Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
04/13/2005 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB252 | |
| HB241 | |
| HB252 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 252 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 13, 2005
8:39 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Woodie Salmon
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative John Harris
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 252
"An Act providing for a sport fishing facility surcharge on
sport fishing licenses; providing for the construction and
renovation of state sport fishing facilities and for other
projects beneficial to the sport fish resources of the state as
a public enterprise; and authorizing the issuance of revenue
bonds to finance those projects."
- MOVED HB 252 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries by members of the board; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 241(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 252
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING FACILITY REVENUE BONDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
04/05/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/05 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
04/13/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
04/13/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 241
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
04/01/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/05 (H) FSH, RES
04/13/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 252 as sponsor.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Assistant Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 252.
SARAH GILBERTSON, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 252.
TOMAS BOUTIN, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 252.
JIM DERRINGER, Staff
to Representative Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 252.
RUSSELL THOMAS
Alaska Sportfishing Expeditions
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 252.
KELLY HEPLER, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 252.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General
Alaska Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested amendments to HB 241.
PAUL SHADURA
Kenai Peninsula Fishing Association, (KPFA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 241.
ROLAND MAW, Executive Director
United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 241.
CARL CROME
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 241.
DON FOX, Secretary
Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 241.
ART NELSON, Chair
Board of Fisheries
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 241.
JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 241.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:39:15 AM. Representatives
Wilson, Thomas, Elkins, and LeDoux were present at the call to
order. Representatives Salmon and Harris arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 252-SPORT FISHING FACILITY REVENUE BONDS
8:39:52 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 252, "An Act providing for a sport fishing
facility surcharge on sport fishing licenses; providing for the
construction and renovation of state sport fishing facilities
and for other projects beneficial to the sport fish resources of
the state as a public enterprise; and authorizing the issuance
of revenue bonds to finance those projects."
8:39:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB
252 as sponsor. He explained that this bill proposes to
establish funds in order to build a fish hatchery in Fairbanks
and to rebuild the fish hatchery at Fort Richardson in
Anchorage. He pointed out that as of October 2005 the current
Fort Richardson hatchery will no longer function properly. He
said:
There's been some urgency to either fund a new
hatchery or figure out some way to do it with a
mechanism that will allow us to have these hatcheries
available so we can increase the number of sport fish
that will be able to be utilized by the people that
come to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that in the committee packet, there
is a schematic showing how the funds would be used by the
revenue bonds. The amounts of the proposed sport fishing
facility surcharges are listed on page 3, lines 18-28 of the
bill. He estimated that the surcharges will raise about $6.1
million: $1.1 million from residents and $5 million from
nonresidents.
8:43:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained how the surcharge revenue will be
used as follows:
Crystal Lake, which is by Wrangell, would receive
$193,000 over 10 years, and $500,000 deferred, or
roughly $2.5 million. Skagway would receive $1.6
million over 10 years, $160,000 per year. And
[Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association
(NSRAA)], which is Sitka, Haines, will receive $1.4
million over 10 years ... and that's $5.5 million.
Then ... in the $69 million there's $3.5 million in
reserves, there's $45 million for the Anchorage Fort
Richardson hatchery, and $15 million for the Fairbanks
[hatchery]. We already have $10 million in federal
receipts that are available.... The projects look
like they're in a good position to be built.
8:45:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS remarked that it sounds like
Representative Holms has taken care of everyone pretty well. He
said, "It makes it easier for Southeasterners to support this."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMS replied that he is trying to build
consensus by helping out several regions of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that the application of the funds is
not actually in the bill. She voiced concern that the funds
might later be diverted to a different project if they weren't
somehow "locked up."
8:47:30 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Assistant Director, Division of Sport Fish,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), explained:
There's three parts to this bill. There's a piece
that deals with the surcharge, which is the revenue
generation. There's a piece that builds up the
revenue structure to issue the bonds, and that's in
the bill before you. There's also a [capital
improvement project (CIP)] request. That CIP request
contains the authority to give the department the
authority to expend money to spend on the bond, which
has three pieces in it; it has the capital budget
pieces into it, so that Fort Richardson hatchery is
part of the bond, the Elmendorf hatchery is part of
the bond, and the things that we could do with capital
improvements are part of the bond in Southeast Alaska.
That debt service payment will be about $5.2 million
to $5.3 million per year. The operational costs will
come from the revenue difference between $6 million
and $5.3 million, and the authority to expend the
projects we're talking about operational in Southeast
Alaska are included in that CIP as part of operational
costs for the next 10 years.
8:48:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if that would have to be put in the
budget every year or if it would be automatic.
MR. VINCENT-LANG offered his understanding that every year
[ADF&G] will need to be given the authority by the legislature
to expend the debt service. "But once we have that CIP request
that's gone through, we'll have the authority for those projects
for the life of their projects."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the next legislature could decide
to use that money for a different project.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied, "My understanding is that they
couldn't because the CIP request will have gone through."
8:49:36 AM
SARAH GILBERTSON, Legislative Liaison, Office of the
Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), offered
her understanding that the $62 million that's part of the bond
is in the CIP request for this year; that does not need to be
approved annually. However, the $3.5 million in operating costs
for Crystal Lake will need to be approved annually by the
legislature. She remarked that the ADF&G commissioner has
submitted a letter to the bill sponsor which outlines the
department's intentions to "fight for that money every year."
8:50:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that copies of the letter from the
ADF&G commissioner are in the committee packet. He said that
the letter spells out how and where the money would be spent.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that she is not comfortable with
[the bill]. She asked if there is any way to lock that money in
to specified projects.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied:
I believe that when this is within the CIP budget
request that you have told us, by approving that CIP
budget request, that those are the projects that you
would like to have done for the life of their
projects. Now you might need to annually appropriate
the money for those projects, but ... you would have
to end those projects by not approving those
expenditures. ... Just like the debt service payment:
you as a legislator have to expend the funds to make
that debt service payment. In this case you would
also have to annually appropriate the funds to those
projects because we can't dedicate those things for
the next 10 years; that's the legislature's
prerogative, to dedicate funds. But we're committed
to that, that's why we put it in there for the life of
those projects....
8:52:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this money is different than the
regular money that was in the budget that "someone was able to
take out and totally use it for something totally different."
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that this was his understanding as well
and that's why it is within the CIP request.
8:53:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS commented:
If it's bond money and the bonds are sold to do
specific things, then the money raised from those
bonds, theoretically, can only be used for those
things. So if we wanted to protect [that money] ...
we would want to be sure that when we sell those bonds
that those projects are designated in the bond.
MR. VINCENT-LANG stated that ADF&G has been told by the Alaska
Department of Revenue that it can't include operational costs
within a bond package, but can include it within the CIP
request.
8:54:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS remarked that the money is for
construction and renovation, not operations.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON disagreed and said that there are
operational costs included as well.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out there is nothing in the bill for
Kodiak. She asked if the sponsor had thought of adding
something for the Kodiak area.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM replied that he had not.
8:55:11 AM
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded:
Our ability to produce fish in Kodiak is highly
dependent upon the ability for the ... Anchorage
hatcheries to produce fish over the next 10-15 years.
... We're not able to meet current production needs,
and Kodiak currently gets stocked with about a third
of a million fish, a variety of different species.
We're going to decrease stocking, probably, in the
Kodiak area because we can't simply meet the
production with the current hatchery facilities we
have. If we ... build a new hatchery in Anchorage,
we're going to build that hatchery to meet the
projected demand for the next 20 years. Some of that
demand is going to be down in Kodiak, so we're going
to produce more fish down in the Kodiak area based on
the ... five-year stocking plan, which drives us in
Kodiak.
8:56:01 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked what is stocked in Kodiak.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that coho salmon, chinook salmon, and
rainbow trout are stocked in many of the lakes. He noted that
the stocking plan is locally driven; every five years ADF&G puts
the stocking plan out for public review and input.
8:56:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there is any way [the
appropriation of funds to particular projects] can be put into
statute.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered:
I think we want to keep this bond package as clean as
possible from [the Department of Revenue's]
perspective. I agree with what you're saying and I
think that's why you want to keep that language
direction in the CIP budget request, which is for the
life of the project. That's why we do CIP budget
requests; they're for the term of the projects.
8:58:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the legislature has CIP
budget requests with Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, but those requests get "changed around all
the time."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated:
We're appliers of funds, we're not allocators of
funds, and because of that we're frustrated.... But
this particular bill is about building two fish
hatcheries and we've incorporated in addition to that
some help for Southeast and some help for these other
areas. And so it hasn't been a major focus; it's been
an add-on, and we've tried to accommodate those areas.
You could certainly have some intent language in here,
but the intent is already here from [ADF&G] to do
this. And as in all of our budgetary processes ... we
cannot go to another legislature and bind them. And
... we can't bind another [ADF&G] if it takes another
course.
8:59:52 AM
TOMAS BOUTIN, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Revenue
said:
There's a much stronger commitment for a capital
project that's in bond documents, for which bonds have
been sold to bond holders, ... than if bonds hadn't
been issued. And so the projects for which the bonds
are issued, the hatcheries and deferred maintenance
included, those capital projects will be part of the
bond documents.... Typically people in a community
that's going to receive the benefit of those projects
will tend to buy the bonds at retail; we can only
surmise partly because they're interested in those
projects. And so the state bond committee could not
allow ... the projects to change once the bonds have
been issued. The bond indenture is actually the
contract between the state bond committee and the
bondholders. And so for the capital projects, which
is the deferred maintenance and the hatchery
construction in the different parts of the state, it
would be problematic if after the bonds were sold
there was an attempt to divert the money to some
project not in the bond documents.
9:01:56 AM
MR. VINCENT-LANG pointed out that the legislature has to
annually appropriate the debt service payment as well. He said,
"To the same extent that you're worried about future
legislatures not funding projects in Southeast Alaska, [future
legislatures] could make us default on our bond, theoretically,
by not paying for the debt service payment." He reiterated that
ADF&G has made the commitment to follow through with these
proposed projects.
9:02:52 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the debt can be retired sooner if the
number of sport fishing licenses sold increases.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the money generated from increased
license sales will go into the pot of ADF&G money that can be
allocated by the legislature to do any variety of projects
regarding sport fish management or research. He said, "The
percent on the surcharge will be available for debt reduction or
any kind of other project. But I think it would be out
intention to pay down that debt as quickly as possible."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX confirmed that the bill would fund hatcheries in
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Skagway, and then asked for further
information about the proposed projects in Southeast Alaska.
9:04:39 AM
JIM DERRINGER, Staff to Representative Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that currently the Crystal Lake Hatchery,
operated by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture
Association (SSRAA), is getting $193,000 in federal money per
year but will be losing that money either this year or next
year. Under this bill, ADF&G would then fund this same amount
for 10 years. He added that ADF&G would also give the hatchery
$500,000 the first year for deferred maintenance costs. He
noted that the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture
Association (NSRAA) has not received any money from ADF&G.
Under HB 252, NRSAA would receive $140,000 per year for 10 years
"to support sport fish out in that area," and a one-shot
$150,000 deferred maintenance on "that facility."
9:06:12 AM
MR. DERRINGER said that a third proposed project is a hatchery
in Skagway. Under HB 252, Skagway would have the option of
either receiving one payment of $1.5 million to build a
hatchery, or receiving $160,000 per year for 10 years.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX stated concern that the bill would cause a huge
jump in fishing license costs. She said that it will be hard to
explain to her constituents why they have to pay higher license
costs while they are not benefiting.
9:07:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked that if the hatcheries in Anchorage
shut down, Kodiak will lose all of its fish. He added that 80
percent of the increased fees will be paid by nonresidents, not
locals.
MR. VINCENT-LANG commented:
Hatcheries do three things. They provide additional
fishing opportunity. Across the State of Alaska they
provide anywhere from 10-20 percent of the
recreational fishing opportunity. ... In so doing
providing that additional recreational fishing
opportunity, they take pressure off fully allocated
wild stocks. So we have to do something with our
hatchery program; if we don't do something with our
hatchery program you're going to see a lot more
pressure on wild stocks. Given that, our hatcheries
are in decline. We're going to have to somehow deal
with out hatchery infrastructure, whether it's through
this bond or some other thing. ... The wild stock
management program will likely have to take some kind
of suffering in the short term to deal with our
hatchery infrastructure issues. ... And the other
thing is it provides significant economic benefit; a
recent study showed that hatchery production results
in about $45 million annually to the Alaskan economy.
So this will over the life of this bond give about
$800 million to the Alaskan economy for a $60 million
bond.
MR. VINCENT-LANG continued:
Now, in your district specifically [Kodiak area], we
stock over a third of a million fish. Those provide
recreational fishing opportunities, especially for
families that want to get out and start to learn how
to fish. ... It's a jump [in license fees] but we
haven't seen a jump in license fee increases for the
last 15 years; it's time. And it's time for people to
start paying for the hatcheries that they benefit
[from].
9:10:36 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked what lakes around Kodiak are stocked.
MR. VINCENT-LANG named lakes in the Kodiak management area that
are stocked with either coho or rainbow trout.
9:12:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked why fishermen who are catching wild
stock should have to pay for the hatchery fish.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that sport fishermen are usually from
out of state. He remarked that the cost of transportation to
get to rural areas to go sport fishing [is so high that the
license is very cheap in comparison.] He pointed out that in HB
252 on page 3, lines 7-8, some local people are exempt from the
proposed surcharge.
MR. VINCENT-LANG reiterated that the hatcheries take pressure
off of wild salmon stocks. He also noted that [ADF&G] completes
a lot of wild stock assessments in rural areas.
9:15:18 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that he likes HB 252. He remarked
that Skagway has asked to have their own hatchery so that they
wouldn't need to request general fund money each year in order
to get fish from other hatcheries. He also noted that a lot of
fish go up to the interior from Cordova. He stated that the
impact of dipnetting is going to increase and there will be more
pressure on rural area fisheries while the Fairbanks hatchery is
in the process of being built. He added:
The other reason I liked [the proposed hatchery] in
the Anchorage vicinity is that, being a fisherman, a
lot of that fish is going to go by Kodiak anyway to go
to the interior; we call that common property fishery.
It would be intercepted by sport fishermen, commercial
fishermen, everybody's going to have an opportunity at
these fish.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS reiterated that having hatchery fish in urban
areas will take the pressure off of wild stock in rural areas.
9:17:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS commented that roughly 28 percent of all
the licenses sold in the state were sold in the area "from
Cordova south," and therefore the area has a major impact on the
money coming into the fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that when she lived in Tok it was
fun to fish in some of the nearby stocked lakes.
9:19:18 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX turned to public comments.
RUSSELL THOMAS, Alaska Sportfishing Expeditions (ASE), stated
that he works for ASE, a 20 year old family-owned business that
operates three resorts in the Ketchikan area. He testified in
opposition to HB 252 in its current form. He said that his
biggest concern is that nonresidents, who are his clients, will
be paying the majority of the costs. He pointed out that some
of the proposed surcharges are almost double the current license
fees, which he opined is not a modest increase. He turned to an
[ADF&G] information handout [included in the committee packet]
titled, "Sport Fishery Enhancement Surcharge FAQ's," from which
he quoted, "There is no correlation between changes in
license/tag fees and the number of licenses/tags sold, or in the
number of angler days of fishing effort with guides." He
commented:
I think it would be a big mistake to think that there
is absolutely no correlation between how much a
fishing licenses costs and whether or not people
choose to do fishing as a recreational activity,
especially given the fact that some people are here on
a cruise ship for just a few hours. Here in
Ketchikan, the half day cruise ship charters are a big
part of the fishing, and somebody already in the king
salmon season will pay $10 for a one-day license, $10
for a king salmon tag, and now an additional $8.50 in
a surcharge. That means that four hours of fishing,
in addition to what they've already paid to go out on
the boat, will cost them close to $30.
9:22:54 AM
MR. THOMAS voiced concern that a large amount of revenue would
be generated via the surcharge in parts of the state that
wouldn't be benefiting from that money. He continued:
If we enhance fisheries in the northern area, in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, to the point that that
fishing then becomes better than what we have to offer
here in Southeast Alaska, then my customers choose to
go there to fish rather than stay in Southeast and
spend money here. So in essence what you're asking me
to do as a business owner is to encourage my customers
to fund my competition farther north.
MR. THOMAS asked the committee to consider amending the bill so
that the money raised in particular ADF&G management areas stays
within that area.
9:25:49 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS remarked that if this philosophy were used
statewide, people living in Southeast wouldn't get any of the
North Slope oil revenues. Noting that sport license fees
haven't been raised in about 15 years, he asked Mr. Thomas if he
had increased his sport fishing charter fees in that time.
MR. THOMAS replied that he had. He clarified that he is not
opposed to an increase in fishing license fees, but he is
opposed to the sudden doubling of fees. He remarked that no one
would complain if the fee gradually increased $1 every other
year over the course of five years.
9:27:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON commented, "That's the true case of the
matter."
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked how much it costs to sport fish in
British Columbia, Washington, or Oregon.
MR. THOMAS replied that he didn't know. He noted that some of
clients think the license fees are low. But he reiterated that
he didn't want to be funding his competition up north and the
increase in fees is too dramatic for one year.
9:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS remarked that he firmly believes in
competition, and said, "The more competition, the keener you
are." He opined that Alaska sport fish license fees are cheap
compared to British Columbia, Hawaii, Washington, and Oregon.
9:29:28 AM
KELLY HEPLER, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) commented that nonresident
license fees in Alaska are lower than many other states. He
noted, "The opportunities that a nonresident can exercise in
Alaska is incredible; the number of fish they can bring back,
the wealth of opportunities they have here is different."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked how Alaska compares with other states
regarding price of resident licenses.
MR. HEPLER replied that he did not have that information on
hand, but he opined that, "It's a heck of a bargain."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 252.
9:31:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report HB 252 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON objected.
9:31:57 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson, Elkins, and
Thomas voted in favor of reporting HB 252 out of committee.
Representatives LeDoux and Salmon voted against it.
Representatives Kapsner and Harris were absent from the vote.
Therefore, HB 252 failed to report out of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 3-2.
[The committee returned its attention to HB 252 later in the
meeting.]
HB 241-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
9:33:46 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 241, "An Act relating to participation in
matters before the Board of Fisheries by members of the board;
and providing for an effective date."
9:34:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, sponsor of HB 241, explained:
[The bill] implements changes recommended by the Joint
Salmon Industry Task Force to the Board of Fisheries
conflict of interest policy. The Board of Fisheries
is not as effective as it should be when members with
the most knowledge and experience in certain areas
must excuse themselves when those issues arise.
The Board of Fisheries is a lay board and it consists
of members of various backgrounds. Some are involved
in commercial fishery, some are recreational
fishermen, some are fishing lodge owners, and others
are just public members with an interest in fishing.
Under current policy the Department of Law is very
conservative in their recommendation of who should
participate, and when there's even a perception of a
conflict, they get really nervous about this and
recommend that their members excuse themselves,
therefore avoiding any possible litigation at all.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:35:39 AM to 9:36:32 AM.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON returned to HB 241. She commented that
members are appointed to the board because they are
knowledgeable in particular areas, but currently if there's even
the perception that a member might have a conflict of interest,
that member can't vote or even discuss the topic. She stated
that HB 241 would require that members declare a conflict of
interest, but then would still be allowed to participate in
discussion and voting. She continued:
This bill now requires the Board of Fisheries members
to disclose a personal or a financial interest on the
record before participating in matters before the
board. If they disclose a conflict of interest, this
would not disqualify a board member from participating
in and voting on the matters before the board.
9:38:48 AM
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department
of Law (DOL), stated that the DOL has proposed an amendment that
would address a few technical issues. He said:
We believe that the intent of the bill is to allow a
board member to participate in a matter before the
board after disclosure despite having a personal or
financial interest in a matter before the board, not
as a broad exemption from the Ethics Act. And in
order to accomplish this and make sure that the board
members can in fact participate, we need to add some
additional language to the bill.
9:40:19 AM
MR. DAUGHERTY continued:
There are two problems with the original language [of
HB 241]. First, there is an express exemption
provided from AS 39.52.120(b)(3); that's the provision
regarding use of state time, property, equipment, and
facilities. But there is no exemption for (b)(4),
which is the taking or withholding of official action
in order to affect a matter in which the public
officer has a personal or financial interest. And in
fact, most controversies involving the board would
involve (b)(3), not (b)(4). So we think that an
express revision regarding (b)(4) is needed. And we
have suggested language to that effect....
9:41:21 AM
MR. DAUGHERTY stated that the second issue of concern to DOL is
the last sentence on page 2, lines 9-10, which reads, "AS
39.52.240 does not apply to matters related to this subsection."
He said that AS 39.52.240 is a section that allows the board to
ask for advisory opinions. He stated that DOL thinks that
cutting off the board's access to advisory opinions is very
problematic. He continued:
The ethics act will still be applicable. There are
some specific exemptions and they will be able to vote
despite a personal or financial interest, but there
are a number of other areas of the ethics act that
will still be applicable, such as those dealing with
improper guests, [AS 39.52.130]; improper use and
disclosure of information, [AS 39.52.140]; improper
representation, [AS 39.52.160]; declaration of
potential violations, [AS 39.52.220] - although there
will be a partial exemption provided for that by this
bill - and other sections of [AS 39.52.120], such as
those dealing with seeking other employment or
contracts, accepting or receiving or soliciting
compensation for official duties, coercion of
subordinates for political purposes. Those issues may
still arise from time to time, and in fact, the
provisions regarding gifts frequently arises with the
board. And we think that it's important to preserve
the board's ability to seek advisory opinions when
issues arise, even concerning issues that they have
received an exemption for under this bill. The board
may still want an opinion from the [DOL] just to
provide them with some assurance that what they're
doing is right, and so ... when concerns are expressed
to them they can pass it off on the [DOL] rather than
having to deal with constituents who are angry about
their participation.
MR. DAUGHERTY concluded that DOL would like to see that sentence
removed from the bill.
9:43:55 AM
MR. DAUGHERTY clarified that Amendment 1, labeled 24G-1,
4/8/2005, (1:15 PM), would say:
Page 2, lines 9-10
Delete "AS 39.52.240 does not apply to matters related
to this subsection."
Insert "Participation in a matter before the board
after disclosure is not considered to be taking or
withholding official action in order to affect a
matter in which the public officer has a personal or
financial interest under (b)(4) of this section."
9:45:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 24G-1,
4/8/2005, (1:15PM). There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
9:45:44 AM
PAUL SHADURA, Kenai Peninsula Fishing Association (KPFA),
testified in support of HB 241. He said that the bill is
crucial to allowing the Board of Fisheries to deliberate
important issues without political interference. He pointed
out:
Current board policy requires that all adopted
proposals must have four votes of the board in order
to pass. No debate, argument, or information is
allowed by an individual who are conflicted out. No
system for defining conflict is in policy except that
the chair would rule on a conflicted issue for the
individual if requested or contested. This is very
awkward and allows for definition with subjective
reasoning. Our experience with board members since
statehood is that decisions by the board requires much
personal knowledge by every board member that is
available. It is expertise that prompts individuals
to volunteer their services to the people of the
state.
MR. SHADURA continued:
Current interpretation of conflict seems to define
commercial fishing as having more of a benefit to
individual board members than commercial guiding, yet
definition in statutes that address this legislative
conduct states that even nonmonetary or benefits to an
individual can also be implied as a conflict. This
bill allows the affected users in the state a fair and
equal voice to represent the issues openly,
thoroughly, and fairly. ... It is our ardent belief
that a good board is one that takes into consideration
all available information and discusses it from all
aspects of the problem, and that this allows for more
temperate and long term decision making, something the
current [Board of Fisheries] does not incorporate at
present.
9:48:57 AM
ROLAND MAW, Executive Director, United Cook Inlet Drift
Association (UCIDA), stated that he is a commercial fisherman
and he supports HB 241. He commented, "These fisheries are
getting very complicated and I think require some of the best
discussion and analysis and participation that we can bring to
that as citizens, and removing any barriers that would prevent
that participation and that discussion, I think, is a positive
thing...."
9:50:16 AM
CARL CROME, stated that he has been a fisherman for 40 years,
and is a seiner, a gillnetter, and a troller. He said:
Me and mine are very unhappy with our people getting
conflicted out at the board meetings. It's already
lopsided in the sport fish favor, and when our people
are ... conflicted out it makes us very unhappy. I
don't have to remind you that we're the largest
employer in the state, that we pay more taxes than any
industry except the oil companies, and I suppose we
have a lot more votes than any other too. ... Our
people need to stay in there. Because somebody knows
something is not a good reason to conflict them out.
And we feel this is very unfair.
9:51:39 AM
DON FOX, Secretary, Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
noted that he represents the advisory committee to Board of
Fisheries. He also stated that he is a commercial fisherman.
He testified in support of HB 241. He remarked:
The governor appoints these people because they have
this expertise in these areas, and they're not even
allowed to deliberate or vote, and ... I think what
applies to the legislature should apply to the [Board
of Fisheries]. These people need to put their
knowledge and expertise to use.
9:52:29 AM
ART NELSON, Chair, Board of Fisheries, testified in support of
HB 241. He said the he'd like to comment on two general areas
where the conflict of interest regulations have been problematic
for the board. He said:
The first one is the difficulties that it presents
oftentimes with the operation of the board and our
functioning and our deliberations. As the chairman of
the board, I'm kind of responsible to be the ethics
supervisor for all the members, and so of course
before each meeting I go around to the various
members, particularly those that may have conflicts
arising with the different meetings we have ahead of
us and ... those conflicts can be either financial or
personal in nature, and can be interpreted very
broadly. ... Oftentimes even if there's going to be a
perceived conflict that we are advised to be
conservative in that and ... it's no offense meant to
the [DOL]; it's their job to be conservative and make
our decisions be not only legally valid but defensible
in court. ... The board spends upwards of 40 or
sometimes more days per year in our regulatory
meeting, and the last thing I want to have happen is
... having an extensive regulation that took a lot of
time to put together be struck down because we failed
to follow the letter of the ethics rules.
MR. NELSON continued:
What's also problematic ... is the potential for
losing a board member due to a conflict of interest.
We're a seven-member board, and regardless of how many
board members are present and participating. So
whether there's absences and/or conflicts, we always
still have to have four votes to carry any motion.
And so especially if it's compounded with an absence
by another board member, a lot of times it becomes
very difficult for us to take regulatory action.
MR. NELSON noted that some well-qualified people are not even
interested in being on the board because they know they wouldn't
be allowed to vote on important matters.
9:56:43 AM
JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist, United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA), noted
that UFA submitted a letter in support of HB 241 which is in the
committee packet. He reiterated that voting proceedings are
difficult for the board if some of the board members are
conflicted out. He also opined that it is unfair that
commercial fishermen are conflicted out more often that lodge
owners.
9:57:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented:
Why would you want to be on the Board of Fisheries ...
if you didn't have an interest in the subject matter
being displayed in front of you? And obviously if
you're someone representing commercial fishing, for
instance,... you're probably appointed to bring that
point of view to the board. And if you're not allowed
to vote on the [issue] when it comes up, what good are
you?
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS compared the situation to being in the
legislature; representatives are elected to bring their personal
viewpoints to the discussion.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX commented that she had received a lot of written
testimony from her constituents in Kodiak in favor of the bill.
9:59:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report HB 241 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 241(FSH) was
reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
HB 252-SPORT FISHING FACILITY REVENUE BONDS
10:00:03 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX returned the committee's attention to HB 252.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for reconsideration of HB 252.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson, Harris,
Thomas, and Elkins voted in favor of reconsidering HB 252.
Representatives LeDoux and Salmon voted against it.
Representative Kapsner was absent for the vote. Therefore, the
motion passed by a vote of 4-2. [The committee treated HB 252
as before it again.]
10:00:57 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to report HB 252 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON objected.
10:01:19 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson, Harris,
Thomas, and Elkins voted in favor of reporting HB 252 from the
committee. Representatives LeDoux and Salmon voted against it.
Representative Kapsner was absent for the vote. Therefore, HB
252 was reported out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries
by a vote of 4-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:01:59
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|