Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/07/2019 10:00 AM FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Commissioner Designee Doug Vincent-lang. | |
| HB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 7, 2019
10:01 a.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Lance Pruitt
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Department of Fish & Game;
Doug Vincent-Lang - Commissioner Designee
Anchorage, Alaska
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game by the members of the respective
boards; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 35
SHORT TITLE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STUTES
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) FSH, RES
03/07/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner-Designee
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as commissioner-designee of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director
Resident Hunters of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Commissioner Vincent-Lang's
appointment.
BRADLEY MEYEN, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on House Bill 35.
MATT GRUENING, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 35, explained
changes under proposed committee substitute, "Version M," on
behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:01:09 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. Representatives Kopp,
Vance, Pruitt, Tarr, and Stutes were present at the call to
order. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Edgmon arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME;
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE DOUG VINCENT-LANG.
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME;
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE DOUG VINCENT-LANG.
10:01:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
a confirmation hearing for the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
10:02:13 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner-Designee, testified he grew up
in Wisconsin and received his undergraduate degree in 1978 from
the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay in population dynamics
and biology. His career began as an Oceanographer in Florida
before he accepted an offer from the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, to pursue his master's degree in Biological
Oceanography. He graduated in 1980. In 1981, he started a
career with ADFG where he worked in various positions for 34
years. He retired for four years and accepted the nomination
for Commissioner of ADFG when Governor Dunleavy asked him to
consider taking the position.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG shared his belief that Alaska fish and
game is a "public trust resource He expressed his need for
the public's trust if he is going to be managing their resource.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang stated, "We're not always going to
agree on the outcome, but we are going to talk about the
issues. People fundamentally care about fish and game, which
he indicated is good for Alaska. He said he will seek input from
department staff in the decision-making process. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang shared a few of his goals are to "put food on the
tables of Alaskans,ensure trust, and preserve the state's
right to manage its resources.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG admitted he was aware of criticism
regarding his nomination due to his stance on "Proposition 1,
his inexperience managing Commercial Fisheries, and his
supportive stance on active management of the fish and game
resources. He expressed his excitement at the opportunity as
well as his belief he was up for the challenge.
10:09:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang to expound on the
perception that fisheries do not pay their way.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that ADFG receives $197
million dollars and turns that into an $11-billion industry. He
indicated his belief was that the Office of Management & Budget
(OMB) and the Office of the Governor listened and recognized the
return on investment. Over half of the $11 billion is from
commercial fisheries.
10:11:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang how he
expected to handle the large-scale mine issues facing the state
and the Division of Habitat numerous information requests from
the federal government.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG mentioned that he was unable to share
his personal views regarding specific mine projects because he
expected to have the [delegated authority for fish habitat and
special area permitting] Title 16 authority. He stated the
department will use the time allotted to fully inform those
decisions. He told Representative Tarr that he had already
asked his staff whether they felt there was enough time to fully
understand how the comments they had submitted into the Pebble
Mine draft environmental impact statement (EIS) would be
incorporated.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that ADFG had issued permits on
the Donlin Gold Project under former Commissioner Sam Cotten.
The former commissioner had reached out to the "local people"
about their concern regarding Donlin Gold Project, but there was
no response. He advised that the department will attempt to
contact the concerned citizens once again. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang stated that there are some reasons to be careful
regarding building large mines; but there can be real benefits
to local communities. Mines can be responsibly built, but with
their increased size there will be the need for greater scrutiny
from the department.
10:14:22 AM
CHAIR STUTES inquired as to Commissioner Vincent-Lang's thoughts
on the Division of Habitat being moved out of the department and
whether 90 days was enough time to assess a 400,000-page [EIS]
document.
10:14:47 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he was not aware of the
Division of Habitat being moved out of the department. He did
indicate awareness that the director of the Division of Habitat
may not be filled "as a cost-saving measure." That would leave
a deputy director reporting to a deputy commissioner within the
department. Title 16 authority would stay within the
department. In response to the second half of Chair Stutes'
question, he suggested that 90 days for assessment of a 400,000-
page document may or may not be enough time for department staff
to fully evaluate the EIS. He related that he had asked his
staff to report to him regarding the sufficiency of this
allotment of time.
10:15:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested that if ADFG did not feel like 90
days was enough time for the evaluation of the EIS, Commissioner
Vincent-Lang feel comfortable sharing the departments concerns
with the legislature. She went on to share concerns about the
nominee's membership on a variety of boards.
10:16:33 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG informed Representative Tarr that he
had resigned from all public boards.
10:17:16 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang to commit that the
department leadership make decisions that are science-based
without regard to political pressure.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG indicated he has had to make
politically unpopular fisheries management decision in the past
but made them because the science indicated they were the right
decision.
10:19:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether he knew what his
roll would be, with the governor, regarding appointments to the
Board of Fisheries.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG indicated it was ultimately the
governor's decision, but he would like to have input.
10:19:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Pittman-Robertson
funds, and he requested the designee's outlook on managing those
funds and avoiding federal reversion.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG expressed his shock at learning that
the department had reverted $3 million dollars of Pittman-
Robertson funds in October. He informed Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins that there is a new director in place that understands
the ramifications of a reversion. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
indicate the department had already taken steps to address the
issue, including partnering with other groups.
10:21:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES commented that hatcheries have tremendous economic
impact on state fisheries and fishermen. She asked the
commissioner appointee to share his view on hatcheries - the
effect on harvests statewide and economic gains realized because
of them.
10:21:59 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that hatcheries are
geographically different as well as different by species. He
informed Chair Stutes that he has encouraged the Board of
Fisheries to look at hatcheries geographically, temporally, as
well as by species. Each region has unique needs and
opportunities, and he is currently working for more federal
funding.
10:23:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang whether he
had been involved in the selection process for a recent
appointment to the Board of Game.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG provided input regarding the
characteristics of the person he wanted to see on the board, but
he said he was not involved in the selection.
10:24:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked about the nominee's ideas regarding
the Magnuson Stevens Act and how it impacts the state.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG indicated he believes the state is a
better manager of its fisheries than the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the commissioner intends to do
to build public trust in people who believe the state is not
doing a good job of managing fisheries resources.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that he would meet with the
public and talk with them. He stated his belief in working with
people, because "both sides" want stable and predictable
opportunities for the fish but finding the right balance is
hard.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented, "Communication is key right
now.
10:27:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES inquired as to know Mr. Vincent-Lang's feelings
regarding maintaining the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) as an independent agency.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that CFEC plays an important
role in managing fisheries. He said ADFG will do whatever the
legislature decides regarding CFEC.
CHAIR STUTES expressed her hope that the user groups opinions
would be taken into consideration.
10:28:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what Commissioner Vincent-
Lang's perspective was on personal use preference or priority.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the department is
neutral on personal use, but subsistence is a priority.
10:28:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed support for CFEC remaining as is,
then asked for the department's commitment to work on invasive
species issues.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said he had already discussed with the
Office of Management & Budget his preference that if CFEC was to
be moved into the department, it be moved as a separate entity
within the Office of the Commissioner. He agreed that invasive
species are a problem and had already asked staff to work on a
communications strategy to get in front of the issue rather than
being reactive to it.
10:30:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked if Commissioner Vincent-Lang was aware of the
importance of the Commercial Fisheries Revolving Loan Fund.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said he was aware of it.
CHAIR STUTES requested the commissioner appointees comments
regarding no longer requiring logbook records for freshwater
sportfishing.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG indicated the Governor's budget
included a reduction in funding to the logbook program. The
state already had treaty requirements for saltwater logbook
programs to be maintained. Regarding the freshwater survey
information, he said department staff are looking for
alternative ways to collect data.
10:32:44 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened the hearing up to public testimony.
10:33:03 AM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska,
Stated his belief that the nominee was uniquely qualified for
the position. Mr. Richards had worked with the commissioner
appointee and said he was a good communicator and very open.
10:34:18 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony. She thanked Commissioner
Vincent-Lang.
10:34:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP thanked Commissioner Vincent-Lang for his
willingness to step up and be considered for the commissioner
position.
10:36:38 AM
CHAIR STUTES echoed Representative Kopp's comments and
recommended the commissioner's appointment be moved forward.
10:37:25 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:37 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.
HB 35-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 35, "An Act relating to participation in matters
before the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game by the
members of the respective boards; and providing for an effective
date."
10:40:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 31-LS0297\M, Bullard, 3/4/19, as a
working document.
CHAIR STUTES objected for purpose of discussion. She noted that
online were Alpheus Bullard, Legislative Legal Services; Bradley
Meyen Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Glenn
Haight, [Executive Director, Board of Fisheries], and Christy
Tibbles; Executive Director, Board of Game.
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes to HB 35 under the proposed
CS, "Version M," on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime
sponsor.
10:42:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked if members would be allowed to vote on
issues before the board(s) if they had a conflict.
MR. GRUENING responded that they would not be allowed to vote
but could deliberate with the board.
CHAIR STUTES requested information on the contents of the bill.
MR. GRUENING described how HB 35 would change the way the Board
of Fisheries and the Board of Game function by allowing board
members to deliberate on subjects for which the members have
declared a conflict of personal or financial interest according
to AS 39.52; the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Members to the
board(s) are selected based on their knowledge and abilities in
the field of action of the board, with a view to providing
diversity in interests and points of view in membership. Title
39 prohibits a member from taking or withholding official action
in order to affect a matter in which the member has a conflict
of personal or financial interest. Official action is defined
as "Advice, participation or assistance", which could include a
recommendation, decision, approval or disapproval, vote, or
other similar action including an action by the public officer.
Currently, when a conflict is determined the member must step
down and cannot participate. HB 35 would allow the member to
deliberate but not participate in the vote.
10:44:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection to the motion to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 31-LS0297\M,
Bullard, 3/4/19, as a working document. There being no further
objection, Version M was before the committee.
10:44:58 AM
MR. GRUENING explained the goal of HB 35 was to remove the
requirement for board members to divulge a conflict of interest
for themselves or their immediate family members regarding the
subject being deliberated. The bill would allow the conflicted
member to offer his/her input. The conflicted member would not
be allowed to be part of the vote of the board regarding whether
the member has a conflict of interest. Currently the decision
on a possible conflict of interest is up to the chair of the
board to decide. If board members disagree with the chair's
ruling, a majority of voting members including the chair decide
whether a conflict exists. The member whose possible conflict
is being voted upon, is not allowed to participate in the vote.
This process is consistent with current practice. This bill
would enable the board to benefit from all board members
knowledge and points of view.
MR GRUENING explained that Board of Fisheries and Board of Game
issues tend to be complex and require knowledge-based solutions.
Board members often have family or direct financial or personal
interests which are tied to the complex knowledge the member
would need in order to understand the sometimes-nuanced
discussions of the board. Members are selected based on their
knowledge of the field. Their knowledge would benefit the board
discussions and be on the record even if they have a personal
conflict of interest, but they should not be allowed to vote on
an issue if a conflict exists.
MR. GRUENING said a concern regarding how the process is working
with these boards is that off-the-record discussions are
occurring between board members. The off-the-record discussions
are not part of the public record; the proposed legislation
would enable those discussions to occur on the record. He said,
"As a life-long commercial fisherman, I can't tell you how many
times I have heard or seen really extremely qualified candidates
say they don't want to put their name in for consideration
because they know they would be conflicted out of a lot of the
proposals of which they have knowledge on." The proposed
legislation would allow the member with the conflict of interest
to impart his/her knowledge before recusing him/herself for the
vote. This should lead to more informed decisions, stronger
resource management statewide, and align the process with intent
regarding boards benefitting from the members knowledge and
diversity of viewpoints. Mr. Gruening stated that Version M
would allow for board members of the Board of Game and the Board
of Fisheries to deliberate if they have a conflict of interest,
but they could not vote on the subject.
10:49:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what course of action is [currently]
available if the member does not recuse him/herself or cite a
conflict of interest if others felt a conflict existed.
MR. GRUENING explained that under AS. 39.52 there is a process
for complaints filed with the Attorney General. Mr. Gruening
deferred to [Assistant Attorney General] Bradley Meyen for more
in-depth explanation.
10:50:42 AM
BRADLEY MEYEN, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, stated that two provisions could apply: AS. 39.52.230 for
reporting violations and AS.39352.310 for complaints.
10:51:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to Section 3 of HB 35, regarding
"financial interest relating to the involvement of the member".
She noted that a similar bill, HB 44, cites a minimum dollar
amount, and she asked Mr. Gruening if that issue had been
considered under HB 35 as a threshold for a conflict to be
declared.
10:52:05 AM
MR. GRUENING explained that the Executive Branch Ethics Act
states less than $5000 is considered insignificant, while
anything $5,000 or above would be considered significant. He
offered his understanding that AS 39.52.120 (1)(d) provides that
a stock or ownership interest in a business is presumed
insignificant if the value or stock of other ownership interest,
including an option to purchase an ownership interest, is less
the $5000.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE brought that issue up because different
bills have different thresholds for financial conflicts of
interest, and she asked Mr. Gruening if he knew why the
inconsistency existed.
MR. GRUENING answered that he was not sure of the legislative
intent regarding the financial differences.
10:53:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP drew attention to language [beginning on
page 2, line 31, through page 3, line 4], which read as follows:
(c) If a member of the Board of Fisheries or
the Board of Game discloses a personal or financial
interest relating to the involvement of the member, or
immediate family member of that member, in a business
or organization relating to fish or game resources,
the member is not disqualified from deliberating or
participating in the matter.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that makes sense because people with
industry knowledge are serving on the boards. He then referred
to continuing language [on page 3, beginning on line 4 through
line 6], which read:
If the supervisor or a majority of the members of the
respective board determine that the member's further
involvement will result in a violation of AS 39.52.110
- 39.52.190, the board member may not vote on the
matter.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined that that is good, because those
[statutes] address violations, including improper influence,
misuse of official public position outside of employment, and
improper representation.
Representative Kopp continued:
What I'm having a hard time understanding is it sounds
like if it doesn't fall under that, we're still saying
they can't vote if they have a personal or financial
interest. Because you can have a personal or
financial interest but not be in violation...of how
the statute says that that...arrives to a misuse.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the legislature tries to ensure the
board is balanced to ensure balanced outcomes. He questioned
whether taking away the ability to vote would throw the balance
of the board.
10:57:26 AM
MR. GRUENING clarified that board members with a conflict of
interest currently could not vote. The language regarding
"further involvement will result in a violation" simply
describes the process that currently takes place. The proposed
change would allow them to deliberate. The voting balance of
the board was considered, but there was concern regarding the
possibility of a member abusing the system for financial gain.
The sponsor and community felt like allowing a conflicted member
to vote was a step too far.
10:58:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked, hy would we do this with these
two boards and not others?
MR. GRUENING answered that he was only aware of this problem
with the two boards. User groups have brought this specific
issue forward since changes/revisions to the Ethics Act in 1988.
There was concern that in the attempt to fix the Board of
Fisheries and Board of Game, similar changes to other boards may
result in unforeseen repercussions.
11:00:43 AM
CHAIR STUTES mentioned that all the boards and commissions are
different. The Board of Fisheries and Board of Game some of the
few allocative boards.
MR. GRUENING added there are professional boards that have more
members to cover the knowledge gaps if one of the members had a
conflict of interest. The Board of Fisheries and the Board of
Game only a single member may have knowledge of the subject
being discussed.
11:01:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT discussed his concern that if HB 35 were
to pass, other boards and commissions could come forward asking
for similar regulation.
MR. GRUENING said he didn't foresee the mentioned changes
occurring but agreed it was possible.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT indicated he thought the discussion was to
allow the [board members] expertise to be shared. He clarified
his real concern was that it appeared that currently the
conversations are occurring "behind the scenes" and board
members may not only bring their expertise to the conversations
but might be advocating for something that personally benefits
them. Representative Pruitt suggested adding language to the
bill that would not allow a board member to advocate publicly or
privately for something that would benefit him/her. Once a
member was recognized as having a conflict, the member would
only be allowed to share his/her expertise. He shared his
concern that it appears committee members are already sharing
information off the record on issues in which they may have
conflict of interest.
MR. GRUENING stated he thought the Representative Pruitt had a
fair point and that he'd look to the will of the chair and the
committee regarding whether that was a change they wished to
consider.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE voiced her concerns about the duty to
create consistency within the boards. She suggested that the
committee investigate what could be done to preemptively do what
is right for the public before problems arise. She explained
that was her reason for bringing up the dollar amount
differences for conflict of interests as a legislator versus a
board. She expressed concern that the public would not want to
have to look up all the differences between the government
entities regarding the various standards for conflicts of
interest. She expressed her desire to keep in mind the other
boards and commissions and their future concerns.
11:06:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES shared with the committee that HB 35 is the result
of requests by user groups. Through the years this legislation
has been worked on there have not been any other reports from
boards or commission that had similar problems.
MR. GRUENING noted that he had two additional letters for the
legislators packets: One was from the Resident Hunter of
Alaska, in opposition; and the other was from the United
Southeast Gillnetters Association, in support.
11:07:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that HB 35 was held over.
11:08:38 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:09
a.m.