Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
03/27/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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(s): Alaska Minerals Commission | |
| HB35 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| Big Game Commercial Services Board | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 35-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
1:56:20 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced the next 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."
[Before the committee was the committee substitute (CS) for HB
35(FSH), reported out of the House Special Committee on
Fisheries on 3/13/19.]
1:56:49 PM
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stutes, sponsor,
introduced HB 35. He read from the following written sponsor
statement [original punctuation provided]:
This legislation changes the manner in which the Board
of Fisheries and Board of Game function by allowing
members to deliberate on subjects for which they have
a declared personal or financial interest according to
AS 39.52, the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Members are
selected based on their "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
membership"; however, Title 39 prohibits a member from
"taking or withholding official action in order to
affect a matter in which the member has a personal or
financial interest." (AS 39.52.120(b)(4)). "Official
action" is defined as "advice, participation, or
assistance, including for example, a recommendation,
decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other
similar action, including inaction by a public
officer." (AS 39.52.960(14)). Currently, board members
are required to divulge a conflict of interest if
they, or their immediate family members, are involved
in the subject being deliberated on. The conflicted
member can then no longer offer their input on the
process and cannot vote on the matter at hand. Often
in the fishing world, a financial or personal interest
corresponds with someone's knowledge of that
particular fishery. This bill allows the conflicted
member to offer remarks and input, but still precludes
them from voting on the issue at hand or on whether
they have a conflict of interest. Allowing members
with expertise in particular fields to deliberate will
help the boards make more informed decisions, lead to
stronger resource management statewide, and align
process with intent as far as the boards benefiting
from members' knowledge and diversity of viewpoints.
Thank you for your support of this legislation.
1:58:44 PM
MR. GRUENING advised sound resource management should be based
on all available information. However, in the fishing industry,
financial or personal interests may be tied to the knowledge of
a fishery; for example, a board member with a close relative who
owns a certain permit may be the only board member with an
understanding of a proposal. Similarly, guides or lodge owners
may be the only board member with an understanding of a hunt.
Especially in rural Alaska, an entire family may be engaged in
one manner of work such as commercial fishing, guiding, or
hunting, thus the current policy discourages qualified
applicants because a board member would be unable to speak on
many proposals. Mr. Gruening described how members are excluded
from board discussions and provided examples. He explained
another concern with the current conflict of interest policy is
one of transparency and trust in the public process; board
members who disclose a conflict sometimes share their opinions
off the record and outside of the public view, which is
discouraged by the aforementioned ethics act. He pointed out
the bill would allow a board member who has disclosed a conflict
"to impart their knowledge before they recuse themselves from
the vote." Mr. Gruening restated the importance for Board of
Game (BOG) and Board of Fisheries (BOF) members to have all
available information on hand, and on the record, prior to
making a decision. He cautioned the selection process for BOG
and BOF members is contentious in order to populate boards that
are balanced and acceptable to the public, the legislature and
the governor; therefore, silencing voices during deliberations
erodes the integrity of the public process. Mr. Gruening
closed, pointing out 11 letters and 19 emailed messages of
support included in the committee packet, and noting no letters
of opposition were received. He urged for the committee to
review a document entitled, "Background Information on the
Alaska Boards of Game and Fisheries Ethics Act Process," also
included in the committee packet.
2:03:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether there are differences
between the bill and a similar bill that was proposed last year.
MR. GRUENING explained the only difference with the bill
proposed last year is that the redefinition of an immediate
family member - that affected voting and thereby the ethics
disclosure process - was removed.
2:05:30 PM
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), informed the committee UFA represents 35 commercial
fishing organizations and hundreds of commercial fisherman and
crewmembers, throughout the state, fishing in state and federal
waters. Ms. Leach said UFA has supported this important
legislation for some time because BOG and BOF members are chosen
for their expertise, within their region or fishery, or for
their local hunting and game knowledge; however, at this time,
board members who have expertise in a certain subject are not
allowed to participate in deliberations. She gave her personal
experience with BOF under these circumstances and advised
allowing knowledgeable board members to fully participate in
deliberations will result in a better record to assist board
members, and all of the information will be established on the
record. Although members with expertise are encouraged to serve
on the boards, the current policy discourages some. Ms. Leach
urged the committee to pass the bill.
2:08:07 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, President, Board of Directors, Cordova District
Fishermen United (CDFU), informed the committee CDFU represents
about 1,000 fishermen. He provided examples of board members
who were unable to deliberate under various circumstances. Mr.
McCune opined the statute is unfair and creates frustration.
Further, a familial relationship does not always equate to
financial gain, and board members rely on each other for advice.
2:10:34 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN opened public testimony on HB 35.
2:11:13 PM
BENJAMIN MOHR, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), expressed KRSA's opposition to HB 35. Mr.
Mohr informed the committee there is no need to modify the
ethical guidelines that now apply to BOF. Current conflict of
interest procedure provides four opportunities for "conflicted"
board members to participate in the public process to a greater
degree than the general public: public comment, committee of
the whole, board deliberations, and voting. During committee of
the whole procedures board members, including conflicted
members, interact with the public, the Department of Law (DOL),
and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG), and board
members can interact with state agencies, proponents and
opponents of proposals, and others, which is an advantage the
public does not have. Following its committee work, conflicted
board members are recused, and BOF begins formal deliberations.
Mr. Mohr opined HB 35 expands the influence of board members who
have a direct financial interest in a matter under
consideration, even though conflicted board members already have
an opportunity in formal and informal settings to ensure their
opinion and expertise is known. He advised current "conflict
procedures" are not unknown, or untested, and have been
reasonably effective; KRSA believes loosening the ethical
guidelines for BOF and BOG is not in the public interest.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for clarification on the
opportunities conflicted board members have to participate in
addition to the committee of the whole discussion.
MR. MOHR said conflicted board members participate as members of
the public during public comment. In further response to
Representative Spohnholz, he said there are currently
sportfishing interests serving on BOF.
2:14:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether a board member who holds a
sportfishing license would be "conflicted out" of making
allocative decisions about sportfishing.
MR. MOHR expressed his understanding the chairman of BOF or BOG
is the ethics officer who would make a final decision about a
conflict; however, there must be a direct financial interest,
and holding a sportfishing license would not establish a direct
financial interest in the management of the sportfishing
fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN observed the BOF ethics disclosure
statement does not define a threshold for a direct financial
interest. She asked for the point at which one has a financial
interest in the sportfishing fishery.
MR. MOHR restated the decision on an unethical conflict is up to
the chairman of BOF and BOG, and DOL.
2:16:55 PM
GLEN HAIGHT, Executive Director, BOF, ADFG, explained matters of
subsistence, personal use, and sportfish affect everyone equally
thus there is no effort to assess personal financial benefit to
those matters; a board member who holds a sportfish license or
who engages in a subsistence fishery is not conflicted out.
However, a guide operator may be affected; according to DOL, the
threshold is $5,000, and a conflict may arise at that point.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether the guide's threshold
of economic return is based on the value of the sportfishing day
trip or on the value of the fish [caught].
MR. HAIGHT said, "It's to the operator, the commercial operator,
it doesn't apply to their client."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether sportfishing lodge operators
would be conflicted out of all sportfishing decisions.
MR. HAIGHT gave the example of a lodge owner whose lodge
operates in an affected area and who would benefit from a board
action; this would be a specific instance.
2:19:54 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 35.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN returned attention to the BOF ethics
disclosure and observed the definition of family differs from
that of the legislature's ethics law.
MR. GRUENING explained in the executive branch ethics act
immediate family member is defined in AS 39.52.960 (11) as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
(11) "immediate family member" means
(A) the spouse of the person;
(B) another person cohabiting with the person in a conjugal
relationship that is not a legal marriage;
(C) a child, including a stepchild and an adoptive child,
of the person;
(D) a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or uncle of the
person; and
(E) a parent or sibling of the person's spouse;
MR. GRUENING pointed out the aforementioned differs from the
legislative branch definition found in AS 24.60.990 (6)
[original punctuation provided]:
6) "immediate family" means
(A) the spouse or domestic partner of the person; or
(B) a parent, child, including a stepchild and an adoptive
child, and sibling of a person if the parent, child, or
sibling resides with the person, is financially dependent
on the person, or shares a substantial financial interest
with the person;
MR. GRUENING said, "That was pretty close to the definition that
was in the bill before it was removed ...."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised the BOF ethics disclosure states
not just the immediate family, but a member of the family, and
the bills narrows the definition to immediate family.
2:23:41 PM
MR. GRUENING clarified the bill makes no change to the
definition of immediate family; for BOF and BOG, the statutes
are AS 39.52.960 (9) and (18) [original punctuation provided]:
(9) "financial interest" means
(A) an interest held by a public officer or an immediate
family member, which includes an involvement or ownership
of an interest in a business, including a property
ownership, or a professional or private relationship, that
is a source of income, or from which, or as a result of
which, a person has received or expects to receive a
financial benefit;
(18) "personal interest" means an interest held or
involvement by a public officer, or the officer's immediate
family member or parent, including membership, in any
organization, whether fraternal, nonprofit, for profit,
charitable, or political, from which, or as a result of
which, a person or organization receives a benefit;
[HB 35 was held over.]