requiring financial disclosures to be included in the record of Coun- 

 cil action. 



Here I want to point out that even as late as just today, I found 

 out that apparently there have been regulation changes, and disclo- 

 sures are currently kept on file at the regional councils. It is un- 

 clear to me whether they are made immediately available at the 

 time of the hearings, but they are on file locally. 



The authority and responsibility of scientific, industry, and other 

 advisory panels should be expanded 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 Councils are based on 

 sound factual information and proper analysis. 



Also, the plans should be written in such a manner as to be un- 

 derstandable and perceived by the public as a basis for the Coun- 

 cil'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 analysis had been performed. The quality of 

 data collected and the status of the fishery must be improved. In 

 some cases, the socioeconomic data is insufficient for preparing the 

 types of analysis needed. 



The lack of data appears to be the result of inadequate resources 

 and severe time constraints for the fisheries and NMFS and the 

 Councils to fund and perform adequate economic and scientific 

 data-collection programs. 



One way to address the lack of resources would be to combine 

 data collection activities, i.e., NMFS and Councils could form plan 

 development teams composed of experts from a variety of fisheries- 

 related disciplines and interests to prepare and analyze plan op- 

 tions. 



As the Subcommittee continues in its effort to find ways of bal- 

 ancing 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 un- 

 dertaking 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 of the fishing industry 

 and the resource problem itself However, it will be a step in the 

 right direction. 



Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I and my counsel, 

 Mr. Wayne Weaver, will be happy to answer any questions you 

 may have at this time. 



[Statement of Frank DeGeorge can be found at the end of the 

 hearing.] 



