HB 33-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME  2:10:15 PM CO-CHAIR BURKE announced the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 33, "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." 2:10:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE STUTES, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 33 and read the sponsor statement to the committee [hard copy included in the committee packet]. The sponsor statement read as follows [original punctuation provided]: HB 33 SPONSOR STATEMENT "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." This legislation changes the way the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game function by allowing members to deliberate on subjects for which they have a declared personal or financial interest according to AS 39.52, the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Members are selected based on their "knowledge and ability in the field of action by the board, and with a view to providing diversity of interests and points of view in membership" however, Title 39 prohibits a member from "taking or withholding official action in order to affect a matter in which the member has a personal or financial interest." (AS 39.52.120(b)(4)). "Official action" is defined as "advice, participation, or assistance, including for example, a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction by a public officer." (AS 39.52.960(14)). Currently, board members are required to divulge a conflict of interest if they, or their immediate family members, are involved in the subject matter being deliberated. The conflicted member can then no longer offer their input and expertise on the process and cannot vote on the matter at hand. Often in the fishing world, a financial or personal interest corresponds with someone's knowledge of a particular fishery. The passage of this bill will allow the conflicted board member to offer remarks and input on deliberations, but still precludes them from voting on the issue if they have a conflict of interest. Allowing members with expertise in particular fields to deliberate will assist the boards in making more informed decisions, lead to stronger resource management statewide, and align process with intent as far as the boards benefiting from members' knowledge and diverse views. Thank you for support of this legislation. 2:14:01 PM JANE PEARSON, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State Legislature, directed the committee's attention to documents prepared by the Alaska Boards of Game and Fisheries [hard copies included in the committee packets], titled "Background Information on the Alaska Boards of Game and Fisheries Ethics Act Process" and "Alaska Board of Fisheries Policy on Board Member Actions at Meetings when Recused from Participating on Proposals." She explained that the documents set forth how members must conduct their business when they have declared a conflict of interest. She read several paragraphs dealing with recusals. 2:15:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES added that members who declare a conflict must get up from their seat at the table and sit in the audience. 2:15:45 PM MS. PEARSON explained that a member could participate as a member of the public but would not be allowed to add their expertise to the board's deliberative process, even if they are the only one who understands the nuances of a particular subject. She pointed out that the documents detailed the number of times the board members had to declare a conflict of interest. She posited that the recusal policy discouraged people from applying to the board. However, allowing board members with expertise to deliberate, the boards could make fully informed decisions. Any member who declared a conflict would be recused when there was a vote. 2:18:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES responded to a question from Representative Rauscher regarding why this bill did not get farther in previous legislative sessions. She said the primary pushback in the past came from Kenai River Sports Association. She posited that a person who has a conflict should be excluded from the vote but not from the conversation. She pointed out letters on the subject were provided to the committee, but only one was in opposition. 2:20:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES addressed several questions posed by Representative Saddler regarding HB 33's definition of "supervisor" and "designated ethics supervisor." She specified who would deal with possible conflict of interest situations, stating that questions could be referred to the ethics supervisor for the Board of Game or the Board of Fish who would determine whether there is an ethics violation or not. The ruling would then go to the chair and the board. 2:22:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, in response to several questions from Representative Coulombe, explained that the issue addressed by HB 33 was an unforeseen consequence from the initial setting of board policies. She acknowledged that a board member could testify as a member of the public, but she emphasized that the person could not engage in discussions with the board. She pointed out that board members were chosen for their expertise and knowledge of the subject but were potentially precluded from sharing that expertise. 2:26:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES responded to questions from Representative Saddler by clarifying several sections in HB 33 regarding conflicts of interest. She reminded the committee that members of the Board of Fish were appointed because they had relevant areas of expertise. 2:32:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES answered several questions posed by Representative Elam and Representative Saddler regarding conflicts of interest and off the record conversations that have hypothetically taken place at board meetings. 2:34:51 PM CO-CHAIR BURKE opened public testimony on HB 33. 2:35:00 PM RICHIE DAVIS, Member, Seafood Producers Cooperative, testified in support of HB 33. He described how members of the Board of Fish were required to recuse themselves from discussions of the board due to conflicts of interest. He stated that the process had a stifling effect and discouraged people with knowledge and experience from becoming board members. 2:38:28 PM CO-CHAIR BURKE closed public testimony on HB 33. 2:38:33 PM CO-CHAIR BURKE held over HB 33.