Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
03/11/2008 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB296 | |
| HB15 | |
| SB278 | |
| HB284 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 15-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of HB 15. [Before the
committee was CSHB 15(RES).]
9:23:01 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE reminded the committee that Amendment 1, 25-
LS0114\K.2, is before committee. She suggested a discussion
about whether to incorporate the Board of Agriculture and
Conservation into HB 15.
9:24:17 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said the memo from the sponsor dated 3/7/08
persuaded him [not to]. The primary function of the Board of
Agriculture is authorizing loans. The majority of the board
members must be involved in commercial production of
agriculture, and currently the members must recuse themselves
when dealing with a loan that affects a direct competitor.
Access to proprietary information is integral to the loan
deliberations. The amendment would allow direct competitors
access to the information, which is unlike the Board of
Fisheries that enacts a multitude of fishery regulations and has
nothing to do with authorizing loans. That is a key difference.
SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that Senator Green had objected to
Amendment 1.
SENATOR GREEN removed her objection to Amendment 1.
SENATOR MCGUIRE withdrew Amendment 1.
SENATOR BUNDE moved to adopt the Senate committee substitute
(CS) to CSHB 15, labeled 25-LX0114\L, as the working document.
SENATOR FRENCH objected to ask what changed in the CS.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that after the bill passed the House, some laws had changed, so
now it refers to the correct citation.
9:27:32 AM
SENATOR GREEN said she is concerned because it allows those with
a vested interest to deliberate. They are not recused from the
discussion, only from the final vote. She asked if the bill
gives them voting rights.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said not if they have a financial
interest.
SENATOR GREEN said the fisheries board doesn't allow the public
a second chance to object to what someone has said. So she will
object to passing it from committee.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if she can offer any changes.
SENATOR GREEN said the whole purpose of bill is to allow
[conflicted members] to deliberate.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said yes, to bring their expertise to the
Board of Fish and to allow them to deliberate - but not to vote.
There are two parts to the bill, and the second part narrows the
definition of family.
SENATOR STEVENS pointed out that former Representative Tillion
said when he was fisheries czar under Governor Hammond that the
members of the board who knew about an issue couldn't
participate. That's a disservice to everyone, "if you let
everyone participate who knows nothing about the area." He
supports the bill.
9:30:36 AM
SENATOR GREEN said it has been a long time since she has been at
a Board of Fish meeting, but the discussion portion is critical
and can't be refuted by anyone in the audience. If the counter
position is not part of the discussion, then a balanced
viewpoint can't be attained. If the board opened up the
discussion again - which they're not going to do, it might be
different. The board works now. If board members don't know the
other side of the story on a particular issue then they can't
get the information from anyone in the audience.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Representative Seaton if he thought about
opening it again for public comment after the deliberations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this isn't meant to get into those
technical details. Issues come before the board and are assigned
to subcommittees for full discussion and public participation.
Afterwards, the subcommittees come back and make recommendations
to the board. The board takes public testimony first. It then
goes into committee deliberations. When the committee is
deliberating they can call an at-ease and then take questions to
other people. A conflicted member leaves the room and cannot be
part of the deliberation process.
9:33:54 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE noted Senator Green's concern and asked if there
is another step that can be added to allay her concerns.
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, said the
board could change the steps in the meeting. It is not dictated
by statute. There are three opportunities for public comment,
including during sign-up.
SENATOR GREEN asked if the sign-up is directed at the agenda or
does it "bring forth a fact that someone might not know?"
MR. MARCOTTE said it's open for all of the items that are before
the board. During the committee process there is ample time for
public involvement because there are public panel members and
two or three board members in the committees. It may spend up to
a day going through a list of a couple of dozen proposals. So
each proposal gets a thorough review at that time. They explore
compromises and amendments.
9:36:16 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked if non-members of the panel can testify.
MR. MARCOTTE replied it's primarily through the panel members,
but the format is town-hall style, so members are liberal about
including any discussion if someone has a burning issue or if
they have expertise. It is very open at that point. Then the
final public input is responding to the written committee
report. The reports are presented and then there is a period of
about a day or two when the public can respond. It is a common
practice to catch board members in the hallways and during
breaks. There is lots of opportunity for public input, but not
once the board begins its final deliberations.
9:38:03 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked if the department [of fish and game] can
answer questions at that time.
MR. MARCOTTE said the department is at table as staff to the
board. The department, as a whole, is available to field
questions. Enforcement representatives and the Department of Law
are there too.
SENATOR STEVENS said he attended meetings for about five years,
and it seems that everyone knew everyone else's business,
including everyone's personal investments. Is it dangerous to
pass this bill and give a member of the board too much power?
MR. MARCOTTE said neither the department nor the board has taken
a position, but generally the board is comfortable with this.
Members feel that their ability to participate has been
infringed in certain instances. He doesn't think the bill is
potentially harmful. This isn't a sweeping change because a
conflicted member still can't vote. Allowing discussion is seen
as a positive step, as is narrowing the definition of family.
There are checks and balances to keep board members from being
self serving. The chair can rule someone out of line, and there
is the risk of getting crosswise with the public.
9:41:41 AM
SENATOR GREEN said she appreciates his comments but since
neither the board nor the department has taken a stand, she
considers them to be personal.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association, Soldotna, said HB 15 "does a good job in terms of
the legislative stuff, because it actually lasers it in if you
personally have the financial interest. I think that's a very
good portion of this bill and I think that should go forward."
He is concerned about allowing participation after public
testimony. There is plenty of opportunity for board members who
are conflicted out to talk to other board members. "But when
you're in a public process and you're asking for the public to
trust an unbiased opinion on a decision, and you have somebody
up there with a financial interest - a personal financial
interest - and you may say we're just getting information - but
you can direct department staff through questioning and through
the absence of questioning on certain issues - you … make sure
that your side of the argument is better represented." Board
members may not see that as a problem at this point, but it will
diminish the trust from user groups. Now all user groups are on
equal standing - "you can say your share and you're in front of
unbiased board members, and if somebody had a direct financial
conflict, they're not part of that deliberation." There is trust
in the process now and all the information gets out there prior
to deliberation. When there isn't information, the board is good
about taking a break and getting it. The goal is to ensure that
when the public leaves a meeting, they feel that the process is
good and unbiased, whether they like the decision or not. "But I
do think you're tainting the process by putting a person in
deliberation with a direct financial interest."
9:45:30 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE held HB 15 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|