Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/03/2004 09:04 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
May 3, 2004
9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 69(RES)
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries by members of the board; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 69(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 69
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WAGONER
02/14/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/03 (S) STA, RES
03/25/03 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/25/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/25/03 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/03 (S) STA RPT 5DP
03/26/03 (S) DP: STEVENS G, HOFFMAN, COWDERY,
03/26/03 (S) DYSON, GUESS
03/19/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/19/04 (S) -- Rescheduled from 03/08/04 --
03/26/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/04 (S) Moved CSSB 69(RES) Out of Committee
03/26/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/04 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/29/04 (S) NR: OGAN, DYSON; DP: ELTON, STEVENS B,
03/29/04 (S) WAGONER
04/22/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/22/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 69(RES)
04/26/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/26/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/28/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
04/28/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/01/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/01/04 (H) FSH, RES
05/03/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR TOM WAGONER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 69.
DIANA COTE, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of SB 69 and
responded to questions.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 69.
PAUL SHADURA, President
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 69.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Ogg, Samuels, and Gara were present at the call to order.
Representatives Wilson and Heinze arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
SB 69 - BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Number 0042
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
[CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 69(RES)], "An Act relating to
participation in matters before the Board of Fisheries by
members of the board; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0089
SENATOR TOM WAGONER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed
that the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force developed
the concept embodied in SB 69 and asked him to sponsor the bill.
He explained that SB 69 "opens up the conflict of interest
policy for the Board of Fisheries to match that of the
legislature." Currently, whenever members of the legislature
have a conflict of interest regarding a matter being voted on,
they simply declare the conflict and may then be required to
vote on the matter; SB 69 would allow members on the Board of
Fisheries to follow a similar procedure. He opined that such a
change will make the Board of Fisheries more effective and allow
all its members to participate more fully.
SENATOR WAGONER noted that there are seven public members on the
Board of Fisheries, and suggested that the current practice can
sometimes result in decisions being made by only five members.
He also suggested that sometimes different factions within the
Board of Fisheries strive towards "eliminating the participation
of one board member versus another," adding that both the
administration and those in the commercial fishing industry are
unhappy with such a practice. He opined that the fishing
resources of Alaska should be managed on a biological basis;
however, because of various political reasons, such does not
always occur. He offered his belief that SB 69 will allow a
return to management based on biology and allow those board
members who are most knowledgeable on a particular issue to
participate fully.
SENATOR WAGONER remarked:
The board process we have in Alaska is not the best we
could have, but it's better than anybody else in the
nation has to manage their fishery; ... this board
process allows the maximum input through the regional
and local advisory boards and their ability to present
issues to the board, and so it's a very, very fair
process and it's a very democratic process.
Number 0570
DIANA COTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, explained
that currently, the process the Board of Fisheries undertakes is
broken down into two main aspects: information gathering, and
deliberation and voting. Public testimony occurs in the
information gathering part of the process. The Board of
Fisheries also has a committee process whereby different
proposals are first examined in detail by members that have
formed different committees. The committee process is
considered an aspect of information gathering. Currently, it is
during the deliberation and voting part of the process that
members with a conflict of interest don't get to participate.
For example, if a member or his/her spouse or family member
holds a permit in a particular fishery, he/she cannot deliberate
or vote on an issue involving that type of fishery.
MS. COTE noted that currently, all board members, regardless of
potential conflicts of interest, can participate in the
information gathering part of the process, and this is helpful,
she remarked, because when someone is familiar with a particular
fishery, he/she is more likely to ask pertinent questions. She
also noted that currently, for any measure to pass, there must
be at least four votes in favor of the measure regardless of how
many members actually get to vote. When members are excluded
from voting because of a conflict of interest - as occurs in the
current procedure - it can become quite difficult to get a
measure passed.
SENATOR WAGONER interjected to point out that currently, in such
a situation, the members who do get to vote on a particular
measure end up being those that are less knowledgeable about the
specific issues involved. Under the change proposed by SB 69,
members would declare any conflict of interest they have,
contribute to the deliberations, and then vote. He opined that
this change will open up the process to the scrutiny of the
public, and suggested that it will result in biologically based
decisions being made, which will, in turn, prevent fisheries
from being destroyed as has happened in the past.
CHAIR WAGONER asked whether the current practice acts as a
disincentive for people who are knowledgeable in the fisheries
industry to serve on the Board of Fisheries.
SENATOR WAGONER said he has not heard that said.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE mentioned that on the surface, the changes
proposed by SB 69 appear to make sense, but noted that she is
troubled by the letter from the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) in
opposition to SB 69. She asked Senator Wagoner to comment.
SENATOR WAGONER suggested that the AOC's opposition could be an
aspect of the basic disagreements between sport and commercial
users, and mentioned that some members of the AOC have relayed
to him a concern that SB 69 will negate the McDowell v. State
decision. He opined that SB 69 won't affect any court decision
that he is aware of, and noted that under the current conflict-
of-interest procedure, members on the Board of Fisheries are
prevented from voting approximately 12-14 times a year. In
response to a question, he relayed that the AOC does attend
Board of Fisheries meetings, listed several other groups that
often attend as well, and gave a brief synopsis of how the Board
of Fisheries deals with issues in the Cook Inlet region.
Number 1301
MS. COTE, in response to questions, reiterated her comments
regarding how the Board of Fisheries operates, adding that
committees are usually made up of two or three members, and that
when a committee reports back to the board, the report will
indicate whether or not there is consensus among committee
members and panel members and, if not, what the differing views
are. In response to further questions, she relayed that
currently during the deliberative process, when members have a
conflict of interest, they physically get up and leave the
table, and then only offer comments to the remaining board
members during breaks in the deliberative process. She also
outlined the current schedule of compensation due board members,
and estimated the yearly cost for the Board of Fisheries to
conduct business as approximately $10,000 for meeting between 50
and 100 days a year.
SENATOR WAGONER mentioned that the chair of the Board of
Fisheries generally gets the most compensation because he/she
spends more time on issues than other board members.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked how the public will perceive the change
in procedure when the issue is one of how a fishery will be
allocated.
MS. COTE said that such would be hard to predict, but suggested
that in general, the public will appreciate having those members
most familiar with an issue be able to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG indicated that he is concerned with the
public's perception of the proposed change.
SENATOR WAGONER, in response to comments, offered his belief
that board members do a very good job of looking at issues
fairly and don't get wrapped up in the contention between the
commercial and sport factions of the fishing industry.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that an almost perfect solution
would be to allow all board members to deliberate on issues,
even if they have a conflict of interest and could benefit
financially from a particular outcome, and then just not be
allowed to vote on those issues. Such would maintain the
credibility of the organization, and allow the board to receive
the information it needs to make an informed decision. He asked
whether there would be a downside to such a change.
MS. COTE opined that such a change would not add anything to the
current process because any member that is currently excluded
from voting has already given his/her views and information to
the remainder of the board before deliberations begin; allowing
for him/her to repeat that information during deliberations will
not necessarily add anything to the process. She added that in
her experience, most members, even when they have a financial
interest in an issue, want to do what's best for the fishery
under debate and are very careful to be fair and open. She
suggested that the current process with regard to conflict of
interest has made it difficult to find people willing to serve
on the Board of Fisheries.
SENATOR WAGONER directed attention to page 2, line 19, and
pointed out that the proposed change has a sunset date of June
30, 2009; thus, if the new procedure works, the legislature can
extend it.
Number 2195
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), after noting
that a letter of support from the UFA is in members' packets,
said that the UFA supports the bill and thinks it's vital for
all members to take part in all aspects of the decision-making
process, including voting. He echoed Ms. Cote's comments
regarding the difficulty of finding people to serve on the board
under the current conflict of interest rules. In conclusion, he
expressed confidence in the Board of Fisheries to arrive at fair
decisions.
Number 2284
PAUL SHADURA, President, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
(KPFA), expressed the KPFA's support of SB 69 and Senator
Wagoner's efforts. He said:
We believe that there are those in our state who will
commit their time, for up to three years, and offer
their expertise to promote the wellbeing of the
residents of the state of Alaska; they should be
allowed to give valuable information that they alone
have, they should be able to debate, ask questions,
and help clarify issues. We believe that given the
fact that this board promulgates regulations around
the entire state for three-year intervals, it would
seem extremely unlikely that an individual [would
place] themselves in this position for their own
specific geographical [or] methodological gain.
What type of state board would we have if we deny the
expertise of individuals, with ... [a] specific
vocation, from serving on their industry-directed
board - no beauticians on the beautician board, no
doctors on the physician's board, no active commercial
fishermen on the Board of Fisheries. With only seven
members on this board, [and in] such a tremendously
huge state with all its resource complexities, it's
imperative that different knowledgeable users
contribute to the state's rules and regulations.
It'll allow a balance, a sense of fairness, a sense of
justice; please support this bill. Thank you.
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 69.
Number 2382
CHAIR SEATON made a motion to Adopt Amendment 1, labeled 23-
LS0313\I.3, Cook, 3/30/04, which read:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "requires"
Insert "allows"
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "matters"
Insert "the matter"
Following "board":
Insert "if the matter (1) directly involves
activities conducted under a permit or license issued
under AS 16.05 or AS 16.43, or for sport fish guiding;
and (2) does not involve the personal or financial
interests of a person the member is paid to represent"
Number 2394
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected.
CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 1 would make it so that a
member with a conflict may vote but will not be required to
vote, and will specify that the conflict must directly involve
activities conducted under a permit or license issued under AS
16.05, AS 16.43, or for sport fishing and must not involve the
personal or financial interest of a person the member is paid to
represent. The latter aspect of Amendment 1 would prevent
members that are also paid lobbyists from voting on an issue of
financial interest to their clients.
CHAIR SEATON opined that Amendment 1 is necessary because SB 69
is making a big change. He noted that the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC) is exempt from all conflicts of
interest because, unlike the Board of Fisheries, it is simply an
advisory panel and does not actually create any regulations.
Number 2637
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to amend Amendment 1 so that
it says in part, "the member is paid, or has been paid within
the previous year, to represent"; such a change would ensure
that the member would be precluded from voting if he/she has
been paid within the year to represent a client with a personal
or financial interest.
Number 2670
CHAIR SEATON objected and asked Senator Wagoner to comment.
SENATOR WAGONER indicated that he did not see any reason to
exclude a member from voting just because he/she was formerly a
paid lobbyist. He expressed a preference for an unaltered
Amendment 1.
Number 2753
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew the amendment to Amendment 1, but
expressed a concern that if a member is also a contract
lobbyist, his/her client could get around Amendment 1 simply by
not paying the lobbyist for the period of time during which a
particular issue is before the board.
SENATOR WAGONER offered his belief that such a situation is
unlikely to happen, that the governor will appoint people with a
certain amount of integrity.
CHAIR SEATON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether a subsistence permit would be
covered under Amendment 1.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that having such a permit
does not currently exclude a member from voting.
MS. COTE concurred, adding that it is viewed similarly to a
sport fishing license.
TAPE 04-27, SIDE B
Number 2932
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a comment, expressed a concern that
if members with a conflict of interest are allowed to vote, then
there could be more pressure put on the governor to appoint
people who are paid to represent a particular interest group and
thus change the complexion of the board. He opined that
Amendment 1 will prevent such from happening, and noted that the
sponsor is amenable to Amendment 1. In response to a question,
he offered his belief that a member who is a paid representative
of a person or organization that might benefit from an
allocation decision would have no qualms about voting for the
benefit of his/her client.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised that such a person would in fact be
obligated to vote in the best interest of his her client. He
characterized Amendment 1 as addressing a "graphic" situation.
MS. COTE, in response to a question, said that most board
members are individuals rather than paid industry personnel.
SENATOR WAGONER, in response to a question, confirmed that he is
amenable to Amendment 1, and offered his belief that the
legislature's current authority to confirm appointees provides a
safeguard against paid lobbyists being appointed to the Board of
Fisheries.
Number 2472
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Samuels, Ogg, Gara,
and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representative Wilson
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote
of 4-1.
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a question, reiterated Ms. Cote's
opinion that allowing members with conflicts of interest to
participate in deliberations while still not allowing them to
vote would not result in any discernable difference in the
current decision-making process.
Number 2362
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report CSSB 69(RES), as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
69(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2340
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:05
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|