03/21/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB186 | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 21, 2007
8:41 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to sharing with certain federal agencies
records required of sport fishing guides."
- MOVED CSHB 186(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries by members of the board; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Urging the United States Congress to enact Senate Bill 552 so
that individuals receiving a damage award from the Exxon Valdez
oil spill can benefit from the income averaging and retirement
contribution provisions of the bill.
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDE RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS BY REQUEST
03/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/07 (H) FSH, RES
03/19/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/19/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/21/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 15
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
03/14/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/14/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/19/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/19/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/21/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY MCQUARRIE
Region 2C Vice President
Halibut Charter Coalition of Alaska
Operator, Sportsman's Cove Lodge
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, Special Projects Coordinator
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 186, answered
questions.
LESLIE GALLANT, Executive Administrator
State Medical Board
Division of Corporations, Businesses, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 15, answered
questions.
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries
Boards Support Section
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 15, provided
information on the Board of Fisheries recusals.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 15, answered
questions.
LANCE NELSON, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 15, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:41:04 AM. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representatives Wilson, Johansen, and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 186-SPORT FISHING GUIDE RECORDS
8:41:13 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to sharing with certain
federal agencies records required of sport fishing guides."
8:42:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the committee packet contains a
letter from the Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance in support
of HB 186 as well as a letter from the United Fishermen of
Alaska. Chair Seaton then noted that Kathy Hansen is available
to answer questions.
8:43:11 AM
LARRY MCQUARRIE, Region 2C Vice President, Halibut Charter
Coalition of Alaska; Operator, Sportsman's Cove Lodge, began by
noting his lengthy involvement in the fishing industry and this
issue in particular. He related his support for HB 186 and
informed the committee that he's currently a member of the
stakeholders committee. Recalling when the logbooks first came
into use, he related that confidentiality of the client list was
of concern. At that time, it never occurred to [the charter
businesses] that the data wouldn't be shared. The information
needs to be utilized to properly manage the catch, he related.
The annual bag limit is one of the best options in controlling
the catch for the charter industry. However, he related his
understanding that the annual bag limit is very expensive to
implement and thus the availability of this information will be
helpful. In response to Chair Seaton, Mr. McQuarrie confirmed
that he has no problem with sharing the information with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC).
8:47:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that the catch
and the fishing license number will be reported. He asked if
there's a way to tie a fishing license number to a person such
that the client list is obtainable.
MR. MCQUARRIE replied yes. He pointed out that the fishing
license numbers were included in order to make the logbooks
verifiable such that the individual linked with the license
number could be called to verify the catch information. In
further response to Representative Johnson, Mr. McQuarrie
acknowledged that the ability for a competitor to obtain a
client list is of concern. However, he said he trusted that
there will be some limits on that information as the information
needed is the "numbers, not necessarily people."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that perhaps the last three
numbers of the fishing licensing could be redacted in order to
inhibit access [to client lists].
8:48:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON highlighted that this won't make the information
public, it makes it available only to NMFS and IPHC. He said
that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) can be asked
to verify that the aforementioned entities hold the information
confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would appreciate such.
8:49:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Johnson, reminded
the committee that an amendment providing for an immediate
effective date was adopted [March 19, 2007].
8:50:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:50:30 AM
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, Special Projects Coordinator, Division of
Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, in response to
Chair Seaton, specified that the personal records shared with
NMFS and IPHC would have to remain confidential. He highlighted
the importance of sharing this information because if the state
was to go to a federal annual limit on halibut, for instance,
part of the enforcement procedures would be to review individual
angler records to ensure that the annual limits weren't
exceeded.
8:51:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to report HB 186, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
186(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 15-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
8:53:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to participation in matters
before the Board of Fisheries by members of the board; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the spreadsheet in the
committee packet that details the boards and commissions that
have reported recusals due to conflicts. This spreadsheet
provides the aforementioned information from 2003-2006. The
three recusals in the Board of Fisheries (BOF) occupied 42
regulatory proposals, which is very different than other boards
in which the recusal is often only related to one particular
item. He pointed out that in 2006 there were 3 recusals that
covered 103 regulatory proposals, but that doesn't include
instances in which an individual didn't participate by leaving
the room. Chair Seaton drew particular attention to the May 7,
2003, memo from the Boards Support Section of the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), which relates that one person
is recused on many different proposals. He then noted that a
representative for the State Medical Board is on line if the
committee is interested in hearing its process regarding
recusals and conflicts of interest.
8:58:07 AM
LESLIE GALLANT, Executive Administrator, State Medical Board,
Division of Corporations, Businesses, and Professional
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED), began by clarifying that she does not sit
on the board, but rather is an employee of the state. She
explained that the majority of the cases in which a member of
the State Medical Board would recuse himself/herself involve
actions against individuals. Due to the small size of the
physician population in Alaska, it's reasonable for the board
member to know the individual coming before the board or have
knowledge about the case itself. In that case the board member
reveals the relationship or how he/she came to possess the
knowledge and makes a determination as to whether he/she can be
fair and impartial considering the case. If the board member's
involvement is extensive, the board member would recuse
himself/herself prior to the discussion of the matter and the
member leaves the room.
9:00:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the State Medical Board has
regulatory authority as well as an adjudicatory authority,
whereas the Board of Fisheries only has regulatory authority.
Therefore, he requested that Ms. Gallant address the regulatory
aspect of the State Medical Board.
MS. GALLANT explained that if the board member has a vested
interest in a matter before the State Medical Board, he/she must
disclose that. For example, when the board considered a
regulation to require a physician selling products from his/her
office to disclose his/her financial interest in the sale of
such products, one of the board members sold products from his
office and was determined not to be the most impartial
individual to determine whether the regulation should pass. The
board member and the chair, who is also the ethics officer for
the board, discuss whether the board member can make a fair and
impartial decision on the matter and determine jointly whether
the board member should recuse.
9:03:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON posed a scenario in which the State Medical Board
is considering a regulation involving surgery, and asked if a
board member who performs surgery and who has another family
member who performs surgery in the state would be recused from
the discussion of the regulation regarding surgery.
MS. GALLANT replied no, adding that the board wants to include
those with such expertise in order to define the standard of
care.
9:05:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding, though, that
when the board deals with a matter from which the board member's
vote would directly impact his/her financial interest, that
board member wouldn't be allowed to participate.
MS. GALLANT clarified that there isn't a statute or regulation
that prohibits the participation. However, as mentioned
earlier, the board chair and the board member with an interest
determine whether recusal is necessary.
9:07:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that under the State
Medical Board, members with extended family who practice
medicine doesn't necessarily cause the board member to be
recused.
MS. GALLANT said she wasn't aware of any such case. In fact,
there are parents and children who are in medical practice
together. The expectation is that those who hold a professional
license adhere to the ethics of the profession until proven
otherwise.
9:08:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether the State Medical
Board deals with Certificate of Need program.
MS. GALLANT replied no, and added that falls under the Health
Facilities and Licensing Office, Department of Health.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that physicians
go through a semester or two of ethics training.
MS. GALLANT responded, "Not necessarily, no."
9:09:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to the disclosure requirements
for the State Medical Board.
MS. GALLANT specified that there are no written disclosure
requirements. She recalled that in 1994 the State Medical Board
adopted a policy by which those on the State Medical Board
cannot also be an officer or member of the grievance committee,
physician health committee, or complaint committee in a
professional organization, such as the Alaska State Medical
Association.
9:11:28 AM
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Boards
Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, related that
he has provided the committee with an updated spreadsheet to the
"Summary of Board of Fisheries Vote Abstentions (2001-2006)"
that contains the last three board meetings. The aforementioned
was prepared after review of the quarterly ethics disclosure
reports that are filed with the Department of Law (DOL). For
any given BOF meeting there may be 50-100 proposals on the
agenda. Prior to the meeting, the board members review the
agenda items and identify any that are a potential conflict. At
the beginning of the meeting, the board members offer their
ethics disclosure statement and identify involvement in the
fishery or other issues before the board. The chair will invite
board member questions or discussion to clarify and then make a
ruling regarding participation or being conflicted out on
specific proposals. After the ruling, the full board has the
option to challenge or override the chair's ruling. The
aforementioned typically happens maybe once a year. Each year,
a board member will have a conflict with approximately 10
percent of the proposals. Some years, the total number of
proposals on which a board member will have a conflict ranges
from approximately 3 percent to as high as 20 percent. Counting
the members' recusals by the votes not cast amounts to about 1.5
percent of the board member votes. Typically, the most
proposals that any one member will have a conflict with are, on
average, 15 percent.
9:15:30 AM
MR. MARCOTTE, drawing upon his review of the board, stated that
it's rare when more than one board member is conflicted on a
proposal. Due to the broad geographic representation of the
BOF's membership, it's rare that two members would have similar
interests on the same fishing topics. Of the 48 regulatory
meetings in the last 6 years, 22 of those, 45 percent, had
recusals by board members. He related that neither the BOF nor
ADF&G have taken a position on HB 15. With regard to the
question at a prior hearing regarding the necessity of a fiscal
note on the requirement to perform a review if there's a sunset
clause. He relayed, "We looked at that and thought that 'no'
that would not be a fiscal note that that would be very easy to
compile; we'd have the data through our normal tracking system."
9:17:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised then that Section 4 doesn't generate the
need for a fiscal note.
MR. MARCOTTE replied no.
9:17:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if when a board member recuses
himself/herself, it precludes that board member from discussing
the issues and answering questions from the other board members.
MR. MARCOTTE specified that a recused board member leaves the
table when the proposal with which there's a conflict is before
the board. That board member can sit in the general audience
and thus not take part in the board's deliberations or voting on
the particular proposal. In further response to Representative
Johnson, Mr. Marcotte stated that a recused board member has the
option of testifying as a member of the public. However, that's
not usually the case, he noted. He confirmed that a board
member has testified as a member of the public, but he didn't
recall whether it was upon request of the board or upon the
board member's own initiative.
9:19:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether having the board
member leave the table is specified in statute or regulation or
is a tradition of the board.
MR. MARCOTTE deferred to DOL.
9:20:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested further explanation with regard
to a board member's family interest and the perceived financial
benefit of a board member.
MR. MARCOTTE specified that family interest refers to the
immediate family of children, parents, and spouses not the
extended family of aunts, uncles, et cetera. In response to
Representative LeDoux, Mr. Marcotte confirmed that immediate
family would include grown children living outside of the family
unit.
9:21:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES related her understanding that the
applicable definition is found in AS 39.52.960(11), as follows:
(11) "immediate family member" means
(A) the spouse of the person;
(B) another person cohabiting with the person in
a conjugal relationship that is not a legal marriage;
(C) a child, including a stepchild and an
adoptive child, of the person;
(D) a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or
uncle of the person; and
(E) a parent or sibling of the person's spouse;
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES then questioned whether the BOF is reading
the statute a bit more narrowly and not conflicting board
members who have say a brother-in-law who has a conflict.
MR. MARCOTTE noted his agreement that the statute referenced by
DOL as providing guidance at BOF meetings is AS 39.52.960(11).
9:23:26 AM
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), in
response to Representative LeDoux's earlier question, referred
to the following definition in the Executive Branch Ethics Act,
AS 39.52.960(14), as follows:
(14) "official action" means advice,
participation, or assistance, including, for example,
a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval,
vote, or other similar action, including inaction, by
a public officer;
MR. DAUGHERTY suggested that the committee consider the
aforementioned definition in conjunction with the prohibition
specified in AS 39.52.120(4), as follows:
(4) take or withhold official action in order to
affect a matter in which the public officer has a
personal or financial interest;
MR. DAUGHERTY specified that a board member with a [personal or
financial interest in a matter before the board] who
participates in deliberations, even if he/she doesn't vote, is
in violation of the statute.
9:24:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised then that even participating as a
member of the general public would be in violation of the
statute.
MR. DAUGHERTY related his disagreement, adding that when the
board member is participating as a member of the general public,
he/she isn't acting in an official capacity.
9:25:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to the following language in AS
39.52.220(a), which read:
If the supervisor or a majority of the members voting
determine that a violation will exist if the member
continues to participate, the member shall refrain
from voting, deliberating, or participating in the
matter.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES characterized that language as well as the
definition, under AS 39.52.960(11) [text provided previously],
of immediate family member as fairly broad. She asked if a
board member would have to recuse himself/herself if, for
instance, his/her brother-in-law or sister-in-law in another
town has some financial or personal interest in the matter
before the board.
9:26:24 AM
MR. DAUGHERTY pointed out that the statutory definition applies
regardless of where the family member lives so long as the
family member falls within the statutory definition of immediate
family member. In further response to Representative Holmes,
Mr. Daugherty confirmed that AS 39.52.960(11) is the correct
statute. However, he related his understanding that terms
brother-in-law and sister-in-law aren't used in the statute,
although he acknowledged that it does refer to the sibling of
the person's spouse. In response to Chair Seaton, Mr. Daugherty
confirmed that [AS 39.52.960(11)] does include aunts and uncles.
9:28:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if any other boards provide board
members with the ability to not recuse themselves after
declaring a conflict, other than the legislature.
9:28:50 AM
LANCE NELSON, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), related that there are different standards in the federal
arenas. For instance, the standard for allowing participation
in spite of conflicts is a lot lower for the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC).
9:29:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "In that we can actually have some
effect on as the legislature?"
MR. NELSON responded that he isn't aware of any, as far as state
agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON surmised then that passage of this
legislation would result in the BOF being the only board in the
state that allows [participation even when a member has a
conflict].
MR. NELSON said he believes that's the case. However, he
reminded the committee that the role of the BOF is fairly unique
as it's only a regulation-making body not an adjudicatory body.
9:30:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the State Medical Board is covered
by the same statute that covers the BOF. However, when the
State Medical Board is making regulations for surgery, it
doesn't recuse a board member whose son, for example, is
involved in surgery. He asked if Mr. Nelson would enforce such
a recusal.
MR. NELSON said it would depend upon the factual circumstances.
He commented that these situations are difficult judgment calls
to make. The BOF consistently errs on the conservative and
careful side in order to avoid even the appearance of conflict.
With regard to the State Medical Board, when it's making
regulations that apply to most doctors in the state, it could be
argued that [board members] are a member of such a large class,
under the statutory authority, that he/she could continue to
vote. The aforementioned happens in the sport fishing arena as
a BOF member may have an area in which he/she likes to and does
sport fish. Although that BOF member has a personal interest at
stake in that sport fishery area, that board member is usually
one of many participating in the fishery and thus recusal
wouldn't be required.
CHAIR SEATON opined that it seems the State Medical Board is
doing exactly what is being attempted through HB 15, which is to
have those with the expertise on the board and participating in
creating regulations.
MR. NELSON remarked that the [actions of the State Medical
Board] make a good argument for HB 15.
9:33:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related his understanding that the goal of
the BOF is to act as a lay board. He asked if there's a
subtlety between a citizen-lead board and a lay board.
MR. NELSON answered that it depends upon one's view. Usually
when one thinks of a lay board for fisheries management, it
would consist of individuals who aren't necessarily fisheries
managers or biologists. The BOF is basically making decisions
regarding the conservation and development of fisheries. He
suggested that an expert in the aforementioned area wouldn't
necessarily be the fishermen but rather biologists or
individuals trained in the management of the fishery resources.
To that extent, a commercial fisherman or sport fishing guide
would be the lay person although he/she may have practical
experience. The statute establishing the board says: "The
governor shall appoint each member on the basis of interest in
public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the
field of action of the board, and with a view to providing
diversity of interest and points of view in the membership."
Therefore, he opined that most governors appoint fishermen or
others associated with the fisheries in order to fulfill the
responsibility of "ability in the field of action of the board."
He further opined that it's a balance between the desires to
have a lay board versus fishery management experts. He surmised
that when the legislature confirms the members of the board it
helps make the judgment call as to the qualities of the board.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related his observation that it's a bit
ironic that a board member may be selected based on his/her
expertise or involvement, but then has to recuse himself/herself
and not participate in the discussion.
9:38:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled hearing testimony last week that
the mandatory recusals were more strict for the commercial
fisherman than for those board members with a financial interest
in the lodges.
MR. NELSON said he wouldn't say that owners of sport fish lodges
are treated with a different standard, although their interest
may be narrower and thus tend to create fewer conflicts.
Sometimes the benefit or detriment to sport fish lodge owners
posed by a certain regulatory proposal is more difficult to
define and less direct than a commercial fishing permit holder.
Although there may be a perception of such, he said he wasn't
aware of any specific decision by the BOF to provide significant
differential treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested an example in which there
could've been the perception that a lodge owner with a "far out"
interest received favor in a particular matter.
MR. NELSON commented that a lodge owner hasn't sat on the BOF
for some time, save Mr. Heyano who may have some interest in
sport fish guiding operations. He deferred to Mr. Daugherty.
MR. DAUGHERTY stated that he isn't aware of such a [situation or
perception].
MR. NELSON added that in the past there have BOF members/chairs
who have owned lodges and have been conflicted out on proposals
that address their specific area.
9:41:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to the standard for conflicts
used by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC).
MR. NELSON said he is unable to speak to the question, although
he noted that it's a lower standard by which members [of NPFMC]
are rarely conflicted out.
MR. DAUGHERTY said he is also unable to speak to the question.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that the member would
have to own 15 percent of the fishery under consideration.
However, under the federal guidelines [members of NPFMC] are
basically considered exempt from all conflicts of interest.
9:43:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if anyone owns 15 percent of a
fishery.
CHAIR SEATON recalled one instance in which the long line cod
fishery was at the point of being that concentrated. He
highlighted that he didn't want to confuse the matter as it's a
federal issue not a state issue.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that before the implementation of
allocations/individual fishing quotas no one owned 15 percent of
anything. Therefore, she questioned how the federal government
determined who owned 15 percent of a right that didn't exist.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that if there was a fleet of 10 vessels
and an individual or a corporation owned 3 of the 10, that would
be the basis for saying that individual or corporation had a
certain amount of control of the fishery.
9:45:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON indicated that the [best] example to
compare to the BOF is NPFMC.
9:46:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that she is uncomfortable with HB
15. She then related that she doesn't want to turn BOF into
NPFMC. She emphasized that it's difficult for even the best-
intentioned individual to make a decision that's totally devoid
of financial benefits for that individual. She acknowledged the
importance of having those [on a board] who know the subjects
before the board. However, she opined that it's discomforting
to go against the ethics movement in the legislature.
Therefore, she suggested the possibility of allowing [board
members with a conflict/financial interest] to participate in
discussions, but not vote.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that if the aforementioned was
the case for the legislature, many members would be sitting in
the audience unable to vote. He recognized that those in the
legislature are elected officials rather than appointed as is
the case for boards.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX interjected that she would like to see
that happen [for the legislature].
9:49:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 15 would be held for further
committee discussion.
9:50:13 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:50
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|