83 



profit organization from which he docs not rccoivo any finjnoial 

 compensation. 



We reviewed records at the Corporations Sections, Dcp:irtmcnt of 

 Commerce & Economic Development, State of Alaska, in Juneau, 

 which corroborated DYSON ' s financial interests in All Alaskan and 

 Peggy Jo, Inc. A cross reference check for the name of OSCAR 

 DYSON did not reveal ownership in any other corporations. 

 Records maintained by NMFS showed that the vessel Peggy Jo is 

 included in the 1991 list of groundfish industry boats up to 125 

 feet in length. There are 95 vessels on the list, all of which 

 come within the Council's definition of an "inshore" interest, as 

 mentioned above. 



DYSON admitted that he participated in the I/O issue and in the 

 125 foot "inshore" amendment. He said his primary concern was to 

 protect the groundfish resource. Some of his decisions 

 benefitted him, and some have not. DYSON said the Magnuson Act 

 allows voting members to have financial interests in the work of 

 the Council because the Council needs knowledgeable members to 

 make informed decisions. 



Richard B. Lauber is the chairman of NPFMC and he is a voting 

 member. Lauber said he has never seen any "skullduggery" from 

 NPFMC members on any issue, even though some of the members have 

 had personal opinions on certain issues. Lauber maintained that 

 if any unethical conduct had ever occurred at NPFMC meetings, 

 someone would have reported it to him, and that has not happened. 



Lauber said both HEGGE and DYSON have declared their interests on 

 disclosure statements. He recalled that HEGGE even reminded the 

 NPFMC during the June 1991 meeting about his commercial fishing 

 vessels: HEGGE 's interests were not secret. Lauber said there 

 is no prohibition against either HEGGE 's or DYSON'S voting on the 

 I/O issue. 



Lauber said neither HEGGE or DYSON are the kind of people who 

 would organize a coalition to lobby for any issue. He saw no 

 evidence that either HEGGE or DYSON attempted to influence the 

 votes of other NPFKC members during the June 1991 meeting. 



Conclusion 



OSCAR DYSON voted on a matters before the NPFMC in which he had a 

 financial interest. However, he disclosed his financial 

 interests in activity within the jurisdiction of the Council, and 

 is therefore exer.pt from the conflict of interest provisions of 

 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 50 C.F.R. § 601 . 35 (b) (8) (ii) . DYSON did not 

 violate 50 C.F.R. § 601. 35 (b) (8) ( i) by voting on the 125 foot 

 "inshore" definition because this issue affected a large class of 

 boat owners. It is not a "particular matter primarily of 

 individual concern," as previously mentioned. 



