03/23/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 23, 2007
8:52 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- MOVED CSHB (FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
03/21/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/23/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTINE KOSKI
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
ALAN AUSTERMAN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries (BOF)
Boards Support Section
Division of Administration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 15, provided
information on the Board of Fisheries' recusals.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:52:36 AM. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, Holmes, and LeDoux were present at the call to
order. Representative Wilson arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 15-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
8:52:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only 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."
8:53:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed the committee's attention to the written
testimony of John Jensen, member of the Board of Fisheries
(BOF), which is included in the committee packet.
8:54:18 AM
CHRISTINE KOSKI paraphrased from a prepared statement, included
in the committee packet, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
I represent myself. I have held a Cook Inlet salmon
set net permit for 15 years and have actively fished
in Cook Inlet for over 25 years. I am a single mom
with 4 children. The majority of my income comes from
commercial fishing. I currently live in the
Kenai/Soldotna area. My children are also actively
involved in commercial set net fishing and have been
since they were born.
Approximately 35% of women are permit holders involved
in Cook Inlet salmon set net commercial fishing as
well as being involved in other commercial fisheries
in the entire state.
I have attended BOF regulatory meetings for decades
and in the last 5 years I have been active in the
process. My involvement is to ensure that there is an
opportunity for my children to continue commercial
fishing as their parents and grandparents have.
It is impossible to express my concerns or to suggest
changes to improve my capability to harvest salmon
when I feel that there is no way to communicate with
representation from the current members of the BOF.
Since I have been involved in the process there has
been no set net commercial fishing person. To make
matters worse it is difficult to converse with the
gender bias on the Board. I can appreciate that there
is a 14% representation for my gender currently, it
still leaves me with a significant impediment with
communicating and making changes relative to my
situation. I want active participants from my area so
that not only will I be able to communicate but so
will other similarly situated stakeholders.
HB 15 moves to open up more representation for
individuals like myself. Please consider the changes
that will give more fair and equitable representation
to the commercial fisher women in the State.
Committee members please realize that Cook Inlet set
net fisher women are hard working individuals who do
not wish entitlements but want to make our own way and
to instill in our children the lessons of hard work
and just rewards. The majority of my livelihood is
derived and supplemented with part time employment.
We are not wealthy, we do not make 10,s of thousands
of dollars. Please support HB 15 as presented.
8:56:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how HB 15 addresses gender
bias.
MS. KOSKI related her understanding that there has never been a
woman on the BOF. She indicated the need to have a woman on the
BOF so that she can communicate [with her own gender] regarding
the needs of fisher women who set net. In further response to
Representative LeDoux, Ms. Koski confirmed that there is no
woman who is a set net fisher on the BOF and there is only one
woman on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that there have been two women
who have served on the BOF.
8:59:08 AM
ALAN AUSTERMAN stated that he is speaking on his own behalf. He
noted that he spent eight years in the legislature and four
years with the last administration addressing the issues before
the committee. He opined that 12 years watching the BOF has led
him to believe that the Department of Law (DOL) should be
instructed not to conflict out those who have a conflict. As
long as it's a layman's board, a layman has to be involved in
the industry and able to participate in the discussions and the
voting of the board and full disclosure should continue to
occur. The DOL has interpreted the conflicts of interest and
have suggested that the board conflict the person out. "I think
that's not right," he opined. He pointed out that the
legislature has given the BOF its authority to address
allocation issues and legislators aren't conflicted out.
Therefore, he opined that the same should be the case for the
BOF. Although the number of conflicts isn't that great, those
who are conflicted out are often the most knowledgeable on the
topics.
9:01:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to Mr. Austerman's view as to
the difference in allowing a board member with a financial
interest to vote versus allowing a board member who represents
an organization whose membership may have a financial interest.
MR. AUSTERMAN related that BOF members usually want to serve on
the BOF because they feel they can contribute to the statewide
interest with regard to the fisheries. He couldn't recall a BOF
member who wanted to serve with the thought of serving his/her
own or someone else's financial interest. Mr. Austerman opined
that there's a difference between the normal BOF members and the
[NPFMC members].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that the situation as it exists
now is that BOF members aren't able to vote on items that impact
an individual's fishery [and therefore financial interest]. She
inquired as to the possibility of that changing, if BOF members
were actually allowed to vote on issues that had a financial
impact for the member.
MR. AUSTERMAN acknowledged that it may be possible, but he
doubted that would happen, given the nature of the BOF.
9:04:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to Mr. Austerman's
characterization of HB 15 relative to the current ethics package
moving through the legislature.
MR. AUSTERMAN reiterated the need for full disclosure and opined
that he didn't foresee a big change in the ethics aspect.
9:05:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how one would view a
scenario in which a board member is able to participate in the
discussions and contribute information, but is prohibited from
voting. She related her understanding that most of the
testimony has seemed to revolve around the BOF's need to obtain
information.
MR. AUSTERMAN said, "It would be better than what we have today
because most of the guys that end up with a conflict ... have to
sit out of the discussion as well as the vote." However, he
reiterated that the legislature has delegated its authority to
address allocation issues to the BOF. He also reiterated that
legislators, even when disclosing a conflict, are expected to
vote. Since the BOF has been given that authority, he related
his hope that the legislature would have enough confidence in
the BOF to do so.
9:07:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON posed the following scenario:
If you had somebody from the executive department of
the Department of Fish & Game that was also on the
board. So, that then you would have this conflict
because it could be controlling what was happening on
an ongoing basis whereas on the BOF not only is it
just proposals that come from the public but it's also
the fact that they're only going to be considering
proposals for their area once every four years, in the
cycle.
MR. AUSTERMAN indicated that he wasn't quite sure how to
respond. However, the legislature's intent was to have a lay
board with active fishermen on the board from throughout the
state, he said.
9:09:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony. He then directed attention to the
committee packet and the document with bulleted information
related to the differences in the BOF as compared to many of the
122 board regulations, particularly due to the creation of the
BOF through the legislature rather than the executive branch.
He then directed attention to an e-mail from Leslie Gallant,
State Medical Board, in which she clarified that a member of the
State Medical Board who is a heart surgeon wouldn't be precluded
from discussion and voting when a regulation about heart surgery
is before the board. He noted that the committee packet also
includes a number of analyses.
9:11:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her continued discomfort with HB
15, which allows board members the ability to vote on items
before the BOF in which they have a financial interest.
Therefore, she [moved that the committee adopt] Conceptual
Amendment 1, which would allow board members to participate in
discussions, but not vote.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON objected. He opined that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would return the BOF to its current status, such
that board members with a particular expertise and knowledge of
a region wouldn't be allowed to deliberate or fully participate
relative to other state boards and commissions as well as the
legislature. Representative Edgmon said that he supports the
intent of HB 15 as written, and thus won't support Conceptual
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his support for Conceptual
Amendment 1 as it would allow board members to provide their
expertise while maintaining the public confidence that board
members aren't casting votes based on their financial interest.
9:13:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX turned to the charges that legislators
vote on matters in which they have a conflict of interest. She
said she wasn't sure that the solution to the aforementioned is
to allow the BOF members to vote on matters in which they have a
conflict of interest. She opined that perhaps the solution is
to preclude legislators from voting on matters in which they
have a conflict of interest.
9:14:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON highlighted the process by which members of the BOF
are appointed from various regions of the state and the
devastating impact on a region when a member is conflicted out,
particularly in rural Alaska where entire economies are based on
the fishing industry. Furthermore, the broad [definition of
family] by which a member can be conflicted out can result in a
region not having a vote and go beyond the fishery in which the
member participates because he/she may have a family member that
participates in another fishery. This effect has been created
over time as the conflicts of interest weren't originally
treated in the manner in which they are today, he related.
9:18:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that perhaps the regulations
could be limited such that they don't apply to such an extended
family.
9:18:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that statute contains other
narrower definitions of "immediate family," such as AS
24.60.990(6), as follows:
Sec. 24.60.990. Definitions.
(6) "immediate family" means
(A) the spouse or domestic partner of the person;
or
(B) a parent, child, including a stepchild and an
adoptive child, and sibling of a person if the parent,
child, or sibling resides with the person, is
financially dependent on the person, or shares a
substantial financial interest with the person;
9:20:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to the body of law that
definition falls.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES specified that it's the legislative
branch, Title 24, definition of "immediate family." She
reiterated that throughout statute there are a variety of
definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that using such a definition
may be appropriate since the committee has discussed the BOF as
a quasi-legislative body.
9:21:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON opined that "the addition of these two things
together" seems to avoid disenfranchising regions of the state
nearly as much as the current regulation. He asked whether
Representative LeDoux would consider incorporating the
definition of "immediate family" in AS 24.60.990(6) in
Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied yes.
9:22:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES moved that the committee adopt a
conceptual amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 such that on page
1, line 13, the definition of "immediate family member" would be
defined as in AS 24.60.990(6).
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:23:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that Conceptual
Amendment 1, as amended, will allow a BOF member who doesn't
have a conflict falling within the just adopted definition of
"immediate family" to participate and vote. However, if the BOF
member does have a conflict of interest within the newly adopted
definition of "immediate family", that member can only
participate in the discussion.
9:23:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested a response from the ADF&G
representative regarding what this amendment actually
accomplishes. He questioned whether the amendment is taking the
legislation a step back.
9:25:07 AM
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries (BOF),
Boards Support Section, Division of Administration, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated that both of these
changes would make a significant practical difference in how the
board deals with [conflicts of interest]. He said that
participation in the discussions without allowing voting would
allow a member's regional expertise to be brought into the
discussions, which isn't the current interpretation. However,
it may be a fine line as to whether a member with a conflict
participating in discussions would be trying to persuade board
members. He then turned to the proposal to narrow the
definition of family. He echoed Chair Seaton's earlier comments
that in rural Alaska, there is a pattern of broader family
connections [in the fishing industry]. Changing the definition
of immediate family would change the number of proposals that
would be subject to a conflict of interest.
9:27:13 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended,
is before the committee.
9:27:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, referring to Mr. Jensen's letter,
highlighted that Mr. Jensen, was prohibited from participating
in the discussion on 61 proposals last year during the Southeast
Alaska portion of the yearly cycle. She further highlighted
that Mr. Jensen's letter relates that on many issues he could've
provided clarification. She surmised that the BOF is making
decisions when its members don't always have all of the facts.
Therefore, she characterized Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended,
as an improvement over the current situation.
9:29:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related his understanding that adoption of
[Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended] would continue to
disqualify someone like Mr. Jensen on the 61 proposals that come
before the Southeast Region every three years.
9:30:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that [Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended]
would allow Mr. Jensen to participate in all of the discussions,
but Mr. Jensen wouldn't be allowed to vote on those proposals on
matters for which he or any family member living in the same
household holds a permit.
9:30:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON highlighted that Mr. Jensen's letter
relates his desire to fully participate in the matters before
the board, which would mean having the ability to vote.
9:30:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to what percentage of votes
Mr. Jensen was conflicted out on due to his own situation versus
that of his family. He suggested that perhaps Mr. Jensen may be
able to participate more due to the new definition of immediate
family.
9:31:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted his agreement that this amendment is an
advancement and should be helpful for rural Alaska and allow
greater participation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she certainly doesn't want to do
anything to hurt rural Alaska. However, she said that she
didn't want the BOF to become similar to NPFMC in terms of
conflicts of interest.
9:32:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted her support of Conceptual Amendment
1, as amended, and said that she wouldn't be able to support the
legislation, as written, without the amendment. She, too,
commented on avoiding the BOF becoming [similar to NPFMC in
terms of conflicts of interest].
9:33:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that this as a difficult issue
that folks have tried to address over many years. She related
that she will probably vote for the [amendment] as it makes the
situation better.
9:35:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, acknowledging the historical context of
this issue and the original intent of the legislation, removed
his objection to the Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended.
9:36:07 AM
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1, as
amended, was adopted.
9:36:23 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease from 9:36 a.m. to 9:37 a.m.
9:38:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated support for CSHB 15, Version C, as
amended. He then announced his intention to apply the same
standard to the legislature, which he would attempt in an
amendment [to the ethics legislation] on the floor. The
amendment would allow legislators to recuse themselves if they
have a personal conflict. He emphasized the importance of
restoring the public's confidence in government.
9:40:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the BOF's process doesn't have the
same parameters as requiring someone to vote because a board
member can recuse himself/herself if he/she feels the situation
warrants.
9:41:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSHB 15, Version 25-
LS0114\C, Kane, 3/13/07, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 15(FSH) was reported out of the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
9:42:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee of its upcoming field trips
to the King Crab Hatchery and Sea Life Center in Seward as well
as the Douglas Island Pink and Chum (DIPAC) facility in Juneau.
9:43:35 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 9:43
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|