Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/27/2002 01:00 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 283-APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF FISHERIES CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 283, "An Act relating to appointments to the Board of Fisheries and to the ex officio secretary of the Board of Fisheries." Number 0204 [Although there was a motion to adopt CSHB 283(FSH), it was already before the committee.] CO-CHAIR SCALZI, sponsor of HB 283, briefly discussed changes in the bill regarding the number of seats for each particular interest group: previously the seats were three sport, three commercial, and one subsistence, whereas now they are two sport, two commercial, two subsistence, and one at-large. He said he didn't know whether there had been much dialog; his office hadn't heard many comments from committee members. Number 0318 CARL ROSIER, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), offered AOC's view that the Board of Fisheries had been functioning extremely well in recent years, that there has been a good balance in terms of composition of the board, and that the board has been very open-minded. He said the board had made some major decisions that will long affect the salmon resources in Alaska positively. MR. ROSIER said representation on the Board of Fisheries has been an issue since statehood, with assertions that the board was too slanted toward commercial or sport [fishing] interests, for example; also, there have been some individuals who were there to represent subsistence. He said HB 283 would create one additional board position, although he wasn't sure what problem HB 283 was addressing. He said the board seemed to be accomplishing good things for the resources and the state. He noted that HB 283 comes at a time when the state is trying to save money. Number 0509 MR. ROSIER said some of the problems that AOC had experienced were regarding criteria for selection of people. He explained that this had gone through the advisory-committee system; consequently, people who held commercial licenses were considered to be sport fishermen because they held a sport fish license. He suggested that sport-fish [representatives] are sometimes felt to be slanted in their views as far as commercial interests are concerned. He said he thought the designation of seats went further than just designating a seat; it depends on the individuals involved and the people appointed and selected by the governor. However, it is necessary to ensure that the board continues to function in a fair and equitable manner that is good for all of the users and the resources of the state. He reiterated that AOC felt the board had been functioning very well and would like it to stay that way. Number 0620 CO-CHAIR SCALZI said the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) had been concerned about representation on the board. He suggested their intent could be reflected in a recent action the board took up regarding the so-called Chignik proposal. He mentioned lack of forethought that went into trying to appease one gear group in one particular area, saying it had some downstream effect. There was concern that if there was more representation on the board, [members] would have responded differently. MR. ROSIER suggested an appointment to the Board of Fisheries is one of the toughest jobs in the state. He indicated it is impossible to satisfy everybody. He remarked that a nice aspect of the board system is the opportunity to be heard by the board and receive a decision; however, the decision might not be favorable. He said the board does not delay decisions or drag issues on for a lengthy period of time, which some other regulatory entities tend to do. He remarked that the system has been working very well. He concluded, "You might not always get your way before the board, but on the other hand, you certainly get your day in court." Number 0799 KEVIN HOGAN testified via teleconference, offering his belief that the Board of Fisheries process at the present time is almost irreparably broken. He disagreed with Mr. Rosier's testimony that the process has been working well. He suggested HB 283 isn't the right answer. He explained that at the present time the board composition is virtually all sport fishermen, without commercial representation. He mentioned the possibility of a provision in HB 283 to change the allocation to an eight- year period to undo the damage done in the last eight years. MR. HOGAN suggested there are other options including a professional board. He said the method that staff has used to determine whether proposals are allowed to go before the board has some real problems with it. He remarked that he feels that as a member of the public, his access had been severely hampered. He reiterated that there are presently some major problems with the Board of Fisheries. He said HB 283 illustrates the problem that the commercial [fishing] industry has, which is that it has been too conciliatory for too long. Number 1000 PAUL SEATON testified via teleconference. He told the committee that he had several concerns. He said it sounded as if there would be a maximum of two members who would be eligible to have commercial fishing experience. He suggested that presently the Board of Fisheries and the membership are totally oriented towards and focused on the salmon issue - predominantly, the salmon issue in Cook Inlet. He noted that several different fisheries exist around the state, however, including troll, longline, dive, net, pot, shell[fish], and ground[fish] fisheries. The level of expertise to cover all those fisheries that can be obtained from only two members commercially is pretty small, he suggested. With 100 days of meetings a year, almost no truly active commercial fishermen [can attend] and still be active in many fisheries. MR. SEATON proposed changing to a split board: one segment to deal with salmon, which is where the balanced board might need to be; and another to deal with all the other fisheries. He suggested it would [resolve] a lot of contention. In addition, he indicated the commercial-fishermen board positions should be changed to allow a recently retired person from the industry to serve. He mentioned that retired people have the time and availability to serve, and could add more to the board. Furthermore, he indicated that although there are solutions to the board's problem, assigning [additional] seats and specifically limiting the position to a maximum of two people with commercial experience would not solve the problem. He mentioned another point he'd made in a facsimile submitted to the committee. Number 1192 WILLIAM SULLIVAN testified via teleconference in favor of HB 283. He indicated he disagreed with the comment about the board functioning well in the past. He said he would like to see a balanced board. Although that may not prove to be the end-all solution, it could be effective for the next six years and could be assessed during that time. If the current board has worked, then it could be modified. MR. SULLIVAN said he has some concerns about HB 283, such as the five-years-of-active-service requirement, which might be somewhat exclusive. In addition, he voiced concern about the wording "actively engaged in the profession of commercial fishing". Furthermore, he suggested the committee should include the legislative intent there. He said it seemed to him it could be construed that there is currently active commercial fishery representation. He mentioned that the testimony about retired commercial fishermen was a good point. He specified that he supports HB 283 as it stands. Number 1375 BOB MERCHANT, President, United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA), testified via teleconference in support of the goal of HB 283, to guarantee a balanced board. He said commercial fishing and sport fishing are the two biggest user groups of fisheries in the state; [the addition of] two commercial positions and two sport positions to the board addresses both, and adds that experience and expertise to the board. He said UCIDA would be satisfied with two positions, although three positions could be at-large, giving the legislature and the governor the opportunity to appoint other people. MR. MERCHANT advised the committee that UCIDA also supports term limits. He said the Board of Fisheries is supposed to be a lay board of concerned citizens who are experienced in the areas that the boards are addressing; consequently, UCIDA feels that term limits will serve to prevent people from becoming too professional on the board and to keep more of a lay board. In addition, he pointed out the section of the bill that allows a board member to skip a term and then serve on the board again for two more terms. He said if an individual comes along that is especially good at what he or she does, this provision wouldn't prevent that person from serving on the board for a very long time. Number 1501 JEFF KING testified via teleconference. He told the committee he thought the most important point is that creative, thinking individuals are appointed to the Board of Fisheries. He said, "We bid the designated seats here on our local fish and game advisory board, and I think it had just [the] reverse effect: it seemed like we ended up with people that were more ingrained than they had before." MR. KING referred to a bill sponsored by [then] Representative Austerman from a prior legislature. He said that bill created a fourth user group, which was "guided sportsman." Up to that time, the user groups in the state were subsistence, commercial, and sport; consequently, now there is a fourth user group in state code, he explained. He said he doesn't think HB 283 goes far enough to give a fair perspective on the board to that; furthermore, if there are going to be two sport seats, then there should be another two seats for the fourth user group, which is guide-chartered users. He suggested that because of previous legislation, the Board of Fisheries does have authority to micromanage and to allocate within sport users differently than charter fishermen and noncharter fishermen. He brought attention to page 2, sub-subparagraph (ii), "combined experience as sport fisherman, personal use fisherman, or commercial sport operator in the state". He suggested that all four user [groups] need to be incorporated in order to create fairness. Number 1637 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the fourth user group is. CO-CHAIR SCALZI said the fourth group is commercial guide. Number 1652 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Hogan why he felt that the board was "broken" and what was causing it. MR. HOGAN replied that one reason the board is broken is because it is packed with sport-fishing interests; consequently, the commercial-fishing income of the entire board probably doesn't exceed $10,000. In addition, he voiced concern with some internal [issues] such as the committee structure and limiting access to the public. He remarked that he appreciated that the committee was addressing the problem. He suggested that recent board decisions had put the commercial salmon industry in Cook Inlet "on its knees." CO-CHAIR SCALZI called upon Lance Nelson, indicating that Mr. Nelson is counsel for the Board of Fisheries. Number 1777 LANCE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via teleconference. He told the committee his comments would relate to policy concerns rather than legal issues. He said the administration is opposed to HB 283 because it is viewed as unnecessary. He mentioned the current standard set by the legislature, including interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, ability in the field of action of the Board of Fisheries, and diversity of interest in points of view. Those standards - especially combined with the confirmation process itself, whereby the legislature has a chance to review these standards - should be sufficient to guarantee a capable Board of Fisheries, he explained. MR. NELSON said further limitations might prevent building the best possible board by placing some very capable people outside of the pool of candidates. In addition, there is concern because definitions are always under dispute. Furthermore, there is more than one kind of commercial fishing, sport fishing, subsistence fishing, and so forth. For example, there have been disputes over whether someone is deemed a real commercial fisherman, he said. MR. NELSON offered that the current language of HB 283 might prevent retired fishermen from serving on the board, and yet they might have the most experience and time available. He said there is concern that the person appointed should be more interested in the general public interest rather than just representing a particular constituency; furthermore, if the goal is representation of a particular user group or constituency, then there aren't enough seats among a seven-member board to try to do that. He pointed out that the board, of necessity, has to be more broadminded than just focusing on a particular interest. He said there are concerns that term limits will, in some cases, prevent the most qualified and capable people, perhaps at critical times, from continuing to serve in the board process. CO-CHAIR SCALZI indicated the intent is to do what is in the best interest of the State of Alaska. Number 1929 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to the definition of qualifications for Board of Fisheries members. Drawing attention to page 2, line 7, she asked Mr. Nelson if he had any consternation about determining experience as a sport fisherman, which she said seemed vague. In addition, she asked if [determining experience] is the same for subsistence users. She remarked that the commercial fishing category seems the most concrete of the three categories. MR. NELSON replied that statutory interpretation generally creates legal issues; therefore, the reason he hadn't addressed the legal issues is because this is a unique situation. He explained that the position taken before the courts in the past has been that these standards will have to be interpreted and applied by the legislature itself; consequently, they won't be subject to court challenge because it is not felt to be a justifiable question, and the courts don't have the right to second-guess what the legislature decides during the confirmation process. He said the governor would appoint candidates to the board; the legislature would then look at these standards and decide whether they were met in confirming the candidates or not. He remarked that if it were subject to court challenge, then he would have more concerns; however, it is more of a policy choice, and the legislature itself decides whether these are standards that it will be able to apply, as opposed to whether they'd be challenged in court later. Number 2066 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Nelson what the composition of the current board is. MR. NELSON said the current board has one member [Larry Engel] who is a retired biologist from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and who worked during his career primarily in the sport-fishery management area. Another member, Virgil Umphenour, is from Fairbanks, owns a "fish processing industry," and has fished commercially in the past; furthermore, his son holds a commercial fishing permit on the Yukon River. Mr. Nelson said with the way the commercial fishery has gone in Fairbanks, opportunity has been [limited] for use of [the permit] in the recent past. He reiterated that Mr. Umphenour does buy and process commercially caught fish. MR. NELSON continued with board members. He said John White is a dentist in the Bethel area who holds several commercial fishing permits for salmon and other species. Those fisheries have also been severely limited in the recent past; consequently, Mr. White's involvement is limited right now because of that. Also, Grant Miller is a commercial fisherman from the Sitka area who currently operates a "herring bait pound" on a regular basis; in addition, he does some tendering; in the past he was a seiner and longliner in Southeast Alaska. MR. NELSON continued. He said Russell Nelson from Dillingham isn't currently involved in commercial fishing but was in the past, in the Bristol Bay area. Ed Dersham is a retired drug enforcement agent and is primarily a sport-charter operator out of the Anchor River - Deep Creek area. In addition, Dan Coffey is an attorney who has been involved in ownership of commercial fishing boats in the past; he has some commercial fishing experience but has primarily been practicing law in Anchorage for quite a few years. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested the board should designate a spot for women. MR. NELSON remarked that there have been women representatives in the past. Number 2223 PAUL SHADURA, Vice President, Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association (KPFA), testified via teleconference. He indicated he tells people that there are no active commercial fishermen on the Board of Fisheries. He said the board controls salmon, herring, and other state-water fisheries; however, there is no multi-experienced, active, commercial fisherman on the Board of Fisheries. There are board members who have been on the Board of Fisheries for nine years without a break, he pointed out. With the majority of state fisheries managed for commercial fisheries and a substantial "intermanagement" of the sport fisheries, he suggested it would seem practical and reasonable that there should be a direct relationship between the users and the regulators. MR. SHADURA presented the question of how anyone could understand the intricate knowledge and years of experience required to become a commercial fisherman if that person isn't in fact a commercial fisherman; furthermore, he said it is not expertise derived from only written material, but is from years of being on the sea trying to adjust to all of the challenges. He said, "No less important is the charter operator or guide or the recreationalist who has limited time to get his or her share of Alaska's bounty." MR. SHADURA remarked that all [users] deserve representation and should be able to present their needs to someone who understands and debates the issues when regulations and changes are brought forth. He suggested that the board rarely debates any decisions in the open; furthermore, 7-0 is the usual vote. He indicated there had never been a commercial setnet fisherman on the Board of Fisheries; however, there are more setnet permit holders in Alaska than gillnetters, seiners, trollers, or longliners. He said the setnet fishery [participants] haven't had the opportunity to have their say or remedy regulatory inequities, and are excluded from the process. Number 2340 MR. SHADURA said many prominent sport fishing leaders advocated designated seats in the 1994 transitional papers and recommendations provided to Governor Knowles; in addition, some thought four commercial seats would be right. In Petersburg in October, 27 fishing organizations representing approximately 10,000 fishermen approved designated seats as the top priority, including three commercial seats, three sport seats, and one subsistence seat; furthermore, the KPFA supports this action. He stated that KPFA doesn't support the committee substitute (CS), although they appreciate the efforts of legislators who have tried to offer some understanding and solutions to these major inequities. Number 2407 ROBIN SAMUELSEN testified via teleconference. He told the committee he is a former Board of Fisheries member who served a one-year term. He indicated he would not be willing to serve again. He said if it isn't broken, then why fix it. Furthermore, he said he thought mechanisms were in place to ensure that quality people get appointed to the Board of Fisheries. The governor makes the nomination and then, in joint session, the House and the Senate confirm the nominees; in the past, however, [some] people haven't been confirmed to the Board of Fisheries. MR. SAMUELSEN said in regard to term limits, he wanted to applaud those people who are taking time from themselves and their families to volunteer to sit on the board. He remarked that he had been voted down on issues with the present Board of Fisheries. He offered his view that the Board of Fisheries had fleshed things out very well. The committee process is working, and there is a chance for people to be heard, he remarked. He referred to a situation involving the state and crab management. He indicated there were bigger issues than how many various fisheries were represented on the Board of Fisheries. He suggested there were bigger resource issues with the collapse of the salmon [fisheries] throughout the state. He indicated he felt the status quo should be left intact. He stated that he opposed HB 283. Number 2515 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Samuelsen if he thought the North Pacific [Fishery] Management Council (NPFMC) would bode well under the same type of lay-board process without designated seats. MR. SAMUELSEN said Alaska's winning track record at the NPFMC reflects that Alaska is doing pretty well. He said they do have a term limit; in addition, a member can serve more than three terms on the NPFMC. Number 2540 CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned seat proportions, including managers from ADF&G, processors, commercial fishing interests, a sports advocate, and representatives from different states. He asked Mr. Samuelsen if he felt that was an advantage or a disadvantage. Also, he said he would like to see a lay board on [NPFMC]. MR. SAMUELSEN said he is commercial fisherman who holds a sport- fish license, has a history of subsistence, is a former member on the Board of Fisheries, and has represented Alaska on the NPFMC. Regardless of affiliation, it's the dedication that the individual needs to put forth, to represent the resource first, and all other resource users. He indicated that when he was a member on the Board of Fisheries, he never considered not talking to fishermen from other fisheries because of public perception. He remarked that he represented the resource and represented all of the user groups. Number 2610 CO-CHAIR SCALZI indicated HB 283 would be held for further consideration. HB 284-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST [Contains discussion of HB 283] Number 2631 CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the next order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 284, "An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of Fisheries by members of the board; and providing for an effective date." [HB 284 was sponsored by Representative Scalzi.] Number 2681 SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), testified via teleconference. She said CDFU thinks that HB 284 is very important; furthermore, CDFU believes it is unfair to withhold full participation in this very important process to an entity that is there because of its expertise and knowledge in the fisheries arena. She said she had personally sat through a number of Board of Fisheries meetings where members were conflicted out; those members' invaluable knowledge would have been helpful to the proceedings, but they were precluded from providing that input because of the conflict-of-interest statute. Emphasizing the importance of HB 284, she urged that it be moved from committee. Number 2739 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if those members were precluded from giving the information because they weren't allowed to deliberate or if it was because there was a short amount of time for testimony. MS. ASPELUND said members with a conflict of interest are able to participate as a member of the public. During public testimony, they may sit at the public testifiers' table and provide their five minutes of testimony. However, a member who has a conflict of interest isn't allowed to participate in the committee meetings, deliberations, or voting, she said. If particular knowledge on an issue comes up during a committee [meeting] or during deliberations that may not have come up during public testimony, members with a conflict of interest aren't allowed to provide input; consequently, at a very key part of the process they are precluded because of their conflict of interest. Number 2795 ROBIN SAMUELSEN testified via teleconference. He told the committee he fully supported Ms. Aspelund's testimony. He said the conflict-of-interest rules are really restrictive. There are seven [Board of Fisheries] members; there are checks and balances in the board system. Consequently, it's a thorough public process. Under the present conflict-of-interest rules, however, he said he doesn't think the decisions being rendered are the best decisions; a [board member] who has a conflict isn't allowed to participate in the discussion. He said the [conflict-of-interest rules] have hindered the process when he was on the board; it has become more complicated since that time. He referred to the disclosure statement, which he said he felt was very cumbersome and unwieldy. Number 2846 BOB MERCHANT, President, United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA), testified via teleconference. He told the committee UCIDA supports the passage of HB 284; furthermore, he concurred with Ms. Aspelund's testimony and said that was also UCIDA's position on HB 284. Number 2858 WILLIAM SULLIVAN testified via teleconference. He told the committee he supported HB 284. He asked the committee to consider the effects on the board with the passage of HB 284 without the passage of HB 283. He remarked that if one accepts the idea that the board is presently weighted in one direction, it may go even more in that direction by freeing up some of the conflict language. Number 2885 PAUL SEATON testified via teleconference. He referred to a facsimile he'd submitted to the committee. He told the committee he was in opposition to HB 284. Commercial fishermen on the Board of Fisheries can fully participate in any discussion of commercial fisheries other than the specific species and area that person has a financial interest in, he explained. Every state in the Union has conflict-of-interest laws; furthermore, the laws had to be passed because conflict of interest results in bad regulations and lots of problems; he pointed out that judges or jurors don't make decisions on things in which they have a financial participation. MR. SEATON said this bill would essentially convert the Board of Fisheries into the same structure as the [North Pacific] Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) on the federal level; in addition, [NPFMC] is exempt from conflict-of-interest laws, and can accept money from anybody or be hired as a lobbyist by anybody, in spite of a financial interest. Furthermore, [NPFMC members] can be strong participants in one particular segment of the industry and can vote in favor of that segment of the industry. He noted the vast difference in legal and practical aspects between the Board of Fisheries and the [NPFMC], since the latter is advisory in nature. He offered that [HB 284] is a terrible idea. TAPE 02-10, SIDE B Number 2970 MR. SEATON suggested that Alaska and all other states have drawn up conflict-of-interest laws because when people are allowed to create regulations despite having a financial conflict of interest, it causes problems. This is not a problem that "we" need to inject on top the current problems with the Board of Fisheries, he said. He urged the committee to reject HB 284. Number 2921 LANCE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that the administration is opposed to HB 284. He said the current ethical standards give the Board of Fisheries higher credibility. In addition, people are usually or almost always present at the board meetings who can work on committees and give the same information and viewpoint as conflicted board members, he suggested. He said conflicted board members can give public testimony and talk to other Board of Fisheries members; however, they can't participate in the actual deliberations and voting. Number 2884 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Nelson if he could offer an example of what is concerning people about board members who have a financial conflict not being allowed to deliberate. MR. NELSON said a board meeting begins with public testimony in which any member of the public can testify for a limited but equal amount of time to the board and can answer questions there. The board will assign proposals to committees, in which there is a panel of public members appointed to speak for the varied interests that are following the proposal, either in support or opposition. Subsequently, the committee prepares a report and makes a recommendation to the full board, which then deliberates on the proposal. The deliberations are on the record and open to the public. The board takes frequent breaks; consequently, nothing prevents the conflicted board member from talking to the other members, the public, or representative interest groups during that time. However, the conflicted board member would be prevented from discussing or arguing for or against the proposal, and from voting. Number 2779 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Nelson to describe the kind of conflict that would remove a member from deliberating or voting. MR. NELSON said the major conflict would be if a member has a significant financial interest at stake in the proposal. For example, if a proposal would increase an allocation to [the conflicted board member's user group] or allow the member to financially benefit, then that member is prevented from voting. Board members often remove themselves voluntarily if there is any question of conflict of interest, to avoid the appearance of unethical conduct. The other interest at stake usually arises when the board member - or an organization in which the board member is a policymaking officeholder - has a proposal before the board, or when that organization has taken a position on a proposal before the board, or in some cases in which the conflicted board member has "shepherded" a proposal through an organization and that organization has endorsed it. Such interests are defined as personal interests, and the [conflicted board member] is prevented from deliberating and voting on those proposals. Number 2684 PAUL SHADURA, Vice President, Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association (KPFA), testified via teleconference. He told the committee KPFA supports HB 284. He said: We could give you a good example: in Cook Inlet, where you have three sport representatives and also Mr. Umphenour is a registered guide, the situation if there was an appointment for a commercial fisherman to be there, [Mr. Umphenour] would be opted out by the current regulations or the policy from discussing any of his expertise - so making his expertise and his knowledge moot. MR. SHADURA said he could see the conflict if it were a direct benefit to an individual. But for general classes of people, he said he had a hard time thinking it is a conflict. He remarked that if that were so, then there would be a lot of conflicts "crossing each other for many different avenues in the state." He said for "us" that's a way to communicate. Referring to Mr. Nelson's testimony regarding committee process, he reported that after the public speaks during the committee process, there are usually two board members who then debate and discuss the [issue] with other people and come out with a report that is not on the record. After the decision is made, a committee report is generated, which doesn't necessarily reflect what was said during the committee forum. Mr. Shadura remarked that he'd had a problem with that particular situation; those two members had then discussed their views with the rest of the board members. He pointed out that there could be some very real discrepancies and conflicts because of that. Number 2570 CARL ROSIER, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), told the committee AOC is opposed to HB 284. This has been one of the major factors that's made the board such a trustworthy operation in the state, he remarked. He said the criticism directed toward the NPFMC on this issue seems to be a constant din of people criticizing that council as a result of [members] with conflicts of interest. He said, "Millions of dollars involved in every decision that that council makes - of course, on this, I am not here to say whether it's right or wrong." He added that from the public's perception of the council sessions on this, however, conflict of interest is close to the top as a major problem. MR. ROSIER suggested the Board of Fisheries doesn't get that same criticism; nor does the board overstep its bounds as far as conflict of interest is concerned. He said in 40 years of participating in or observing board sessions in the state, he had never seen an issue yet that the board couldn't come to resolution on, and individuals who were conflicted out availed themselves of opportunities to participate on the fringes. He said in order to maintain that credibility on the Board of Fisheries, it should continue to be subject to the conflict-of- interest provisions. Number 2460 CO-CHAIR SCALZI indicated HB 284 would be held for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|