Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/07/2019 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game | |
| HB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 7, 2019
10:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Lance Pruitt
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Doug Vincent-Lang - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 35
SHORT TITLE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STUTES
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) FSH, RES
03/07/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 35
SHORT TITLE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STUTES
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) FSH, RES
03/07/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner-Designee
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as commissioner-designee, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director
Resident Hunters of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the confirmation of
Mr. Doug Vincent-Lang as commissioner of ADF&G.
MATT GRUENING, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 35, explained
changes under the proposed committee substitute, Version M, on
behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor.
BRADLEY MEYEN, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 35, answered a
question.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:00:44 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. Representatives Kopp,
Vance, Pruitt, Tarr, and Stutes were present at the call to
order. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Edgmon arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME
10:01:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
the confirmation hearing for Mr. Doug Vincent-Lang, commissioner
designee, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).
10:02:13 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner-Designee, testified he grew up
in Wisconsin and received his undergraduate degree in 1978 from
the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay in population dynamics
and biology. His career began as an oceanographer in Florida
before he accepted an offer from the University of Alaska
Fairbanks to pursue his master's degree in biological
oceanography. He graduated in 1980 and in 1981 began his career
with ADF&G where he worked in various positions for 34 years.
After retired for four years he accepted the nomination for
commissioner of ADF&G when Governor Dunleavy asked him to
consider taking the position.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG shared his belief that Alaska's fish
and game are a public trust resource. He expressed his need for
the public's trust if he is going to be managing their resource.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang stated, "We're not always going to
agree on the outcome, but we are going to talk about the
issues. People fundamentally care about fish and game, which
is good for Alaska. He said he will seek input from department
staff in the decision-making process. He said his goals as
commissioner are to put food on the tables of Alaskans, ensure
trust, and preserve the state's right to manage its resources.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG admitted he is aware of criticism
regarding his nomination due to his stance on "Proposition 1,
his inexperience managing commercial fisheries, and his
supportive stance on active management of fish and game
resources. He said he is excited to have this opportunity and
believes he is up for the challenge.
10:09:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES noted there is a perception that commercial
fisheries do not pay their way. She requested the commissioner-
designee to expound about the return on the dollar that
commercial fisheries provide to the state of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that ADF&G takes a $197-
million investment in a wide variety of funding sources, of
which $65 million is unrestricted general funds, and turns that
into an $11-billion industry. He offered his belief that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of the
Governor listened and recognized the return on investment. He
pointed out that over half of the $11 billion is from the
state's commercial fisheries.
10:11:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how the commissioner-designee expects
to handle the large-scale mine issues facing the state and the
Division of Habitat numerous information requests from the
federal government.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he is unable to share his
personal views regarding specific mine projects because he does
have the eventual Title 16 authority. But he can say the
department will use the time available to it to fully inform
those decisions. For example, ADF&G submitted over 400 comments
as part of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
process for the proposed Pebble Mine. While he looked at those
comments, he didn't edit the contents other than a few language
changes to make them a bit more neutral in terms of how they
were looked at. Every comment that ADF&G submitted was part of
the state's comments. He related that he has asked his staff
whether ADF&G is going to have enough time to fully understand
how the department's 400 comments are incorporated into that
draft EIS process and staff will be getting back to him shortly.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that ADF&G issued permits on
the Donlin Gold Mine Project under former Commissioner Sam
Cotten. The former commissioner reached out to the local people
about their concern regarding Donlin, but there was no response.
He advised that the department will attempt to contact the
concerned citizens once again. He stated that there are some
reasons to be careful regarding building large mines; but there
can be real benefits to local communities. Mines can be
responsibly built, but with their increased size there will be
the need for greater scrutiny from the department.
10:14:22 AM
CHAIR STUTES requested the commissioner-designee's thoughts on
the Division of Habitat being moved out of the department. She
further asked whether, regarding the proposed Pebble Mine, the
commissioner-designee thinks 90 days is enough time to assess
and comment on a 400,000-page draft EIS.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded he is not aware of any
decision to move the Division of Habitat out of ADF&G but said
there is potential for the director not to be filled as a cost-
saving measure. All that that would do is leave a deputy
director reporting to an ADF&G deputy commissioner under his
supervision. So, the division and Title 16 authority would stay
within ADF&G. Regarding whether 90 days is sufficient for
reviewing the draft EIS, he said he doesn't know and has asked
his staff to get back to him as to whether it is sufficient.
10:15:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested that if ADF&G does not believe 90
days is enough time to evaluate the draft EIS, the commissioner-
designee should feel comfortable sharing ADF&Gs concerns with
the legislature. She then voiced her concerns about the
commissioner-designee's membership on a variety of boards and
the potential conflict of interest or perception of conflict of
interest that that could present.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he has resigned from all
public boards.
10:17:16 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked the commissioner-designee to commit that the
department leadership make decisions that are science-based
without regard to political pressure.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that he has had to make
politically unpopular fisheries management decisions in the past
but made them because the science indicated they were the right
decision. He stated that conservation and sustainability were
the priority.
10:19:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether the commissioner-
designee knows what his role will be with the governor regarding
appointments to the Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered it is more of an advisory
role. He explained that the board appointment process goes
through Boards and Commissions and it is ultimately the
governor's decision, but he would like to have input.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the commissioner-
designee's outlook on managing Pittman-Robertson funds and
avoiding federal reversion. He further inquired about the
designee's orientation regarding ADF&G partnering with other
state entities that may have Pittman-Robertson eligible projects
or third parties such as sportsmen's groups or municipalities.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he was shocked at learning
that the department had reverted $3 million dollars of Pittman-
Robertson funds last October. He noted that he was intimately
involved in the effort to get the license fees increased so
ADF&G wouldn't be reverting Pittman-Robertson funds. He said he
has put in place a new director that understands the potential
of reversions and understands the ramifications of what a
reversion means politically. The department is taking steps
right now to prevent a reversion in the future and that includes
partnering with other groups.
10:21:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES commented that hatcheries have tremendous economic
impact on state fisheries and fishermen. She asked the
commissioner-designee to share his view on hatcheries and their
effect on harvests statewide and the economic gains realized
because of hatcheries.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded he understands the value of
hatcheries across the state. He added that the hatchery issue
is geographically different as well as different by species. He
said he has encouraged the Board of Fisheries to look at a
solution to the hatchery issue geographically, temporally, and
by species. Each region has unique needs and opportunities. In
Southeast Alaska, hatcheries are a critical piece towards
providing additional opportunity that was lost due to the treaty
negotiations and is mitigation to those lost opportunities that
trollers and sport fishermen took. In Southcentral Alaska, in
Prince William Sound, hatcheries are an economic driver. That
said, he is concerned when he sees that pink salmon from Prince
William Sound are straying into a watershed as far away as Cook
Inlet. He is less concerned about food predation in the ocean
but is concerned when he sees straying rates of hundreds of
miles from fish. While that was one year and one year doesn't
make a time series, it is time to look at that information and
find out whether that is a problem he needs to be worried about
biologically. He said he understands the value of hatcheries
and is currently working for more federal funding, but the
impacts of straying are going to be carefully looked at.
10:23:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the commissioner-designee was
involved in the governor's recent selection of an appointee to
the Board of Game.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that he provided input
regarding the characteristics of the person he wanted to see on
the board and found out about the appointment at about the same
time as did legislators.
10:24:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for the commissioner-designee's ideas
regarding the Magnuson Stevens Act and how it impacts the state.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he does not support federal
management of the state's fisheries; he believes the state is a
better manager of its fisheries than the federal government. He
said he is working with the Alaska Congressional Delegation to
get the Magnuson Stevens Act fixed so that the state, not the
federal government, is managing salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet
and other areas of the state. He said he is also going to work
with [fishing] groups to see what their core issues are.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the commissioner-designee
intends to do to build public trust in the people who believe
that the state is not doing a good job of managing fisheries
resources, which is why they asked for federal management.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded he will meet with these
groups and talk with them. He allowed there won't always be
agreement at the end of the day, but there does need to be talk
with these groups about the fisheries. He said people on both
sides of an issue want stable and predictable opportunities,
whether that is commercial, personal use, or sport fishermen.
Finding that right balance has been hard, other commissioners
have tried to do it, and he will too. He said he has asked his
managers to look at the regulatory authorities to ensure there
are sufficient authorities within his grasp to be able to manage
fisheries within a right balance. He has also tried to look at
the economics, but he thinks it is all around stable and
predictable opportunity.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented that communication is key right
now when there is a lot of distrust and uncertainty regarding
the state's resources.
10:27:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES requested the commissioner-designee's opinion
regarding maintaining the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) as an independent agency as opposed to merging it into
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied ADF&G will do whatever the
legislature pleases. He thinks ADF&G can manage that and if
ADF&G having third party of adjudication is what the legislature
wants, then ADF&G is fully ready to absorb that function. That
said, he thinks CFEC plays an important role in how Alaska's
fisheries are managed and entry into those fisheries, and that
role cannot go away.
CHAIR STUTES expressed her hope that the commissioner-designee
will take the opinions of user groups into consideration.
10:28:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested the commissioner-
designee's perspective on priority for personal use fisheries.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that ADF&G is neutral on
personal use, but subsistence is a priority as designated by
Alaska's constitution.
10:28:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed support for the CFEC remaining as
is. She asked for the department's commitment to work on
invasive species issues.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he has already discussed with
the Office of Management and Budget his preference that if CFEC
is moved into the department, it be moved as a separate entity
within the Office of the Commissioner. He agreed that invasive
species are a problem and has already asked staff to work on a
communications strategy to get in front of the issue rather than
being reactive to it.
10:30:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether the commissioner-designee is aware of
the importance of the Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded he is aware of it and
understands how it has been used.
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether the commissioner-designee believes
it is effective enough that it should remain in place.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered he will have to study that
some more before he can speak.
CHAIR STUTES requested the commissioner-designees comments
regarding no longer requiring logbook records for freshwater
sport fishing.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that one of budget savings
that came out of the governor's budget was a reduction to the
logbook program. He said the state has treaty commitments and
[International Pacific Halibut Commission] commitments to deal
with the saltwater portion of it. So, that is being continued
and a request has been submitted for additional ADF&G authority
to run that part of the program. Regarding the freshwater
portion, he said that in the areas where ADF&G really needed the
data on chinook salmon, the department was collecting it as part
of creel surveys, so ADF&G gave up that portion of it. That
said, he has asked staff in the Division of Sport Fish to look
at alternative ways to collect information that is needed for
in-season management short of having a logbook program. There
is not a lot of need for information on grayling and some of the
species that ADF&G was collecting and was causing a lot of
kickback from some of the guides in Western Alaska on why ADF&G
was using this information. So, ADF&G is looking at ways to
collect the information on the species that need it for in-
season management in a more cost-effective basis.
10:32:44 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
10:33:03 AM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska,
testified that his organization fully supports the appointment
of Mr. Vincent-Lang. He said the commissioner-designee is
uniquely qualified for the position because he has a background
in both fish and game. He said he has worked with the
commissioner-designee and has found Mr. Vincent-Lange to be a
good communicator and listener.
10:34:18 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
CHAIR STUTES stated she trusts that the commissioner-designee
will live up to his word and commitments if he is confirmed, and
that he will take good care of Alaska's fisheries and ensure
they remain healthy and viable.
10:34:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP thanked the commissioner designee for his
willingness to step up and serve. He applauded the designee's
research background in the sciences that are so necessary to
effectively manage fisheries. He further applauded the breadth
of the designee's service that connects to the federal level in
doing research and procuring funds as well as connects to a
state management level. He encouraged the designee to let
integrity, science, and data drive his decision making rather
than political pressure or social license. That is what will
keep good fisheries and the proper projects moving forward to
keep the state strong and stable. He expressed his unqualified
support for the designee and his appreciation for the designee's
commitment to state management given the federal push more and
more towards fish farming in Alaska waters and [Alaskans] know
that wild salmon don't survive around that.
CHAIR STUTES thanked the commissioner designee and said she
echoes Representative Kopp's comments.
10:36:50 AM
CHAIR STUTES moved to forward the name of Doug Vincent-Lang,
commissioner-designee of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
to the joint session of the House and senate for confirmation.
She noted that the forwarding of the commissioner designee's
name does not reflect intent by any of the committee members to
vote for or against this individual during the joint session.
There being no objection, the confirmation of Doug Vincent-Lang
was advanced from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
10:37:25 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:37 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.
HB 35-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
10:40:11 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final 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."
10:40:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 31-LS0297\M, Bullard, 3/4/19, as the
working document.
CHAIR STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor,
explained the changes to HB 35 under Version M. He said the
language in the original bill on page 3, lines 7-15, is deleted
under Version M and no new language was added. Previously the
bill had redefined "immediate family member" for the purposes of
these two boards. This definition was in the bill the last two
years and there was no opposition to that, and most people
seemed to be in support of the change. However, what the
sponsor is really trying to do with this bill is make it so that
members can deliberate but not vote and the sponsor didn't want
to make an exception for just these two boards. The sponsor
therefore chose to delete that language.
10:42:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Version M would allow members
of these boards with a conflict of interest to vote on issues
before the boards.
MR. GRUENING replied they would not be allowed to vote but would
be allowed to deliberate with the board. He explained that
under current practice when a conflict is declared, a member is
not allowed to deliberate and is required to step down from the
podium and sit in the audience until the issue is resolved. The
member is not allowed to offer input on the matter on the public
record and that is the issue. Version M would change it so that
a member [with a conflict] can deliberate but cannot vote.
10:43:18 AM
CHAIR STUTES requested the context of the bill be presented.
MR. GRUENING explained that HB 35 would change the way the Board
of Fisheries and the Board of Game function by allowing board
members to deliberate on subjects for which the members have
declared a conflict of personal or financial interest according
to AS 39.52, the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Members of these
boards are selected based on their knowledge and abilities in
the field of action of the board, with a view to providing
diversity in interests and points of view in membership. Title
39 prohibits a member from taking or withholding official action
in order to affect a matter in which the member has a conflict
of personal or financial interest. Official action is defined
as "Advice, participation or assistance", which could include a
recommendation, decision, approval or disapproval, vote, or
other similar action, including inaction, by the public officer.
Currently, when a conflict is determined, the board member must
step down and cannot participate. Under HB 35 [Version M] the
board member would be allowed to deliberate but not vote.
10:44:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection to the motion to adopt the
proposed CS. There being no further objection, Version M was
before the committee.
10:44:58 AM
MR. GRUENING explained the bill would allow the conflicted
member to offer his/her input. The conflicted member would not
be allowed to be part of the vote of the board regarding whether
the member has a conflict of interest. Currently the decision
on a possible conflict of interest is up to the chair of the
board to decide. If board members disagree with the chair's
ruling, a majority of voting members including the chair decide
whether a conflict exists. The member whose possible conflict
is being voted upon, is not allowed to participate in the vote.
This process is consistent with current practice. This bill
would enable each of the boards to benefit from the knowledge
and points of view of all a board's members.
MR GRUENING pointed out that Board of Fisheries and Board of
Game issues tend to be complex and require knowledge-based
solutions. Board members often have family or direct financial
or personal interests which are tied to the complex knowledge
the member would need in order to understand the sometimes-
nuanced discussions of the board. Members are selected based on
their knowledge of the field. Their knowledge would benefit the
board discussions and be on the record even if they have a
personal conflict of interest, but they should not be allowed to
vote on an issue if a conflict exists.
10:46:39 AM
MR. GRUENING said a concern regarding how the process is working
with these boards is that off-the-record discussions are
occurring between board members. The off-the-record discussions
are not part of the public record; the proposed legislation
would enable those discussions to occur on the record. He said,
"As a life-long commercial fisherman, I can't tell you how many
times I have heard or seen really extremely qualified candidates
say they don't want to put their name in for consideration
because they know they would be conflicted out of a lot of the
proposals of which they have knowledge on." The proposed
legislation would allow the member with the conflict of interest
to impart his/her knowledge before recusing him/herself for the
vote. This should lead to more informed decisions, stronger
resource management statewide, and align the process with intent
regarding boards benefitting from the members knowledge and
diversity of viewpoints. Mr. Gruening stated that Version M
would allow for board members of the Board of Game and the Board
of Fisheries to deliberate if they have a conflict of interest,
but they could not vote on the subject.
MR. GRUENING walked through the changes in Version M. He drew
attention to the language on page 1, line 12, which states,
"except as provided in AS 39.52.220(c)". He stated that this is
said again on page 2, lines 25-26, and that section is created
on Section 3 of the bill, which basically says that for the
Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game only, board members are
allowed to deliberate but not vote. The only real change to
statute is in Section 3 and the other two changes are just
references to the section that is created.
10:49:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what course of action is [currently]
available if the member does not recuse him/herself or cite a
conflict of interest but others feel that there is a conflict.
MR. GRUENING replied that under AS. 39.52 there is a process for
complaints to be filed with the Attorney General. He deferred
to [Assistant Attorney General] Bradley Meyen for a more in-
depth explanation.
10:50:42 AM
BRADLEY MEYEN, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), responded to Representative Vance's question. He stated
that two provisions could apply: AS 39.52.230 for reporting
violations and AS 39.52.310 for complaints. He confirmed it
does go through an Attorney General process. While he does
Board of Fisheries issues, there is a separate section that
deals with appeals of ethics. He said a process is outlined,
and it is rather detailed.
10:51:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to Section 3 of HB 35, regarding
"financial interest relating to the involvement of the member".
She noted that a similar bill, HB 44, cites a minimum dollar
amount. She asked whether that issue had been considered under
HB 35 as a threshold for a conflict to be declared.
MR. GRUENING answered that the Executive Branch Ethics Act
states less than $5,000 is considered insignificant, while
anything $5,000 or above would be considered significant. He
offered his understanding that AS 39.52.120(1)(d) provides that
a stock or ownership interest in a business is presumed
insignificant if the value or stock of other ownership interest,
including an option to purchase an ownership interest, is less
the $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she brings this issue up because
different bills have different thresholds for financial
conflicts of interest. She asked whether Mr. Gruening knows why
the inconsistency exists.
MR. GRUENING replied he was not sure of the legislative intent
regarding the financial differences.
10:53:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP drew attention to the language in Version M
[beginning on page 2, line 31, through page 3, line 4], which
states:
(c) If a member of the Board of Fisheries or the Board
of Game discloses a personal or financial interest
relating to the involvement of the member, or an
immediate family member of that member, in a business
or organization relating to fish or game resources,
the member is not disqualified from deliberating or
participating in the matter.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that makes sense because people with
industry, fishery, or game knowledge are serving on the boards.
He then referred to the continuing language [on page 3, lines 4-
6], of Version M, which read:
If the supervisor or a majority of the members of the
respective board determine that the member's further
involvement will result in a violation of AS 39.52.110
- 39.52.190, the board member may not vote on the
matter.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined that that is good, because those
[statutes] address violations, including improper influence,
misuse of official public position outside of employment, and
improper representation. He continued:
What I'm having a hard time understanding is it sounds
like if it doesn't fall under that, we're still saying
they can't vote if they have a personal or financial
interest. Because you can have a personal or
financial interest but not be in violation ... per se
of how the statute says that that arrives to a misuse.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the legislature tries to ensure the
board is balanced so that the voices are balanced on the board
and to ensure balanced outcomes. He questioned whether taking
away the ability to vote would throw the balance of the board.
10:57:26 AM
MR. GRUENING responded that, currently, board members with a
conflict of interest cannot vote. The language regarding
"further involvement will result in a violation" simply
describes the process that currently takes place. The proposed
change would allow a conflicted board member to deliberate. The
voting balance of the board was considered, but there was
concern regarding the possibility of a member abusing the system
for financial gain. The sponsor and community felt like
allowing a conflicted member to vote was a step too far.
10:58:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked, hy would we do this with these
two boards and not others?
MR. GRUENING answered that he was only aware of this problem
with the two boards. User groups have brought this specific
issue forward since changes/revisions to the Ethics Act in 1988.
There was concern that in the attempt to fix the Board of
Fisheries and Board of Game, similar changes to other boards may
result in unforeseen repercussions.
CHAIR STUTES noted that all the boards and commissions are
different. The Board of Fisheries and Board of Game are some of
the few allocative boards.
MR. GRUENING added there are professional boards that have more
members to cover the knowledge gaps if one of the members had a
conflict of interest. The Board of Fisheries and the Board of
Game only a single member may have knowledge of the subject
being discussed.
11:01:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT discussed his concern that if HB 35 were
to pass, other boards and commissions could come forward asking
for similar regulation.
MR. GRUENING said he doesn't foresee the mentioned changes
occurring but agreed it would be possible.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said it makes reasonable sense to allow a
[conflicted] board member to participate in discussion share
expertise. He said his real concern is that it appears that
currently the conversations are occurring "behind the scenes"
and board members may not only bring their expertise to the
conversations but might be advocating for something that
personally benefits them. He suggested adding language to the
bill that would not allow a board member to advocate publicly or
privately for something that would benefit him/her.
MR. GRUENING stated he thought the Representative Pruitt has a
fair point and he would look to the will of the chair and the
committee regarding whether that is a change they wish to
consider.
11:04:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE voiced her concerns about the duty to
create consistency within the boards. She suggested that the
committee investigate what could be done to preemptively do what
is right for the public before problems arise. She explained
that was her reason for bringing up the dollar amount
differences for conflict of interests as a legislator versus a
board. She said her concern is that the public would not want
to have to look up all the differences between the government
entities regarding the various standards for conflicts of
interest. She expressed her desire to keep in mind the other
boards and commissions and their future concerns.
11:06:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES shared with the committee that HB 35 is the result
of requests by user groups. She explained that it is a
difficult situation when someone is on the board who is unable
to share his or her expertise. Through the years this
legislation has been worked on, there have not been any other
reports from boards or commission that had similar problems.
MR. GRUENING noted he has two additional letters for the
legislators packets: One from the Resident Hunters of Alaska,
in opposition, and the other from the United Southeast
Gillnetters Association in support.
11:07:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated the bill is one she has been working on with
the United Fishermen of Alaska for many years. She said she
believes the bill will lead to more informed decisions, a higher
quality of applicant, and improved public process and
transparency for both boards.
[HB 35 was held over.]
11:08:38 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:09
a.m.