Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
01/23/2020 10:00 AM House 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Seafood Workforce Training Partnership by the Alaska Research Consortium | |
| Presentation: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission | |
| Adjourn |
* 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
January 23, 2020
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Mark Neuman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: SEAFOOD WORKFORCE TRAINING PARTNERSHIP BY THE
ALASKA RESEARCH CONSORTIUM
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JAY STINSON, President
Alaska Research Consortium (ARC)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered a PowerPoint presentation on the
Seafood Workforce Training Partnership.
PAULA CULLENBERG, Executive Director
Alaska Research Consortium (ARC)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered a PowerPoint presentation on the
Seafood Workforce Training Partnership.
FATE PUTMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered an update on the CFEC.
JON HAGHEYEGHI, PhD, Executive Director
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered an update on the CFEC.
DALE KELLY, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered an update on the CFEC.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:03 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives Kopp,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Vance, and Stutes were present at the call to
order. Representative Edgmon arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
CHAIR STUTES recognized the committee's invited guests, students
from the Alaska Young Fishermen's Summit (AYFS). She thanked
them for their interest in becoming leaders and making a
difference in an industry that drives and defines Alaska.
^PRESENTATION: SEAFOOD WORKFORCE TRAINING PARTNERSHIP BY THE
ALASKA RESEARCH CONSORTIUM
PRESENTATION: SEAFOOD WORKFORCE TRAINING PARTNERSHIP BY THE
ALASKA RESEARCH CONSORTIUM
10:03:54 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation by the Alaska Research Consortium (ARC) on a
potential seafood workforce training partnership.
CHAIR STUTES announced that the ARC would be unveiling a concept
that she intends to pursue legislatively, and otherwise, with
the intention of securing annual dedicated funding for seafood
industry workforce training.
CHAIR STUTES stated that the processing industry contributes
over $600,000 annually to unemployment insurance; however, they
generally receive less than $60,000 annually in reciprocated
trainings for the industry. She expressed a need statewide,
within processing, for more focus and funding to provide
training that the industry needs to be adaptive, move forward,
and meet the changing demands of the marketplace.
10:05:39 AM
JAY STINSON, President, Alaska Research Consortium (ARC),
offered a PowerPoint presentation on the Seafood Workforce
Training Partnership, [hard copy included in documents packet].
Referencing slide 2, he explained that the ARC is a 501 (c)(3)
educational non-profit. He then stated that he has been
involved in the sea food business, both fishing and processing,
for approximately 50 years. He pointed out that his associate,
Paula Cullenberg, has previous experience as the executive
director for Alaska Sea Grant, and the ARC is excited to have
her on board. He stated that the mission of the ARC is to
support sustainable fisheries, marine science, and the blue
economy in the North Pacific through workforce development,
technical assistance, and applied research. He expressed that
it is a complicated industry, and the ARC wants to pass down the
information, which it has acquired, to the next generation. He
referenced slide 3, pointing out the experience of the ARC Board
of Directors: Jay Stinson, Alan Austerman, Shannon Carroll,
Duncan Fields, Pat Jacobson, Michael Kohan, Tom Lance, Matt
Moir, Susan Saupe, Jeff Stephan, and Quentin Fong.
10:08:22 AM
MR. STINSON, referencing slide 4, stated that he thinks the
number on the slide [$5.4 billion] might be incorrect, and that
the seafood industry creates closer to $5.6 billion in economic
value for Alaska. He said that the seafood processing sector is
Alaska's largest private employer, accounting for approximately
75 percent of manufacturing in the state and providing over
26,000 seafood processing jobs. He stated that a stable
workforce, capable of meeting ever increasing technical and
regulatory skill requirements, is critical to the sustainability
of the seafood industry. He stated that the seafood processing
industry is experiencing what ARC refers to as "graying of the
fleet," as well as "graying of the process workers." He
explained that among many of the processing plants in Alaska,
the average age of process workers is in the mid-fifties. He
questioned who might be able to backfill these jobs as the
industry moves away from lower skillset operations into more
technically demanding skillset operations. He stated that
workers with more technically inclined skillsets are in high
demand; however, there is no place in Alaska to receive [that
specific] technical training. He said that in 1981, the
legislature created the Fishery Industrial Technology Center
(FITC), with the objective of technical training in mind. He
said that the FITC got rolled in with University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), which he thinks has not been a good fit, given
the difference between the applied research and certification
the seafood industry requires and the more academic approach of
the UAF. As a result of this mismatched process, the ARC has
tried to develop a plan to meet some of these educational needs
in the industry.
10:11:22 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked Mr. Stinson to briefly explain more about
Baader equipment, which was mentioned earlier in his
presentation.
MR. STINSON responded that there are several international
brands utilized in the ground-fishing industry. Baader is one
of these international brands and is, probably, the main
supplier of processing equipment for the ground-fishing
industry. Baader is a German company that produces many
different processing machines which are all part of a refined
international program. He explained that to enable Alaskan
workers to receive proper training on Baader equipment, the ARC
put on a training program in Kodiak, Alaska. The ARC brought a
Baader technician from Germany to put on a one-week training
program for six processing plant workers from North Pacific
Seafoods, Ocean Beauty Seafoods, and Trident Seafoods. The cost
of the program was approximately $21,000, which was covered by
the processing plants. Mr. Stinson explained that it can be
difficult, at times, to get the processing plants to work in
concert even though it is to their benefit.
10:13:21 AM
PAULA CULLENBERG, Executive Director, Alaska Research Consortium
(ARC), briefly explained her background as the longtime director
of Alaska Sea Grant. She left Alaska Sea Grant approximately a
year and a half ago and now works with the ARC. She stated that
she used to work closely with the AYFS and expressed that she
was thrilled to see so many of them at the committee meeting.
She explained that she has continued working with the AYFS
because they have been a group of volunteers that work hard to
support the Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center (KSMSC).
She referenced a long history with the AYFS, pointing out that
the UAF had considered closing the KSMSC a few years ago;
however, the AYFS stepped up and made the case that the seafood
industry is an important part of Alaska's economy, and training
and applied research are relevant to the industry. As a result,
the UAF kept the KSMSC open, and the ARC has since focused on
programming and training in the KSMSC.
MS. CULLENBERG brought attention back to the PowerPoint
presentation begun by Mr. Stinson. Referencing slide 5, she
gave more background on the Alaska Maritime Workforce
Development Plan. She explained that the Alaska Maritime
Workforce Development Plan was published in 2014, was adopted by
the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature and the University of
Alaska Board of Regents, and is on the Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD) website. She explained that the
Alaska Maritime Workforce Development Plan is an umbrella plan
that covers every job pertaining to the ocean and marine
environments. Referencing slide 6, she listed two reasons that
the ARC was attending the current committee meeting. First, she
listed that the KSMSC's mission is to provide training, applied
research, and technical assistance to the entire state of
Alaska, as outlined in Alaska Statute 16.52.010; second, she
said that the ARC has been looking at the Alaska Technical
Vocational Education Program (TVEP) as a potential resource for
training at the KSMSC. She explained that the TVEP is up for
reauthorization this year and the legislature will have a role
in the process.
10:16:01 AM
MS. CULLENBERG, referencing slide 7, introduced Alaska Seafoods
Future Project, in which the ARC is currently involved. She
explained that the project is partially funded by the U.S.
Economic Development Administration (EDA). The basic role of
the project is to reach out to seafood processors and ask them
what their training and applied research needs are. She named
Pacific Seafood Processors Association, North Pacific Seafoods,
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), Alaska Process
Industry Career Consortium, Sun'aq Tribe, and Alaska Sea Grant
as partners on the project.
10:16:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked Ms. Cullenberg whether her comment
that the TVEP needed reauthorization was prefaced around
changing the current the TVEP allocation scheme or just
reauthorizing the program.
10:17:01 AM
MS. CULLENBERG replied that the focus is on changing the
allocation scheme, in a way. She jumped ahead to slide 16 in
the presentation to explain that the TVEP is derived from
employee contributions to unemployment insurance. She said that
the employee contribution is approximately 0.5 percent, and 0.16
percent of that is allocated to the TVEP fund. She stated that
when the ARC was launching its program, she reached out to DLWD
and asked how much the seafood industry contributes to the TVEP
fund annually. She pointed out that the Taxable Wages column on
slide 16 represents the employee contribution to the TVEP fund,
and 0.16 percent of that is approximately $600,000 annually,
which is the seafood industry contribution. She said that the
amount of funding allocated to training for seafood processing
in Alaska is minimal, averaging approximately $60,000 annually.
This amounts to approximately 10 percent of the overall industry
contribution to the TVEP fund.
10:18:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that she was looking at the most
recent Alaska labor statistics, from 2017 she thinks, and
determined that approximately 74 percent of the seafood
processing workforce are non-residents. She expressed that
these jobs should be held by Alaska residents. She asked Ms.
Cullenberg whether the large percentage of non-residents in the
workforce is a result of the seafood processors' preference or a
lack of education and training.
10:19:20 AM
MS. CULLENBERG replied that she thinks it is a result of both
issues. She explained that there are approximately 26,000
people working in the seafood processing industry in Alaska,
many of them entry level, and it is difficult to come up with
that many workers from in state. That said, she feels that the
workers in Alaska who could benefit the most from training are
those holding skilled positions. She pointed out that there are
many year-round workers in the seafood processing industry
living in Alaska communities, such as Petersburg, Kodiak, and
Ketchikan. She said that the ASMI report shows that the year-
round Alaska residents working in the seafood processing
industry are those with higher incomes, because they hold more
skilled positions.
MS. CULLENBERG expressed that training provides the opportunity
to ensure careers in the seafood processing industry for year-
round Alaska residents. She stated that she thinks there will
continue to be a need for entry level workers from out of state
to fill thousands of seasonal positions; however, there are many
communities throughout the state with career positions that need
training. She mentioned refrigeration training, electrician
training, quality control training, and government relation and
compliance training as specific examples. She said that the ARC
has been surveying seafood processors from across the state and
getting information on what kinds of training are required.
MS. CULLENBERG talked about how she had very recently been in
Kenai and interviewed two plant managers from E&E Seafoods and
North Pacific Seafoods, both of whom eloquently spoke to their
specific training needs. Ms. Cullenberg said that the training
needs that stood out to her the most were the need for:
management level training, conflict resolution training, and
safety training. She referenced slides 9 and 10 of the
presentation, pointing out that she has questioned 40 different
processing plant managers throughout Alaska, asking whether they
have any employees that would be able to advance their careers
if they received training. She said that she found it
interesting that every plant manager she spoke with responded
that they have multiple employees who could advance with
additional training. She expressed that she thinks there is a
lot of interest and potential for more training in seafood
processing plants in Alaska.
10:22:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he really appreciates Ms.
Cullenberg highlighting the need for targeting training
resources toward Alaskan residents to fulfill career level
positions. He agreed with Ms. Cullenberg that it can be hard to
fill 26,000 entry-level jobs in a rural community. To
underscore a point Ms. Cullenberg had made earlier, he told a
story from his experience as a commercial fisherman. Two years
ago, when the Bristol Bay processor he was working with stopped
taking fish it had a Human Resources (HR) crisis that resulted
in 600 employees walking off the job. He explained that the
issue had nothing to do with the facility itself but was a
result of the plant not being able to negotiate through the
issue quickly enough. As a result, the plant was shut down for
48 hours during the fishing season. He explained that well-
trained HR people could have helped to see an issue coming and
intervene before it became a crisis. He said that these might
not be things normally thought about regarding fishing; however,
as a fisherman it becomes a crisis when the processor is unable
to buy fish because of an HR issue.
10:23:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked Ms. Cullenberg to explain what the ARC is
proposing for the TVEP funds and how it might affect current
recipients. She said that she thinks the effect of the proposal
is a big concern for anyone paying attention and currently
receiving the TVEP funds, and that Ms. Cullenberg might want to
address those concerns.
10:24:01 AM
MS. CULLENBERG replied that it was interesting to the ARC to see
that the seafood processing industry contributes $600,000 into
the TVEP fund, which is a significant amount. She said that
being involved in a research project identifies a strong demand,
need, and specifics for training, and the TVEP being up for
reauthorization presents a great opportunity. She said that
coming from the UAF, she has seen the TVEP funds used very well;
they "compete them across the entire system." She expressed
that it is not really the ARC's intent to take money away from
those programs. She said that someone from the UAF presented
the idea that the 0.16 percent of the taxable wage could be
increased to 0.17 percent, which would add $700,000 to the TVEP
fund. She stated that she recalls this being done two
reauthorizations ago when Ilisagvik College was added to the
list of recipients. She suggested that this might be an
effective way to grow the fund without taking away from current
recipients.
10:25:24 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked who would be paying the increased 0.01
percent to the TVEP fund.
MS. CULLENBERG replied that it would be a 0.01 percent increase
from the employee contribution to unemployment insurance.
CHAIR STUTES suggested that this would then go right back into
employee training, so to speak.
10:25:47 AM
MS. CULLENBERG, referencing slide 17, said that the ARC is
interested in developing what they are calling a Seafood
Workforce Training Partnership, with the goal of ensuring that
Alaskans will be able to compete for skilled jobs in the seafood
industry. She further explained that the ARC is interested in
training for high school students that provides exposure to
careers in the seafood industry. She stated that one of the
results from their research generated a lot of interest in
recruitment. She expressed that very few companies in the
seafood industry have relationships with their local high
schools. She said she was surprised that even large Alaska
communities, such as Kenai, have very little engagement with
high school students.
MS. CULLENBERG explained that it is different for small
communities, such as False Pass, where the plant manager she had
spoken with told her there are six students, only one of which
is in high school, in the entire community. She expressed that
the ARC would like to create a career exposure and internship
program for high school students. She referenced slide 19 in
the presentation, pointing out the Baader technician training
which Jay Stinson spoke about earlier, as well as the Alaska
Seafood Processing Leadership Institute (ASPLI). She mentioned
that the ASPLI is leveraged through the Alaska Sea Grant, and
the industry pays approximately $3,000 a person to send students
to train. She said she thinks companies are very willing to
invest in training programs, but what is missing is a skeleton
or backbone for training programs. She explained that she
thinks having the KMSMC and the funds from the TVEP would enable
the ARC to coordinate a training program that would come out of
Kodiak but be available across the entire state. She explained
that it doesn't always make sense to send people from rural
communities like Sitka, Homer, or Dutch Harbor to Kodiak for
training.
10:28:13 AM
CHAIR STUTES addressed Ms. Cullenberg, saying that she heard her
mention earlier that some of the processing companies in Kodiak
have been participating financially, when possible, with the
ARC.
MS. CULLENBERG responded that the Baader technician training,
mentioned earlier, was an example of processing companies
participating financially with the ARC. She explained that the
Baader technician training has been a priority for processing
companies for years, as it had been a long time since they had
received any training from Germany. She said that as soon as
the ARC had orchestrated the Baader training in Kodiak, three
companies immediately sent six people to train and paid the
entire $21,000 cost, as previously mentioned by Jay Stinson.
She expressed that the missing piece has really been someone to
organize and put together a training program. She summarized
the proposal, stating that the ARC thinks that the TVEP
resources are a good way to get things started and move the
process forward.
10:29:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she has a recommendation for a
model program in Homer. She explained that Kenai Peninsula
College (KPC), through the University of Alaska (UA), offers
courses, deck hand experience, certifications, and marine
electronics. She added that the Homer Marine Trades Association
is sending leaders in marine fields from the community into the
school to expose students to different marine trades. She gave
an example of an electrician bringing in something that students
can take apart and put back together and explaining to students
that they don't have to take a long road to get into marine
trades. She mentioned Bayweld Boats, stating it has been making
quite a name for itself "making welding cool again" and really
engaging with community members and partners, such as the UA, to
interact with high schools in a direct way. She explained that
this exposes students to marine trades in a way they haven't
seen before. She said that these community members have been
volunteering their time so that it has not been as much of a
financial burden on the people who are training. She summarized
that this might be a good example of how other coastal
communities can further expand awareness of marine training.
10:30:56 AM
MS. CULLENBERG replied that she is very familiar with the
program in Homer. She shared that the program was initiated by
the TVEP funding. She said that she thinks Homer is a role
model around the state, and she understands that there are many
coastal communities around Alaska interested in what is going on
in Homer. She said that what Representative Vance said about
making fishing cool again has a lot of relevance for the seafood
processing industry. She mentioned that Dr. Larry LeDoux,
Superintendent of Schools in Kodiak, met with several processing
companies a couple of years ago and noted that 75 percent of
kids that graduate from Kodiak high school do not receive any
further educational training beyond high school. She noted that
this is a strong population that could potentially work in the
six seafood plants that are based in Kodiak. She restated that
none of the seafood processing plants in Kodiak have a
relationship with the high school. She said that "there's no
pipeline, there's no internship program," processing companies
don't really know how to reach out to students, and they do not
think their occupation is cool. She said she thinks there is
tremendous room to grow in Kodiak by creating a pipeline and
recognizing that the processing plants can be very cool. She
then said that Homer really has done a great job addressing many
of these issues.
10:32:22 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked if the increase of 0.01 percent employee
contribution would mean that employees are paying a higher tax.
10:32:40 AM
MS. CULLENBERG responded that workers would not be paying more;
a larger part of their contribution overall would go to the TPEV
fund. In response to a follow-up question from Chair Stutes,
she offered her understanding following a conversation with DLWD
that the unemployment fund is well capitalized, and the increase
should not result in loss to workers. She reiterated that the
percentage would increase from 0.15 to 0.16.
10:33:43 AM
CHAIR STUTES confirmed that the change would not increase the
amount being contributed by the employee but would instead
redistribute 0.01 percent.
10:34:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that this
is not an additive change, but a redistributive one.
10:34:16 AM
MS. CULLENBERG responded that it is both. She continued that it
is adding to the TVEP fund and redistributing the employee
contribution fund. She offered her understanding that an
employee contributes 0.5 percent of his/her wages to
unemployment insurance, 0.16 percent of that contribution is
distributed to the TVEP fund. An increase from 0.16 percent to
0.17 percent would change how the employee contribution is used.
10:34:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether this was, in effect,
a redistribution from an over capitalized unemployment fund to
the TVEP and whether this marginal increase to the TVEP would be
going toward seafood processing and workforce development.
10:35:12 AM
MS. CULLENBERG responded that she is not the one to say the
unemployment fund is over capitalized, but that is what she had
been told. She then said that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was
correct that that is the general theory. She added that it
depends on wages, but recently that would amount to an
additional $700,000 being directed to the training fund.
10:35:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES thanked the presenters from the ARC.
10:35:49 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:35 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.
^PRESENTATION: COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION
PRESENTATION: COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION
10:40:58 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
a presentation by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC).
10:42:16 AM
FATE PUTMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), co-offered an update on the CFEC. He explained that Jon
Haghayeghi was the new executive director at the CFEC, having
only been there six months. He said that Dr. Haghayeghi has a
Bachelor of Economics and Master of Economics from Southern
Methodist University (SMU) and a Doctorate in Economics from
Claremont Graduate University (CGU). Mr. Putman stated that the
CFEC is focused on economics. He explained that the mission at
the CFEC, as an agency, is to prevent economic distress among
commercial fisherman, which it is accomplishing while going
through the process of adjudicating permits.
10:43:08 AM
MR. PUTMAN, referencing slide 1 of the PowerPoint presentation
[hardcopy included in the committee packet], pointed out some of
the things that are accomplished by the CFEC. He explained that
there are over 200 open access fisheries as well as 66 limited
entry fisheries in Alaska. The CFEC monitors these fisheries,
adjudicates the permits, and sets up the rules for who qualifies
for permits depending on participation and economic dependence
on a fishery. He said that the adjudication permits often end
up in front of the CFEC adjudication panels where they are then
sent to the commissioners, followed by the Alaska Superior
Court, and finally the Alaska Supreme Court. He stated that
these are just some of the things the CFEC does to enforce the
requirements set up for fisheries. He explained that the CFEC
also enforces the statutory requirements governing emergency and
transfer permits, and once permits are issued, it monitors the
emergency transfer requests as well as the permanent transfer
requests. He stated that permits are not allowed to be leased
or mortgaged and must be transferred freely between parties, so
the CFEC ensures this happens. He said that the CFEC also asses
demerit points, which is something it is very interested in
monitoring.
MR. PUTMAN explained that approximately 20 years ago, the
legislature gave CFEC the power to look at suspending permits of
people who are frequent violators. He went on to say that at a
later point in time, the CFEC would like to discuss an expansion
of that power; currently it is limited to salmon fisheries only.
As a result, suspended violators can fish in a different fishery
even if they have been suspended in the salmon fisheries. He
said that the CFEC also works on implementing regulations; it
has several packages coming through, including the demerit point
system, which has not had a regulation package in approximately
20 years. He said that the CFEC also provides a lot of
information on the health of fisheries to different fishery
groups in Alaska.
10:45:12 AM
JON HAGHEYEGHI, PhD, Executive Director, Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC), continued the PowerPoint presentation
begun by Mr. Putman. Referencing slide 2, he began by talking
briefly about the basics of the CFEC. He explained that the
CFEC is a quasi-judicial agency with 21 staff members that are
split into four interdependent sections, which include
Adjudications, Research, Licensing, and Data Processing. He
said that in fiscal year 2019 (FY 19), the CFEC generated $7.44
million in revenue, of which $3.13 million was allocated to the
CFEC annual operating budget. He said that $321,105 passed
through the CFEC to the Fisherman's Fund. In addition, the CFEC
receipts provided the following surplus contributions in 2019:
$4 million to the Division of Commercial Fisheries operating
budget, $236,400 to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
capital projects, and $272,100 to Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED) capital projects.
10:46:35 AM
DR. HAGHAYEGHI moved on to slide 3, Performance Outcomes. He
talked about how the CFEC has a six-member licensing staff that
provided service to more than 18,000 commercial fishermen in
2019. The CFEC licensing team issued 17,339 commercial fishing
permits, 8,806 vessel licenses, and processed 1,884 permit
transfers in 2019. He said the CFEC data processing team is
continuing to improve its online renewal system, limited entry
online network (LEON). As of 2019, 60 percent of renewals were
completed online using the LEON, and that trend continues to
grow. He said that the data processing team refreshed agency
computer hardware that was over eight years old. He stated that
the adjudication section had 32 new cases, held 29 hearings, and
issued 25 decisions. The CFEC research section produced eight
research publications as well as several internal and external
reports.
DR. HAGHAYEGHI explained that administratively, the CFEC worked
to be efficient with resource allocation. In 2019, the CFEC
migrated to Microsoft Office 365 and adopted the statewide
payroll system, Employee Self Service (ESS). He said that the
CFEC collaborated with the CGU to address Payment Card Industry
(PCI) compliance, to ensure that fishermen can make their credit
card payments. The CFEC launched a large-scale digital scanning
project to back up all the active licensing files; the project
is approximately 20 percent complete. He summarized that
throughout 2019, the CFEC worked to ensure timely responses to a
range of information requests.
10:48:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commended the CFEC on a specific emergency
transfer it assisted him with during the special session, which
called fishermen back from Bristol Bay to the legislature during
the peak of the salmon run. He explained that the entire
transfer process took just over 24 hours, from the time he first
spoke with the CFEC on the phone to the time the boat was
fishing again. He expressed his belief that the work the CFEC
does profoundly impacts people's lives, including his own. He
stated that he was impressed with the CFEC's responsiveness at
the time and wanted that stated for the record.
10:49:20 AM
MR. PUTMAN commented that the CFEC does its best to ensure that
nets are in the water and fishermen are fishing.
10:49:37 AM
DALE KELLY, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), continued the PowerPoint presentation begun by Mr.
Putman and Dr. Haghayeghi. Referencing slide 4, she gave an
overview of the adjudications process at the CFEC. She
explained that any of the cases at the CFEC fall into three main
categories: contested applications for limited entry permits,
permanent or emergency transfers, and a wide variety of cases.
Depending on the case involved, up to three different sections
of the CFEC may handle the case. She explained that the
licensing section may be involved in the permanent or emergency
transfers. The statutes and regulations that determine whether
transfers are approved are strictly laid out for the CFEC; there
is no leeway for judgement calls.
MS. KELLY explained that if a transfer is denied, a fisherman
can appeal the decision to the adjudications section of the
CFEC, which typically conducts a hearing and issues a decision.
She pointed out that the decision, if denied by the
adjudications section, can be further appealed to the
commissioners. She explained that the adjudications section of
the CFEC has a broader look at the transfer; it looks at case
law and has 45 years of agency precedent. The commissioner
section has an additional layer to the process where it can
review policies and decide within the bounds of the law whether
to approve the transfers or not. She continued that throughout
the years, the CFEC has issued decisions on nearly 23,000
applications for limited entry permits; the process involved
many appeals that were adjudicated. A total of 16,723
transferable and non-transferable permits have been issued,
nearly 6,000 have been denied, and 94 were withdrawn. She
stated that in 2019 specifically, the CFEC issued final
decisions on 11 of 13 pending permit applications.
10:51:59 AM
CHAIR STUTES interjected that she would like to congratulate the
CFEC on the progress that it has made. She commented that she
has been involved in the process for the past six years and
wants to personally thank the CFEC for the 11 out of 13 cases
that were adjudicated.
MS. KELLY offered her thanks to Chair Stutes.
10:52:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS also expressed appreciation for
the CFEC. He remarked that he has been around these cases since
2012, and he wasn't sure what the appropriate metaphor was, but
they have been the "stickiest gum on the wall that couldn't seem
to get peeled off." He added that he is excited to see the
progress now that it is down to the last two cases.
10:52:46 AM
CHAIR STUTES remarked that she would even venture to say that
she is impressed with the CFEC and its new commissioner.
10:52:57 AM
MS. KELLY pointed out that there are several reasons why
decisions take a lot of time. Most of the cases were decades
old and involved complex issues and volumes of evidence. She
explained that these were not easy cases and every case had the
potential to disrupt the entire fishery if it were overturned,
which could have potentially devastating impacts to individuals,
communities, and fisheries. Therefore, due diligence was a
major part of the process, which the CFEC and the previous
commissioners took very seriously. She remarked that she was
happy to report that the CFEC was moving along with these cases,
but she also understands now why they can take a lot of time to
complete.
MS. KELLY explained that all decisions made are evaluated under
an array of laws, regulations, legal precedent, and 45 years of
administrative practices employed at the CFEC to ensure fair
treatment and due process for fishermen. She expressed that it
is essential to have multiple layers in the process to make good
decisions. She added that decisions made by the CFEC are not
necessarily final; fishermen have other administrative and
judicial remedies that can be employed if they receive a
negative result. For example, they could appeal to the CFEC to
reconsider, take the case to the Alaska Superior Court, or both.
She noted that 86 decisions have been made on the CFEC
practices, many of them on the application cases throughout the
years. She suggested that it is an ongoing litigious process,
adding that she would hesitate to say it is done yet but the
CFEC is working its way there. Referencing slide 4, she pointed
out the cases that had been solved in 2019, giving examples of
the involved fisheries. She explained that the two remaining
cases involve Southeast crab.
10:55:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether any of the 11
resolved cases have been appealed to the Alaska Superior Court.
MS. KELLY responded that some of the cases were still within the
timeline that they could be appealed, but to the CFEC's
knowledge none of them have been. She added that fishermen
could appeal to the CFEC before going to the Alaska Superior
Court, so it was still working through the process. She
expressed that she felt it is important to understand that the
fishermen still have all appeal options available to them at
this time.
MS. KELLY announced that the CFEC also made 30 additional
decisions on the commission itself, on transfers, permit
forfeitures, demerits, liens, and refunds. In addition, the
CFEC completed a project within the adjudication section that
resulted in 65 refunds and waivers for a unique situation in a
fishery that had a failure in 2018.
10:56:04 AM
CHAIR STUTES expressed that she was not only impressed with the
CFEC's ability to resolve outstanding cases, she also
appreciated its utilization of time while presenting.
10:56:18 AM
MR. PUTMAN, referencing slide 5, touched on the question of what
the ideal number of permits in a fishery is- an important issue
for the CFEC, and one that has not been looked at in
approximately 15 years. He explained that permits are issued
based upon participation, which is often much larger than the
ideal number, referred to as optimum numbers in the statute.
The legislature has amended the statutes over time, in order for
the CFEC to request a range of numbers. He stated that the CFEC
is assisted by the ADF&G, giving the example of how many nets
the ADF&G need in the water to avoid over-escapement. He
explained that optimum numbers are acquired scientifically,
which is one of the reasons the CFEC has a new executive
director with a Doctorate in Economics and a new research
section leader with a Master of Fisheries Economics.
MR. PUTMAN said that the first location in which the CFEC has
decided to launch a study is the Cook Inlet setnet fishery. He
explained that the CFEC has been looking at that fishery for
approximately 10 years and has a lot of data, such as how much
money the fishermen make and how much their permits are worth.
The CFEC hopes to find out more about the fishermen's costs
incurred while running a setnet fishery, through surveys. He
said that the study won't necessarily lead to a reduction in the
number of permits issued but might show how to get to an optimum
number. The CFEC is required to study 63 remaining fisheries;
it has completed three so far. He added that the new executive
director is helping with a survey of all Alaska fisheries. He
explained that when a fisherman fills out the permit to apply
for a fisheries license annually, he/she will be asked to take a
survey regarding expenses incurred in his/her fishery. He
reiterated that the CFEC is planning on implementing this in all
63 remaining fisheries to obtain the ideal number of permits but
will first be focusing on Cook Inlet.
10:58:31 AM
CHAIR STUTES thanked Mr. Putman and expressed that she is
anxious to see the progress on the project.
10:58:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented that this study is taking place
in her "backyard," and many of her constituents were involved.
She asked Mr. Putman what the projected timeline is for
completion of the study.
10:58:56 AM
MR. PUTMAN responded that this was the first study for the CFEC
in 15 years, and it was just beginning the process of how to go
about it. He expressed that given the expertise the CFEC
currently has in-house, it would be able to get through the
survey portion of the study in approximately three months. He
added that there would still be economic data to crunch after
that, and he estimated that it would be three to six more months
after the survey before the CFEC could come up with an optimum
number for the Cook Inlet setnet fishery. He summarized that
the CFEC is discovering it to be a long process; however, they
are hoping to get the preliminary data from the study within the
next six to nine months and work on a regulation to set the
range of what the CFEC thinks the optimum number of permits in
Cook Inlet should be.
10:59:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that her office is open to
working with the CFEC to have conversations with fishermen and
help with the study process.
MR. PUTMAN thanked Representative Vance.
10:59:58 AM
CHAIR STUTES thanked the AYFS again for attending the meeting,
expressing that with the "graying of the fleet" in coastal
communities, it was nice to see so many people interested in
keeping Alaska's number one industry alive, healthy, vital, and
workable.
11:00:40 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:01
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CFEC_Fisheries_Committee 1.17.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/23/2020 10:00:00 AM |
CFEC |
| CFEC_Fisheries_Committee_Handout 1.17.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/23/2020 10:00:00 AM |
CFEC |
| House Fisheries Seafood Workforce Training ARC 01.17.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/23/2020 10:00:00 AM |
ARC |