22 



One obvious means of mitigating potential conflicts would be to eliminate the 

 statutory exemption from conflicts of interest. We have found, after some research, that this 

 exemption apparently is the only example in federal law of a direct statutory blanket waiver 

 from the prohibitions against conflicts of interest by federal officials, which council members 

 are when they perform council functions. 



Another option would be to expand the membership of the councils to include citizens 

 with no personal fmancial interests, but with knowledge or experience in a wide variety of 

 disciplines and who are very interested in the outcome of council actions. Many members of 

 boards of directors of Fortune 500 companies have no direct ties to a particular company, but 

 their experience in banking, law, community development, or some other field are helpful to 

 the company. 



In a like manner, the councils might benefit by including members with such 

 experience, as well as members from interested consumer and environmental organizations. 

 Indeed, this Committee's report on the original Magnuson Act includes a statement of the 

 Committee's expectation that "conservationists, ecologists, and representatives of the scientific 

 community" would be considered for membership. Although the current language of the 

 Magnuson Act allows for the selection of a wide range of members, more explicit language in 

 the Act may send a strong signal that such diverse membership is needed to minimize 

 conflicts of interest. 



Other items we suggest for your consideration are: 



• Establishing a mechanism by which council members recuse themselves from 

 voting on matters affecting their personal financial interests; 



• Requiring financial disclosures to be included in the record of council action 

 (disclosures are currently only filed with NMFS headquarters); or 



• Expanding the authority and responsibility of scientific, industry, and other 

 advisory panels as a means of providing expert information to the councils. 



Another means of mitigating potential conflicts is to ensure that the fishery allocation 

 plans proposed by the councUs are based on sound factual information and proper analysis. 

 Also, the plans should be written in such a manner as to be understandable and perceived by 

 the public as the basis for a council's actions. In our February 1992 report on the North 

 Pacific Council's allocation amendments, we found that the council and NMFS staff had not 

 adequately determined the costs and benefits of various alternatives, such as the changes in 

 employment, income to the inshore and offshore industries, and groundfish prices. We 

 recommended initial disapproval of the amendments until adequate economic analyses had 

 been performed. 



The quality of data collected on the status of the fishery must be improved. In some 

 cases, the socio-economic data is insufficient for preparing the types of analyses needed. The 

 lack of data appears to be the result of inadequate resources and severe time constraints for 

 NMFS and the councils to fund and perform adequate economic and scientific data collection 

 programs. One way to address die lack of resources would be to combine data collection 

 activities, i.e. NMFS and councils could form plan development teams composed of 

 expertsfrom a variety of fisheries-related disciplines and interests to prepare and analyze plan 

 options. 



As the Subcommittee continues in its efforts to find ways of balancing the financial 

 concerns of the affected fishermen with the concerns of the public, keep in mind that 

 regardless of how perfect the theory, how well intentioned the plan, the success of this 

 undertaking depends on the integrity of the decisionmaking process. In other words, in order 

 to have faith in the decisions being made, the public must perceive that those in charge of 

 approving and implementing a plan are free of direct financial benefits that would influence 

 them to favor individual benefit over the general good. Admittedly, reducing or eliminating 

 the appearance of a conflict of interest will not solve all the problems facing the fishing 

 industry and the resource itself. However, it would be a step in the right direction. 



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I and my counsel, Wayne Weaver, 

 would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. 



