House Resources Committee advances HB33 after hours of testimony on allowing conflicted Board of Fish and Game members to speak during deliberations

The House Resources Committee on March 17 reopened public testimony and debated House Bill 33, legislation that would permit members of the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game who have an identified interest in a matter to remain at the table and participate in deliberations, while abstaining from voting on the specific proposal for which they declared a conflict.

Proponents from commercial fishing organizations and hunting groups told the committee the change would improve deliberations by keeping subject‑matter expertise at the table. Tracy Welch, executive director of United Fishermen of Alaska, told the committee: "UFA strongly supports House Bill 33," and said conflicted board members should be allowed to participate in discussion but not to make motions or vote on the matter. Other supporters included Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Resident Hunters of Alaska, Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, North Pacific Fisheries Association and Kodiak Seiners Association. Testimony from long‑time meeting attendees emphasized that many board members with deep, area‑specific knowledge are currently conflicted out and thus unable to clarify technical or allocative effects to other board members.

Opponents or cautious voices raised concerns about allowing board members with an interest to influence outcomes or to vote by a majority determination. Committee members asked for clarifications on the bill's language. Sponsor Representative Stutes said the bill does not change the statutory definition of a conflict; it allows a conflicted member to participate in deliberations but not vote if the supervisor (the board chair) or a majority determines the member's continued involvement would create an ethics violation. "If there has been determined to be a violation ... the member may not vote, but they may participate in the discussion," Stutes said.

After public testimony and committee discussion, Co‑chair Deibert moved to report House Bill 33 from committee with individual recommendations and no fiscal note. Representative Sadler objected and said he remained concerned about language that could allow a member with an interest to vote if the chair or majority determined no conflict. The clerk called the roll and the bill passed out of committee on a 5‑4 vote.

Votes at a glance: - Motion: Report HB 33 from committee with individual recommendations (work order 34‑LS0328A) - Mover: Co‑chair Deibert - Objection: Representative Sadler (recorded) - Committee roll call (as recorded): Representative Meares — yes; Representative Fields — yes; Representative Rauscher — yes; Representative Hall — yes; Co‑chair Deibert — yes; Representative Colom — no; Representative Sadler — no; Representative Elam — pass/abstain. Final tally announced by clerk: 5 yeas, 4 nays; HB 33 passes from committee.

Ending: With the committee action, HB33 advances to the next stage; members said they would continue to review statutory cross‑references to the ethics rules and supervisory authority referenced in the bill.