cordova, is in 2011. His and other
small organizations are trying to figure out the costs
associated with attending the meeting. They are a lot higher
than in the old days when there were fewer proposals and
conflicts. This is an appropriate conversation, he said.
CHAIR OLSON asked how many shellfish fishers belong to UFA.
MR. MCCUNE said there are two groups that have crab fishers plus
some individuals that are in different groups that do crab
fishing. He got lots of input from around the state. Some people
weren't enthusiastic about changing the cycle but realize that
it's just a conversation.
4:53:48 PM
BOB THORSTENSON, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association, said he also represents the Alaska Scallop
Association and the Alaska Crab Coalition. Those groups are not
excited about changing the cycle, but support the bill. The
change from a one to a three-year cycle was a vast improvement
and provided greater consistency for the sport, commercial and
personal use groups. The fact that the legislation makes this a
conversation is a very good idea.
MR. THORSTENSON opined that everyone will talk about cost
savings in terms of hotel rooms and air fares, but that's just
part of the cost. The main cost in these meetings is that
between 15 percent and 25 percent of every researcher,
biologist, biometrician, and major manager of the state is
wrapped up in a three-year Board of Fisheries cycle. He believes
that it will save the state millions of dollars if the Board of
Fisheries decides to lengthen the cycles. It's not just travel
costs; it's salaries, overhead, healthcare, insurance, and
pension costs of the employees that travel over the state and
spend time.
4:58:15 PM
MR. THORSTENSON said the current process is winnowing some of
the best and brightest people. They want to devote their time to
science and the resource, not to giving reports. He cited an
example of a manager who took a lower rank job so as not to go
through the cycle again. It has become a real problem.
Public input is good but repetitive proposals are almost
ridiculous, he said. Osama Bin Laden could make a proposal to
the Board of Fisheries and it would have to be taken seriously.
It's a wonderful public process, but it almost becomes anarchy
when someone sends in numerous proposals. He has had members of
organizations send in 67 proposals and there is nothing that can
be done to limit those. It is part of the bill and something
that needs review. We support the BOF and what it is doing and
want to enable them to do a better job.
SENATOR MENARD said these scientists know they're going to be
involved in these cyclical meetings when they're hired. She has
a son who fished in Bristol Bay, a brother in law who is a fish
and game biologist in Nome, and friends on the Board of
Fisheries and she doesn't buy into people being disgruntled
about their jobs because of the very good public process that
the state has chosen.
5:01:38 PM
MR. THORSTENSON responded that some people may have the
foresight, as in your family, to understand that they'll have to
go through this process every three years and upset the apple
cart. Speaking for himself, he said that up until he took the
job as executive director of the association he stayed away from
Board of Fisheries meetings because they are so contentious.
It's the worst part of the job. As far as scientists knowing the
job description, that's a fair statement, he said. However, he
doesn't think a student at UAS who decides not to be a
communication major in favor of doing fisheries research and
science is thinking about that until much later when he or she
gets the job with fish and game.
SENATOR BUNDE said fisheries in Alaska have changed from when
the Board of Fisheries first started, so it is healthy to review
current practice. That's all the bill asks.
CHAIR OLSON held SB 137 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB137 AKBOF Meetings.pdf |
SCRA 4/2/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| SB137 CDFU Letter.doc |
SCRA 4/2/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| SB137 Estimated Costs.pdf |
SCRA 4/2/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| SB137 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SCRA 4/2/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| SB137 SEAS Letter.pdf |
SCRA 4/2/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |
| SB137 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SCRA 4/2/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 137 |