HB 15-BOARD OF FISHERIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST    CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of HB 15. [Before the committee was CSHB 15(RES).] 9:23:01 AM CHAIR MCGUIRE reminded the committee that Amendment 1, 25- LS0114\K.2, is before committee. She suggested a discussion about whether to incorporate the Board of Agriculture and Conservation into HB 15. 9:24:17 AM SENATOR FRENCH said the memo from the sponsor dated 3/7/08 persuaded him [not to]. The primary function of the Board of Agriculture is authorizing loans. The majority of the board members must be involved in commercial production of agriculture, and currently the members must recuse themselves when dealing with a loan that affects a direct competitor. Access to proprietary information is integral to the loan deliberations. The amendment would allow direct competitors access to the information, which is unlike the Board of Fisheries that enacts a multitude of fishery regulations and has nothing to do with authorizing loans. That is a key difference. SENATOR MCGUIRE noted that Senator Green had objected to Amendment 1. SENATOR GREEN removed her objection to Amendment 1. SENATOR MCGUIRE withdrew Amendment 1. SENATOR BUNDE moved to adopt the Senate committee substitute (CS) to CSHB 15, labeled 25-LX0114\L, as the working document. SENATOR FRENCH objected to ask what changed in the CS. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, explained that after the bill passed the House, some laws had changed, so now it refers to the correct citation. 9:27:32 AM SENATOR GREEN said she is concerned because it allows those with a vested interest to deliberate. They are not recused from the discussion, only from the final vote. She asked if the bill gives them voting rights. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said not if they have a financial interest. SENATOR GREEN said the fisheries board doesn't allow the public a second chance to object to what someone has said. So she will object to passing it from committee. CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if she can offer any changes. SENATOR GREEN said the whole purpose of bill is to allow [conflicted members] to deliberate. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said yes, to bring their expertise to the Board of Fish and to allow them to deliberate - but not to vote. There are two parts to the bill, and the second part narrows the definition of family. SENATOR STEVENS pointed out that former Representative Tillion said when he was fisheries czar under Governor Hammond that the members of the board who knew about an issue couldn't participate. That's a disservice to everyone, "if you let everyone participate who knows nothing about the area." He supports the bill. 9:30:36 AM SENATOR GREEN said it has been a long time since she has been at a Board of Fish meeting, but the discussion portion is critical and can't be refuted by anyone in the audience. If the counter position is not part of the discussion, then a balanced viewpoint can't be attained. If the board opened up the discussion again - which they're not going to do, it might be different. The board works now. If board members don't know the other side of the story on a particular issue then they can't get the information from anyone in the audience. CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Representative Seaton if he thought about opening it again for public comment after the deliberations. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this isn't meant to get into those technical details. Issues come before the board and are assigned to subcommittees for full discussion and public participation. Afterwards, the subcommittees come back and make recommendations to the board. The board takes public testimony first. It then goes into committee deliberations. When the committee is deliberating they can call an at-ease and then take questions to other people. A conflicted member leaves the room and cannot be part of the deliberation process. 9:33:54 AM SENATOR MCGUIRE noted Senator Green's concern and asked if there is another step that can be added to allay her concerns. JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries, said the board could change the steps in the meeting. It is not dictated by statute. There are three opportunities for public comment, including during sign-up. SENATOR GREEN asked if the sign-up is directed at the agenda or does it "bring forth a fact that someone might not know?" MR. MARCOTTE said it's open for all of the items that are before the board. During the committee process there is ample time for public involvement because there are public panel members and two or three board members in the committees. It may spend up to a day going through a list of a couple of dozen proposals. So each proposal gets a thorough review at that time. They explore compromises and amendments. 9:36:16 AM SENATOR GREEN asked if non-members of the panel can testify. MR. MARCOTTE replied it's primarily through the panel members, but the format is town-hall style, so members are liberal about including any discussion if someone has a burning issue or if they have expertise. It is very open at that point. Then the final public input is responding to the written committee report. The reports are presented and then there is a period of about a day or two when the public can respond. It is a common practice to catch board members in the hallways and during breaks. There is lots of opportunity for public input, but not once the board begins its final deliberations. 9:38:03 AM SENATOR GREEN asked if the department [of fish and game] can answer questions at that time. MR. MARCOTTE said the department is at table as staff to the board. The department, as a whole, is available to field questions. Enforcement representatives and the Department of Law are there too. SENATOR STEVENS said he attended meetings for about five years, and it seems that everyone knew everyone else's business, including everyone's personal investments. Is it dangerous to pass this bill and give a member of the board too much power? MR. MARCOTTE said neither the department nor the board has taken a position, but generally the board is comfortable with this. Members feel that their ability to participate has been infringed in certain instances. He doesn't think the bill is potentially harmful. This isn't a sweeping change because a conflicted member still can't vote. Allowing discussion is seen as a positive step, as is narrowing the definition of family. There are checks and balances to keep board members from being self serving. The chair can rule someone out of line, and there is the risk of getting crosswise with the public. 9:41:41 AM SENATOR GREEN said she appreciates his comments but since neither the board nor the department has taken a stand, she considers them to be personal. RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing Association, Soldotna, said HB 15 "does a good job in terms of the legislative stuff, because it actually lasers it in if you personally have the financial interest. I think that's a very good portion of this bill and I think that should go forward." He is concerned about allowing participation after public testimony. There is plenty of opportunity for board members who are conflicted out to talk to other board members. "But when you're in a public process and you're asking for the public to trust an unbiased opinion on a decision, and you have somebody up there with a financial interest - a personal financial interest - and you may say we're just getting information - but you can direct department staff through questioning and through the absence of questioning on certain issues - you … make sure that your side of the argument is better represented." Board members may not see that as a problem at this point, but it will diminish the trust from user groups. Now all user groups are on equal standing - "you can say your share and you're in front of unbiased board members, and if somebody had a direct financial conflict, they're not part of that deliberation." There is trust in the process now and all the information gets out there prior to deliberation. When there isn't information, the board is good about taking a break and getting it. The goal is to ensure that when the public leaves a meeting, they feel that the process is good and unbiased, whether they like the decision or not. "But I do think you're tainting the process by putting a person in deliberation with a direct financial interest." 9:45:30 AM SENATOR MCGUIRE held HB 15 in committee.