02/05/2009 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB41 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 5, 2009
10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries by members of the board and to the definition of
'immediate family member' under the Alaska Executive Branch
Ethics Act as that Act applies to members of the Board of
Fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 41 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 41
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SEATON, WILSON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) FSH, RES
02/05/09 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LOUIE FLORA, Staff
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 41 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Paul Seaton.
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries
Boards Support Section
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 41.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 41.
RON RAINEY
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 41.
JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 41.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:10:23 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, Millett, Munoz, and Buch were present at the
call to order.
HB 41 - BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
10:11:08 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 41, "An Act relating to participation in matters
before the Board of Fisheries by members of the board and to the
definition of 'immediate family member' under the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act as that Act applies to members of
the Board of Fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR EDGMON noted that similar legislation passed the House
last year.
10:11:43 AM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of Representative Seaton, one
of the bill's joint prime sponsor, that HB 41 deals with
conflicts of interest as they pertain to members of the Board of
Fisheries, and [in part] proposes to change the definition of
"immediate family member" as it would pertain to conflicts of
interest by members of the Board of Fisheries. He mentioned
that committee packets include letters of support for HB 41 as
well as letters of support [and a letter of opposition] for last
year's similar legislation. The Board of Fisheries is composed
of seven members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the
legislature; according to statute, these seven members are to be
chosen "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". The Board of Fisheries, he
offered, has been designated by the legislature to help fulfill
its constitutional duty to provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of the state's natural resources.
MR. FLORA indicated that the problem HB 41 is intended to
address revolves around [what's perceived to be] a
disproportionate number of recusals by members participating in
particular fisheries. These recusals are required by the
current statutory definition of conflict of interest, but when
recused, members are then unable to bring their expertise of the
area and the fishery to the deliberation and are unable to vote.
This leaves the remaining members having to make decisions
affecting a particular region without also having the specific
expertise about the region or the fishery involved. The changes
proposed by [Section 2 of] HB 41, he offered, would allow all
members, after disclosing any conflict of interest because of
participation in the particular fishery at issue, to deliberate,
but would still preclude those with a conflict from voting on
the proposal. Section 3 of HB 41 proposes to add to the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act - AS 39.52 - a definition of
"immediate family member" as it would pertain to the Board of
Fisheries; that proposed definition in part reads:
with respect to the application of this chapter to a
member of the Board of Fisheries, "immediate family
member" means
(1) the spouse or domestic partner of the member;
or
(2) a parent, child, including a stepchild and an
adoptive child, or sibling of the member if the
parent, child, or sibling resides with the member, is
financially dependent on the member, or shares a
substantial financial interest with the member.
MR. FLORA, in conclusion, relayed that the bill requires that
[proposed AS 39.52.120(g), contained in Section 2 of the bill,]
be repealed on June 30, 2012, and that by January 31, 2012, the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) shall submit a report
[regarding the effect that provision had on recusal rates].
10:20:15 AM
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, Boards
Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), in
response to a question, explained that Board of Fisheries
members must file disclosures with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), and must disclose possible conflicts of
interest at the beginning of each Board of Fisheries meeting.
Members must describe their income sources, must list any
personal or financial interest which they or their family
members have in fishing-related businesses, and must identify
any personal or financial interest they or their family members
may have with regard to the proposals being considered at the
meeting. Once those disclosures are made, following discussion
and clarification, the chair makes a ruling on a member's
eligibility to participate on specific proposals, though this
ruling may be overturned by a vote of the members whose
participation is not in question. He noted that during its
week-long meetings, the Board of Fisheries typically considers
between 50 and 200 proposals.
MR. MARCOTTE referred to a document in members' packets titled,
"Background Information on the Alaska Board of Fisheries
Conflict of Interest Disclosures", and relayed that it contains
recusal statistics for the last several years; these statistics
illustrate that about 10 percent of the proposals that came
before the Board of Fisheries have resulted in a member being
recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Referring
specifically to the page titled, "TABLE 2. BOARD OF FISHERIES
VOTE ABSTENTIONS, BY MEMBER (Oct. 2001 - Dec. 2008)", he named
the 7 of the 23 members active during that time period who had
conflicts, but acknowledged that the other two-thirds of the
members had not had conflicts. In response to a question, he
mentioned that the page titled, "TABLE 8. 2006/2007 BRISTOL
BAY, AYK, ALASKA PENINSULA CYCLE" illustrates that at the
December 2006 Board of Fisheries meeting regarding Bristol Bay
finfish, board member Robert Heyano from Dillingham had a
conflict with 38 out of the 120 proposals; Mr. Heyano is an
active commercial fisherman and participates in "guided
Sportfishing" and subsistence fishing.
10:26:47 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked whether the ADF&G supports HB 41.
MR. MARCOTTE said neither the ADF&G nor the Board of Fisheries
has taken a formal position on the bill, but noted that most
Board of Fisheries members are comfortable with the concept of
HB 41 and are frustrated with not being able to participate on
some proposals. In response to another question, he said that
no research has been conducted yet to determine whether past
recusal rates would have been different had the changes proposed
by HB 41 already been in place; he, too, noted that the bill
requires the ADF&G to submit a report in three years
illustrating recusal rates.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON surmised that some of the past recusals
might still have been required even if the proposed changes had
been in place.
CHAIR EDGMON noted, though, that under the bill, a member with a
conflict could still have participated in the discussion and
would have just been precluded from voting.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his support for the bill, opining
that the Board of Fisheries should be able to take advantage of
the specific expertise that members have.
MR. MARCOTTE noted that the page titled, "TABLE 9. 2007/2008
COOK INLET/KODIAK CYCLE" illustrates that at the February 2008
Board of Fisheries meeting regarding upper Cook Inlet, board
member Howard Delo from Big Lake had a conflict with 1 out of
the 286 proposals; Mr. Delo's mother in-law, Mr. Marcotte
explained, has a "latent set net permit in Cook Inlet," and
under HB 41, Mr. Delo could have at least participated in the
discussion of that proposal.
10:31:51 AM
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),
said he is not aware of any legal questions arising from HB 41.
In response to questions, he explained that Board of Fisheries
members are subject to the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act,
and that the changes proposed by HB 41 would not automatically
be applied to any other agency or board, though such changes
could set a precedent, and thus other agencies or boards might
come before the legislature seeking similar changes in their
governing statues.
10:34:33 AM
RON RAINEY, Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA), after
noting that he has attended most if not all of the Board of
Fisheries meetings over the last 15 years, stated that the KRSA
is opposed to HB 41 because if a board member who has a direct
conflict is allowed to deliberate on a proposal, it would be
possible for him/her to influence the other members. He also
opined that now is not the appropriate time to be making changes
to the statutes governing the ethical behavior of Board of
Fisheries members who have a financial interest in a particular
fishery.
10:36:20 AM
JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), stated
support for HB 41, and expressed frustration over situations in
which the member with the most expertise regarding a particular
fishery is not allowed to participate; recusals of this type
leave the other members at a disadvantage.
CHAIR EDGMON, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 41.
MR. MARCOTTE, in response to a question, indicated that finding
people interested in serving on the Board of Fisheries has not
been a problem, though serving on the Board of Fisheries does
require a great deal of time.
CHAIR EDGMON offered his understanding that the Board of
Fisheries meets approximately 40 days per year, and surmised
that that could influence a person's decision to serve.
10:40:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HB 41 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 41 was reported from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
10:41:00 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at
10:41 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2009 HB41 BBS report (2.05.09).pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB41 SE AK Fisherman's Alliance Ltr.PDF |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB41FamilyDefinitions.PDF |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM HRES 2/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 41 |
| HB41FiscalNote.PDF |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB41OtherBdRecusals.PDF |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB41SponsorStatement.PDF |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB41SupportLtrs.PDF |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB41 UFA Support.PDF |
HFSH 2/5/2009 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |