Bill would let conflicted Board of Fish and Game members give on-record input before recusal, backers say

Representative Louise Stutes introduced House Bill 33 to the House Resources Committee on Feb. 28. The bill would permit a member of the Board of Fisheries or Board of Game who has disclosed a personal or financial interest under the Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52) to impart subject-matter knowledge on the record before recusing themselves from a vote.

“House bill 33 will allow members to impart their knowledge prior to recusing themselves from the vote,” Stutes said, arguing the boards are appointed for their specialized knowledge and that current practice sometimes drives expertise off the record.

Bill supporters said current practice prevents many highly experienced resource users from contributing expert information during deliberations because a recused member may not advise, participate or assist in the board’s deliberative process. Jane Pearson, who reviewed department memos and board guidance included in committee packets, summarized the existing recusal policy and the department’s procedure for disclosures and chair rulings. Department material in the packet notes that recused members may still participate in public testimony as members of the public but cannot take part in deliberations or votes on conflicted proposals.

A commercial-fishing representative, Richie Davis of Juneau, testified in favor, saying the recusal practice has discouraged knowledgeable candidates and that allowing on-the-record input would attract “highly respected, qualified, and capable board candidates.” Davis told the committee supporters include the United Fishermen of Alaska and the Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance.

Opposition was reported from the Kenai River Sports Association in written materials the committee received; committee members raised questions about whether the change could be used politically if chairs or majorities allowed conflicted members to participate or vote in ways that favored a bloc. Committee discussion focused on implementation details, including the role of the chair or designated ethics supervisor in ruling on conflicts and the timing and form of written disclosures that must be made on the record.

Committee staff and legislators noted that the board-selection statute (AS 16.05.221) directs appointments be made with an eye toward “knowledge and ability in the field” and “diversity of interest and points of view,” language supporters invoked to justify allowing knowledge-sharing prior to recusal.

The committee recessed public testimony when phone lines were down and accepted in-room testimony; after hearing public testimony the committee set the bill aside for a later scheduled meeting so the public record could be completed. No vote was taken on the measure during the Feb. 28 hearing.

Ending: The committee took testimony, heard technical questions about supervision and chair rulings, and set HB33 aside for further consideration; staff documents supplied to the committee list the Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52) procedures and the board-policy memo that governs current recusal practice.