133 



allowed to substitute his or her judgment for that of the councils. This check -and- 

 balance system can work well, and we support retaining its present form. 



CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 



Despite the fact that the Act assumes council members will have conflicts of inter- 

 est, there is a growing public perception that these conflicts are interfering with 

 adequate fishery management. We think the problem is largely one of perception 

 rather than reality. We have several proposals to offer that may correct this prob- 

 lem. 



Broader Disclosure Requirements: One suggestion is to expand the section of the 

 Act relating to financial disclosure. Currently the law requires disclosure only of fi- 

 nancial interests in harvesting, processing and marketing activities. We propose 

 that all interests in the fishery be disclosed — personal as well as financial. As an 

 illustration, many councils include sportfishing representatives who have no finan- 

 cial interest in the fisheries, but may have an intense personal interest in an alloca- 

 tion between sport and commercial fishermen. As another example, an environ- 

 mental representative on a council could argue that membership campaigns by his 

 or her organization, although based on fisheries issues, don't constitute a financial 

 interest in harvesting, marketing or processing activities. 



Expanded Access to Disclosures: Very few people actually ask to see council mem- 

 bers' financial disclosure forms, even though they are available in the council offices. 

 This lack of knowledge contributes to the perception of conflicts where none may 

 exist. There are several ways to resolve the problem. One is to require council mem- 

 bers to state on the record, prior to each meeting, any interest they might have in 

 the outcome of each agenda item, and make these statements available to the public 

 as an attachment to the agenda. Another is to provide copies of the disclosure state- 

 ments at each council meeting along with the other public documents available. Still 

 another is to require he disclosures to include the percentage that the listed activity 

 contributes toward the total income of the member or the organization s/he rep- 

 resents. 



Retain Current Voting Privileges: We do not believe that the problem of conflicts 

 of interest should be solved by requiring abstention from voting. We know of numer- 

 ous council members — both past and present — who consistently put the health of the 

 resource above personal gain. There are also those who search for solutions that are 

 fair to all parties, rather than those that will be of greatest personal benefit to 

 them. We think council members that are knowledgeable about a fishery should con- 

 tinue to be allowed to vote on actions that affect it. 



Two-thirds Majority Votes: A related problem occurs when all the council members 

 from one state vote as a group to further the interests of their state. Because no 

 more than a simple majority is needed to take an action, it often happens that two 

 states will form an alliance against a third, which can result in a disproportionate 

 distribution of benefits. In the unique case of the North Pacific Council, the Act 

 mandates a majority of the seats for Alaskan residents so they have the statutory 

 ability to outvote the other two states represented. This situation exacerbates the 

 growing concern about conflicts of interest. We think a reasonable solution is to re- 

 quire a two-thirds majority for actions that yesuit in significant reallocations be- 

 tween sectors of the fishery. This would restore the publics confidence that councils 

 will act as conflict resolution bodies, because there would then be more compromises 

 and less likelihood for extreme or controversial decisions. 



COUNCIL COMPOSITION 



Retain Fishing Representation: We have heard it suggested that councils should 

 have fewer active participants in the fishing industry because their vested interest 

 makes it difficult for them to choose the long-term health of the resource over short- 

 term personal gain; there should instead be people who are knowledgeable about 

 fisheries but have no financial interest at stake — scientists and environmentalists 

 are proposed as examples. It is our view that financial interests come in many 

 forms, not all of which are immediately apparent. For instance, fishery scientists 

 frequently work for entities, such as universities, that depend on funding from the 

 industry to carry out research programs. Environmental groups have based their 

 fundraising campaigns on fisheries issues. Even state government representatives 

 can be said to have a financial interest if an action will affect the revenue their 

 states receive, either from taxes or from jobs and personal income for residents. The 

 Magnuson Act wisely recognizes that our nation's fisheries deserve to be managed 

 by the most knowledgeable people available, without regard to their source of in- 

 come, and we think this standard should continue. 



