Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 08:09 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HRES - 03/15/95 HB 141 - TERM OF FISH AND GAME BOARD MEMBERS REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 141 had gone through the Fisheries Committee and a committee substitute, CSHB 141(FSH), is before the committee. He said HB 141 is an effort to clean up the problem the Board of Fisheries faces in having members seated on the board, taking action and then having to come up later for confirmation. He noted in some instances, because of some action board members may have taken, their confirmation has run into a problem. He stated if the majority of board members could be confirmed prior to sitting on the board, a better board and process would result. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted it will take a couple of years for the transition to take place. He said the end result will be a board member will be confirmed by the legislature but will not be seated on the Board of Fisheries until July 1. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Representative Austerman to clarify the phrase contained in his written sponsor statement, "With CSHB 141, legislators will confirm an appointee based on qualifications, not voting record." REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that phrase means the board members would be confirmed by legislators before they sit on the Board of Fisheries and make a vote. The objective is to confirm the board members before they sit on the board. He noted there have been several instances, in the past, where board members have been appointed by the Governor, have sat on the board and made decisions before being confirmed by the legislature, and then their voting record is held against them in the confirmation hearings. He felt it was not fair to put board members in that position. Number 645 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked the reason for applying these changes only to the Board of Fisheries and not the Board of Game. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded because he is a fisheries person. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN agreed with Representative Davies. TAPE 95-33, SIDE B Number 000 GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G) stated the same problem has not occurred with the Board of Game. He pointed out there have not been any instances in the Board of Game where highly politicized issues have caused a board member, who took a vote on specific action, to then face difficulties in confirmation because of that vote. He said HB 141 mirrors a recommendation which came from the Fisheries Policy Transition Team. He noted the Natural Resources Policy Transition Team, which looked at wildlife issues, did not make a similar recommendation. He observed it did not appear there has been a lot of public concern about the same problem existing on the Board of Game as it does on the Board of Fisheries. Number 025 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there is any reason to not have the same process apply to the Board of Game. MR. BRUCE said from a technical standpoint, there would not be a problem. He stated whether or not the change would have the same level of support in the wildlife constituency, that the proposed change to the Board of Fisheries has in the fisheries constituency, is an important question which he cannot answer. He felt there might be public opposition or a lack of public support for a change in the Board of Game. He stressed there is clearly public support in the fisheries area. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said legislators are accountable for their voting record every two years. He stated if this change is made there will be no prior voting record, which has been controversial in the past, and a confirmation will take place. Then that person is on the board for four years unless removed for cause. He asked if there should be concern about a runaway--confirming a board member who legislators know little about. MR. BRUCE stated the terms of the Board of Fisheries members would be three years. He thought Representative Green's comparison to legislators is a good one. Board members serve one term and if their performance over the course of that term is unsatisfactory, the Governor has the opportunity to not reappoint them and the legislature has the opportunity to decline to confirm them. He said presently, when a person is appointed in February, and confirmed later that spring, there is no opportunity to see their performance on a wide range of issues. MR. BRUCE noted the argument is that it is not a fair judge of a person's decision making abilities and ability to perform on the Board of Fisheries by just looking at his or her vote on what might be some of the most controversial issues in the state and then be judged on that vote, rather than looking at the board member's performance over the course of a full term. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN reiterated the sponsor should also consider including the Board of Game. She stated if the boards are not treated equally, problems will result in the future. Number 117 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded he is not necessarily opposed to including the Board of Game in HB 141, although he would like to have the opportunity to research that suggestion to determine how communities, the industry and people involved feel about the inclusion. He added he would not have a problem with an amendment on the house floor if appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said an amendment on the floor on this issue would be highly inappropriate. He felt the issue should be a separate bill and should be heard through the public process. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN disagreed. She felt the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game should be treated equally. She stated she has a problem with HB 141 as written because it does not include the Board of Game. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 141(FSH). CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said Representative Ogan's point is well taken. He agreed sensitive areas are being discussed and he felt there should be an adequate hearing on the issue of whether or not the Board of Game should be addressed in the same way. He maintained what is good for the moose is good for the flounder. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he does not object to addressing the issue of the Board of Game. He felt the two boards are distinct, different groups which handle totally different aspects of the state's resources. The people involved with fishing are quite different than the people involved in hunting just based on the commercial aspect. He stated he did not want to see HB 141 killed just because someone in the hunting industry does not want to see a change with the Board of Game. He preferred the issue be taken up as a separate issue. He noted he would not hesitate to introduce a bill if it is something needed to be done. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN maintained that someone needs to address the Board of Game to do the same thing. Number 212 MIKE MARTIN, KODIAK, testified via teleconference and stated in the past, he served as Chairman of the Joint Board of Fisheries and Game. He said if HB 141 passes, it is extremely important the legislature maintain a consistent confirmation process for the board members appointed. The check valve in the past has been that a board member is held responsible for his or her voting. If that board member was not necessarily looking at the facts but rather voting on an issue that had a strong bias, the check valve in the past has been the legislature would bring pressure upon that board member and that board member not being confirmed. MR. MARTIN said anyone serving on the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game should be held responsible for their vote and should be a strong enough person in light of making a lot of people mad, as long as that person is voting with good conscience and is honestly doing what she or he feels is correct. As a past board member, he was not offended at the pressure brought upon him by other people who did not like the way he voted, as long as he voted with good conscience. He stated the politics involved now are so detailed, it makes it very difficult, especially if the board member is appointed during the time of a Cook Inlet or False Pass meeting. He stressed the legislature's responsibility will need to be expanded. He felt the legislature is going to need to do a much better job at looking at the qualities of each potential board member. He felt the questions asked of the potential board members will need to be more detailed. Number 268 MR. MARTIN commented on why problems are being experienced currently with the board process. He said one of the main reasons for the problems is the polarization of two main issues--False Pass and Cook Inlet. He stated many people feel the result of those two issues is the fault of the Board of Fisheries. He contends it is not the board process at fault for not being able to resolve the two issues, but is the way Alaska goes about doing its planning for state fisheries. An example is Cook Inlet. He explained Cook Inlet has no plan on where the sport fishery is going to be taken, there is no understanding of the growth in the different kinds of river systems and where to head for the maximum effort for the maximum benefits of that resource into the sport fisheries. MR. MARTIN stressed until the state starts planning on where it is going to be with commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries five to ten years from now, the state will always be dealing with issues like Cook Inlet and False Pass in a volcano fashion--the volcano erupts, the lava flows, and then board members are asked to deal with people who fear for their livelihood and are extremely mad because of the circumstances taking place. MR. MARTIN stated the other reason there have been such difficult times, especially in resolving the commercial and sport fishing issues for Cook Inlet, is the tool box available. When allocations are dealt with, there has always been the ability to look at the historical perspective on catch and how people fish. He observed when looking at commercial fisheries, it is much easier to look at the historical perspective and come up with some kind of allocation based on that information. He said when dealing with commercial and sport fisheries in Cook Inlet, if the historical perspective is used, the Cook Inlet sport fisheries would end up with hardly anything because their trend has been in more recent times. MR. MARTIN said when board members are trying to be consistent and fair throughout the state, and the allocation decisions between commercial fishers have been based on a traditional sense and all of a sudden they get into a sport fishery, it is much more difficult. He hoped the legislative bodies will begin to understand that the state has to do a better planning process for the state's fisheries. The state needs to support ADF&G, with money, to do a better job managing and protecting itself from a possible federal takeover. He felt if the state does not get someone to do the studies and put groups together to look at some of the issues he mentioned, the commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries are headed for trouble. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Martin how long he has lived in Alaska. MR. MARTIN responded he is 33 years old, was born in Kodiak and lives in Anchorage. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Martin if he supports HB 141. MR. MARTIN replied yes. He added there is no reason not to also include the Board of Game in the bill. He felt a separate bill might make it easier. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN recalled that Mr. Martin had talked about sport fishing but also talked against commercial fishing. She felt his comments were very confusing. MR. MARTIN responded he was not speaking against commercial fishing. He said he was trying to explain the fact that commercial fishermen are trying to be reasonable with sport fishermen and sport fishermen are trying to be reasonable with commercial fishermen, but putting them in the arena after the volcano has erupted is the most difficult way to resolve a problem. He reiterated the state needs a plan. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reminded everyone to keep their testimony and questions directed to HB 141. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN stressed to Mr. Martin that she prefers federal management of fish and game over state management. Number 380 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT recalled that Mr. Martin had indicated he would like to see the inclusion of the Board of Game in HB 141. He asked him to further comment on that issue. MR. MARTIN responded in the past, he chaired the joint boards which included seven Board of Fisheries members and seven Board of Game members. He said the issues dealt with in a joint board are much different than what the Board of Game deals with. He felt the two boards should fundamentally be run the same way. He said adding the Board of Game to HB 141 should not be a problem. Number 398 DORNE HAWXHURST, REPRESENTATIVE, CORDOVA FISHERMEN UNITED (CFU), testified via teleconference and expressed support for HB 141. She said CFU is a big supporter of the Board of Fisheries process as it exists currently and does not believe the board needs extensive modifying. Rather, CFU believes the board process only requires some minor adjustments. She stated HB 141 presents the opportunity to make some of those adjustments, adjustments that CFU has been requesting for years. MIM ROBINSON, PORT ALEXANDER, REPRESENTATIVE, PORT ALEXANDER FISH AND GAME ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAF&GAC), testified via teleconference and expressed support for HB 141. She stated PAF&GAC has watched some very good people not being confirmed to the Board of Fisheries due to their voting record. PAF&GAC feels strongly that during the confirmation process, the legislature should look at the potential board member's personal integrity and ability to be objective rather than how a person votes on what fishery takes place where. MS. ROBINSON said PAF&GAC has a concern regarding the committee substitute version. She stated Southeast will have two seats open in January, 1996, and the board cycle for Southeast starts in the fall of 1996. The committee substitute provides that the Southeast members would be done in January, and then someone else would be appointed at the end of January. She said that person would be seated on the board, making decisions in the spring and then would be confirmed, probably in April. She pointed out it would not hurt to have the Southeast seats be done at the end of June, as the original bill said, because they would not be working on Southeast issues until the fall anyway. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked why it would be damaging for Southeast to stagger their terms. Number 443 MS. ROBINSON responded there are two appointees who had to go through the rigorous process of confirmation in the legislature and the desire is to avoid that in the future. She said the committee substitute delays the process for Southeast people. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Ms. Robinson to be more specific. She questioned how does the committee substitute delay the process. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained the different aspects of the transition of board members was reviewed. He said there was a choice of either cutting off people from the board and shorten their terms or lengthen the terms by five or six months. He stated in talking with legal counsel, they suggested strongly that rather than getting into questions about cutting off a board member from their appointed term, the term should be extended. He noted that some of the board member terms will go three and one-half years rather than two and one-half years. He stressed it is going to take three or four years to get the transition completed. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN commented that staggered terms are good and stated perhaps staggered terms would also be good for the Board of Game. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reminded everyone that the Board of Game is not up for discussion at this time. Number 473 DAVID BRAY, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and stated he liked the idea of HB 141. He felt the Board of Fisheries term limits should be linked to the Governor's term. He felt that would take some of the politics out of the board. He said past board members have set their agenda and appointments to the Board of Fisheries (indiscernible) appointment and confirmation should be done all in one legislative session. (Indiscernible) appointed in one legislative session and then confirmed the next year. ROYCE RANNIGER, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and said HB 141 is a step in the right direction to help remove the politics. He felt the Board of Fisheries is nothing but a political program. He expressed support for HB 141. He would like to see the board expanded to a nine member board to better address the issues throughout the state. He also felt regional appointments should always be there. Number 507 DONALD WESTLUND, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and expressed support for HB 141. He reminded committee members that the board was previously the Joint Board of Fisheries and Game. He felt there should be equality in the way board appointments are confirmed. He noted that confirmation of a board member before he or she sits on the board is like appointing someone before the election, saying that person should make legislation and then it will be determined if people really want that person to be in office. He encouraged Representative MacLean to look back in history on the federal management of fisheries--there used to be one day openings in Southeast and the fisheries were in decline because of federal policies. He pointed out when the state took over, the fisheries improved and now the state is fighting with the Pacific Northwest. Number 531 DEAN PADDOCK, REPRESENTATIVE, BRISTOL BAY DRIFTNETTERS' ASSOCIATION, stated he is concerned with what HB 141 accomplishes, not because it is going to make things better or worse, but because it comes down to some of the personalities involved during the transition. He felt HB 141 will not accomplish what is desired. He said everyone is familiar with the strong battles which have occurred in regard to Board of Fisheries confirmations. He pointed out on a number of occasions an individual was not confirmed very early on because otherwise presentable, intelligent people displayed an inability to work effectively in a board context. MR. PADDOCK said his concerns with HB 141 could be removed very easily. His concerns are focused on page 1, line 12 and could be removed by substituting 1996 for 1995 on page 2, lines 10 and 11. He believed, after having been a student of the process for 39 years, that many of the problems being seen today revolve around personalities of members of the board. He stated he takes exception to the remarks of Mr. Martin who advised the committee there are two issues which have produced the problems. He felt there is only one issue and that is the inadequately controlled interceptive fisheries which has divided the state ever since Alaska first took responsibility for managing its fisheries in 1959. MR. PADDOCK stated the problem is exacerbated somewhat by limited entry which was necessary and desirable. He said now fishermen in terminal areas are prohibited from fishing anywhere else and are moving out, competing in areas to which they were given the impression they had every right to fish in. He stressed fish are being intercepted and harvested far beyond the original intent when limited entry started. Number 588 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Paddock to comment on whether or not the changes contained in HB 141 should also apply to the Board of Game. MR. PADDOCK responded there is no difference between the two boards. TAPE 95-34, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Paddock to further expand on his comment that the real issue is the interception of fisheries. MR. PADDOCK responded the interception of fisheries applies almost exclusively to salmon fisheries and the state has two major situations where the existing definitions of fishing districts allow the fishermen in those districts to impact the migratory movement of fish bound for their terminal, natal areas where they were traditionally harvested. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked for an example. She also asked Mr. Paddock if he supports HB 141. MR. PADDOCK said the False Pass fishery is an example. The June False Pass fishery on red salmon, the July North Peninsula fishery on Bristol Bay red salmon are other examples. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked that everyone only speak to HB 141, which relates to the appointment of members of the Board of Fisheries. MR. PADDOCK said in response to Representative MacLean's second question, he cannot decide whether or not he can support HB 141. He did not feel the bill, other than in the short term, is going to make much difference. Number 084 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the issues which gave rise to HB 141 are relevant to the discussion. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Paddock if HB 141 passes, would it make the board less contentious in regard to different interest groups. MR PADDOCK stated he wished he could believe that. He said HB 141 will lock in a board member for his or her full term when the collective wisdom of the legislature would otherwise not have confirmed that particular individual. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he did not understand Mr. Paddock's comments. MR. PADDOCK responded the legislature is going to get stuck with a board member for the full three years and the collective wisdom of the legislature might otherwise have decided to dispose of that board member when his or her confirmation came up. He said the legislature presently has the opportunity to observe a board member's performance and can decide whether or not they want that individual to serve the remainder of his or her term, which gives the legislature the option of not confirming that person. Number 138 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the legislature also has the option of doing their job in the first place--reviewing the potential board member's background, ability, their past performance and make a determination as to whether or not that person would make a good board member. MR. PADDOCK agreed. He said his personal experience has shown that his judgement on occasion has been faulty based on the research he has been able to do. He felt perhaps that is typical of others. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN agreed that HB 141 would lock the legislature into not having the ability to make a decision on a board member's removal, after confirmation, until that board member's term is up. She felt the legislature should be able to decide whether or not a board member should be removed. She did not want the legislature to be locked up. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the window in which the legislature gets to review a potential board member is relatively short. He said if a new appointment to the board is called upon to make a couple of votes and those votes happen to be in very controversial areas where there is a lot of pressure and publicity attached to them, the argument is that it is unfair to judge that person on the basis of how they came down on that one vote. He pointed out that person might have voted in a certain way with a great deal of integrity but just happened to come down on the wrong side of the issue from a bunch of people's political point of view. He stressed asking that person to stand for confirmation after one or two controversial votes provides no opportunity to weigh the person's ability to serve on the board. MR. PADDOCK responded in his experience watching the process, he does not believe that any of the major confirmation fights have been over anything other than the issue of allowing the fish to get back to the terminal areas, whether it is for commercial or sport use. The question is are the fish being allowed to get back to the rivers for harvest, escapement, subsistence, etc. He felt the non- confirmations have come about because of input from constituents. Number 224 JERRY MCCUNE, PRESIDENT, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA (UFA), expressed support for CSHB 141(FSH). He said this bill is one of the recommendations of the Governor's Transition Team on Fisheries, which was made up of commercial, sports, charter, and subsistence users. He stated UFA feels that moving the appointments, times and term dates of the Board of Fisheries encourages future appointees to put their names forward for consideration. He stressed the present system does not encourage future appointees and does not put an appointee in a favorable position when he or she is asked to serve prior to being confirmed. MR. MCCUNE stated he has been to many Board of Fisheries meetings and has been a fisherman for the last 46 years. He agreed there are many issues involved but those issues are for the Board of Fisheries to take up. He pointed out that allocation issues are always going to be there. He stressed what is being discussed is the process of putting people on a very important board. He felt the last two years have been very difficult for the legislature, fishermen or anyone who would like to have someone be put on the Board of Fisheries. He noted the confirmation of two Southeast people in the last two years got very ugly and personal. He noted it was very embarrassing for the appointees to sit through those meetings with legislators and others who trashed them over one vote, which was their opinion about the way the member voted. MR. MCCUNE stressed everyone in the state will benefit from the passage of HB 141. He said the bill does not have anything to do with the Board of Game. He stated if everyone does their homework and reviews the potential appointees thoroughly, the system will be bettered. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN clarified that Mr. McCune is in agreement to lock up the legislature so a board member can remain for a full term. MR. MCCUNE responded there are ways to remove a board member for cause. He did not see cause as one vote or someone's opinion about a board member's vote. He stressed if a board member is not acting in good conduct, the Governor has the right to remove that board member. He added the legislature can also complain to the Governor about a particular board member. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated HB 141 does not change the way the present or future boards will serve. He said HB 141 does not change the removal process for any of the board members. He explained HB 141 contains the identical language as what presently exists in regard to appointing a person other than the time frame. He did not feel the legislature is being locked up any more with HB 141 than in the past. He pointed out that board members are appointed and serve for three years unless they are removed for cause. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated he would prefer to hold HB 141 to give him the opportunity to meet with Representatives Davies and MacLean. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he was glad to hear the sponsor is willing to hold the bill. He recalled that including the Board of Game in HB 141 has been discussed and felt anytime the appointee process can be depoliticized, the legislature is heading in the right direction. He stated testimony did not object to the inclusion of the Board of Game. He noted the sponsor had indicated he would be willing to change the bill on the floor. He felt this is the committee which should be changing the bill. He requested the prime sponsor to look into including the Board of Game in HB 141. Number 316 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated if the Board of Game is going to be included in HB 141, then it is appropriate to publicly notice that fact and give the appropriate people the opportunity to have input on the change. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated HB 141 would be heard again on Monday, March 20. He announced the committee would meet on Friday, March 17, to hear HB 59.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|