Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
02/21/2008 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB232 | |
| HB15 | |
| HB260 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 15-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
9:17:58 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of HB 15. [Before the
committee was CSHB 15(RES).]
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, said HB 15
expands the ability of the Board of Fish to do its job. Current
law requires members to declare a conflict of interest and
recuse themselves from discussion and voting if they, or a
member of their family, have a personal or financial interest in
a matter. This prevents them from using their expertise on the
board -- expertise they were appointed for. The board has seven
members. At least one member is recused in about 10 percent of
board proposals. Current law disproportionately affects rural
Alaska where fishing may be the economic mainstay. Any long-term
resident of Bristol Bay, for example, has numerous family
members involved in fishing. Currently, immediate family
includes parents, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and
uncles. This expansive definition means that a person in Togiak
with a fishing relative in Dillingham can't even discuss that
issue.
9:20:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said HB 15 changes the definition of
family to the same as is used in the legislature. So family
includes a spouse, domestic partner, or any child or parent in
the home that is a dependent. The bill sunsets in 2011 with a
required report to determine if it had the desired effect of a
useful system without conflicts of interest. He provided a
comparison of definition of family member and a list of the
recusals for several different boards.
9:22:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the medical board has never had a
recusal. A surgeon will vote on a surgical question. It is being
applied so differently on other boards than the Board of Fish. A
charter vessel or commercial vessel is licensed to an area. In
Bristol Bay there may be 1,400 people with permits, but it is
not the entire state. The attorney general for the Board of Fish
has determined it very narrowly.
9:25:11 AM
CLEM TILLION, Homer, AK, said he supports the bill and doesn't
like the sunset. When he was in charge of appointing the board
for Walter Hickel, he appointed someone from Sand Point and
someone from Naknek - people on both sides. "They became great
friends because they both set in the hallway, unable to testify,
and they were the only ones who knew anything about it." He said
he has had proposals before the board that everyone was in favor
of, but having a missing board member made it impossible to get
the votes to do anything. The board was paralyzed even though
they were unanimous because people had to recuse themselves.
"What we did in the legislature is the right way to do it." Some
members might not want to vote, so they stretch the rules to
recuse themselves. That is a no vote, which isn't good when
their constituents wanted a yes vote. HB 15 is very much needed.
He said he appears before the board "quite frequently."
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, said he supports parts of the bill, like redefining
immediate family. In small communities the extended family
concept causes unnecessary recusals. Page 2, line 14, needs a
definition of "substantial," and if it is a dollar amount or a
percentage of income. One must be careful when allowing a person
with a financial interest to participate in board deliberations.
The Board of Fish gets information from the public through
testimony and committee work. There are various user groups
arguing over proposals, and there are significant allocative
decisions with financial implications. Allowing a member with a
financial interest to deliberate gives that group an unfair
advantage. Other groups may be left out of the deliberations. If
this bill is passed with the ability for a person with a
financial interest to deliberate, the board appointments will be
much more political. There are more than seven user groups in
the state, and all of the groups will want a member on the
seven-person board. That will add a lot of appointment pressure.
9:30:57 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked if there is a clear line separating
deliberations from receiving testimony.
MR. GEASE said the board first receives department reports, it
then takes public testimony, and then proposals will be put in
committees. Usually two to three board members will lead a
committee through the different proposals and go back and give a
report on where the public stood. Then the board goes into
deliberations, and it is important what questions are asked in
that process. The public is excluded, so some user groups may be
represented, and it can be perceived as an unfair advantage.
9:32:45 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked if it's OK for conflicted members to
participate in everything down to deliberations, and then they
should recuse themselves.
MR. GEASE said that is the current situation. If a person is
recused, he or she can pose as a member of the public and
provide information and testify. There might not be the ability
for the expertise to be used in the deliberative process, but it
can be shared with the board. But the deliberative mode could be
used advantageously from a user-group perspective.
SENATOR GREEN asked if Mr. Gease likes the redefinition of the
family member.
MR. GEASE said yes, that will reduce the number of recusals, but
if there is a direct financial conflict of interest, it would be
unfair for that member to deliberate and just be recused from
the vote. Proposals usually address allocations between user
groups. User groups will then press for a member on the board.
SENATOR GREEN asked if every member is able to freely talk and
contribute prior to deliberations, regardless of conflict.
9:35:26 AM
MR. GEASE said yes, up until the point where the board
officially takes up a proposal.
SENATOR GREEN asked if any member that anticipates a proposal
can share all of their information at that time.
MR. GEASE said that is correct. The deadline for proposals is
usually eight to twelve months ahead of time. So when preparing
for the board meeting, the members will have an idea of where
there will be conflicts of interest, "and they have plenty of
opportunity to provide their expertise and input into a proposal
if they are conflicted out" - just like any citizen.
SENATOR GREEN asked if the board has open discussions after
deliberations.
MR. GEASE said once the deliberative process starts, the public
input is limited, unless a proposal was tabled for further
consideration. Very few tabled proposals are taken up later. The
public doesn't have the chance to provide comments once the
board is deliberating. There may be amendments during the
deliberative process, he noted.
9:38:22 AM
SENATOR STEVENS asked about the board having so many recusals
that there are not enough votes to take action.
MR. GEASE said he has seen a couple times where members were
conflicted out, but often the board will vote unanimously. The
closer votes tend to be very allocative, and the vote might
swing to reflect financial connections. If a proposal really
makes sense, it will pass six or seven to zero. He spoke of
ethical problems. This bill will still put the board in the
position of not allowing somebody to vote, but it will allow
someone with a financial interest to deliberate when other
members of the public with an interest will not be able to.
9:40:13 AM
JERRY MCHUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, Juneau, said his group
supports HB 15 as written. The bill has been around for ten
years, and recusal from voting was one of the compromises. It
swings both ways because conflict of interest can happen in any
party. "People sometimes bring it to the table just to try and
conflict people out." There are only seven board members, and it
is not just about Cook Inlet - board meetings occur around the
state. Crab experts have been conflicted out because they either
crewed or they owned a vessel, so they had to sit in the
audience and not say anything. If a question comes up, the
member can't say anything. Everybody should be able to
deliberate, and it is a good compromise. He supports the family
definition because he could have a second cousin in Bristol Bay
that he didn't even like, and he would be recused.
CHAIR MCGUIRE noted that Bryce Wrigley will speak about the
Board of Agriculture and Conservation.
9:42:25 AM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, Alaska Farm Bureau, Delta Junction, said that
when people are selected to represent an area or industry
sector, they need to participate in discussions. If there is a
conflict of interest, it is the member's duty to inform the
chair so the chair can rule on the ability to vote. But it is
important to participate in the discussion. HB 15 addresses a
similar problem on his board. When farmers are on the board,
they have been kept from discussion. It makes him wonder why
there is a board if members can only discuss things they do not
know anything about. He wants HB 15 to be amended to add the
Board of Agriculture and Conservation. All the legislators he
has spoken to said it sounds reasonable. He listed legislators
he spoke to about the topic.
9:45:12 AM
SENATOR GREEN moved Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS0114\K.2, Kane
2/21/08, as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "the":
Insert "Board of Agriculture and Conservation and the"
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "board"
Insert "boards"
Page 1, line 3, following "the":
Insert "Board of Agriculture and Conservation and the"
Page 1, line 8, following "of the":
Insert "Board of Agriculture and Conservation and the"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "a lay board"
Insert "lay boards"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "board" in both places
Insert "boards" in both places
Page 1, line 11, following "participation in":
Insert "certain agricultural programs or in"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "(f)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, a personal or financial interest in a matter
arising directly from involvement of the member of the
Board of Agriculture and Conservation, or of the board
member's immediate family, and conducted under a lease,
permit, installment contract, or loan or purchase of land
under AS 03.10 or under AS 38.05 does not disqualify a
member of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation from
deliberating on a matter before the board. Before
deliberating, the member shall disclose the interest on the
record. If a conflict is determined to exist, the member
may not vote on the issue."
Page 2, line 8, following "the":
Insert "Board of Agriculture and Conservation and the"
Page 2, line 10, following "the":
Insert "Board of Agriculture and Conservation or the"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "AS 39.52.120(f) is"
Insert "AS 39.52.120(g) and 39.52.120(h) are"
Page 2, line 19, following "RECOMMENDATIONS.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "AS 39.52.120(f)"
Insert "AS 39.52.120(g)"
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "AS 39.52.120(f)"
Insert "AS 39.52.120(g)"
Page 2, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The Department of Natural Resources shall review
AS 39.52.120(h), added by sec. 2 of this Act, and not later than
January 31, 2011, submit a report to the legislature that
compares the effect of that subsection on the rate of recusals
by members of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation in
matters that have come before the board and make a
recommendation regarding whether the effective date of the
repeal of AS 39.52.120(h), made by sec. 7 of this Act, should be
extended."
9:45:22 AM
SENATOR STEVENS objected to hear from Representative Seaton.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doesn't have an objection to the
amendment, but there is a difference "in these." He said the
current bill allows deliberation by a person who has a
participatory interest, like a sportfishing guide license or a
commercial fishing license, but not by a lobbyist or anyone who
is paid to be at the board, like an executive director of an
organization. People who are hired to promote a user group will
not be able to participate in that deliberation. There is quite
a difference between participatory interest and lobbying
interest. The one situation is a moral conflict, and the other
is serving the people that hired you. On page 2, line 2, HB 15
states that the interest goes as far as permit or license
holders. He doesn't see anything in Amendment 1 that changes
that, but he wanted to point it out. It was a delicate balance.
He didn't want a situation where everyone wanted their executive
director on the board so they could bring home the bacon. HB 15
doesn't open the possibility of hired lobbyists deliberating or
voting on the board.
9:48:51 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked what that has to do with the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this amendment has different language
pertaining to the Board of Agriculture, and he wanted to ensure
that the same language won't apply to the Board of Fish.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she will set the bill aside and get an
opinion on Amendment 1.
9:49:49 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked how many boards need this change.
SENATOR GREEN asked if the agriculture board has a similar
process for reviewing proposals as the Board of Fish.
MR. WRIGLEY said he was surprised that the Board of Fish knew
the issues several months ahead of time. That is not the case
with his board. His board has public comment at the beginning of
the board meeting, and once deliberations begin, other questions
come up. If someone is recused, there is no good way to get
information. He said they could get out of the deliberative mode
to discuss that issue and then go back in, but meetings can last
all day, and the on-line participants can't wait for the
possibility to speak again. The bill will allow discussion with
those who were appointed to represent an area or a sector, and
it allows the treatment of the issues once public testimony is
closed. But it does allow recusals from voting.
SENATOR GREEN asked if the public can weigh in after
deliberations begin.
MR. WRIGLEY said no.
SENATOR GREEN asked who is on the board from Mr. Wrigley's area,
Fairbanks, Palmer and Tok.
MR. WRIGLEY said there is not one from those four areas. The
farming seats are restricted to those who have an interest in
farming. Homer and Kodiak were represented in the past. Mt.
McKinley meats members were not allowed to speak to it, and yet
they were the only people who knew anything about meat. If you
have an interest in a certain sector, you're prevented from
discussing that sector. Consequently the only things you are
allowed to testify to or discuss are those things that you don't
have any knowledge about.
9:54:05 AM
SENATOR GREEN noted that there is no statewide participation on
the board. Her district is well represented.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said there is a technical amendment
regarding a statutory reference.
CHAIR MCGUIRE set HB 15 aside.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|