88 



I.AWRrMCE r. COTTER 



Allonations 



In the course of gathering information in Alaska, we uncovered 

 information that raised suspicions about certain activities of 

 LAWRENCE P. COTTER. We investigated whether and when COTTER, a 

 voting Council rember, had financial interests m companies that 

 stood to benefit from the Council's decision on the I/O issue. 

 We also sought to determine how expenses for a lobbying trip to 

 Washington by COTTER were paid for. 



Findings 



COTTER is c voting nember of the Council and is the sole owner of 

 Pacific Associates, a fisheries consulting business. Documents 

 we reviewed show that Pacific Associates entered into a 

 consulting contract with a consortium of five inshore seafood 

 processors that would be affected by the Council's decisions on 

 the I/O issue. The five processors represent well over a 

 majority of the inshore processing capacity in Alaska: Trident 

 Seafoods, UNISEA, Inc., Dutch Harbor Seafoods, Ltd., Alyeska 

 Seafoods, and Westward Seafoods. COTTER told us that he did not 

 discuss his contract with the consortium until September, 1991. 

 The documents we reviewed showed that one member of the 

 consortium paid COTTER $10,000 in mid-September and the others 

 paid him in October. COTTER said the September payment was 

 probably made in anticipation of reaching an agreement, nnd that 

 he did not deposit the check until October. The total contract 

 price was $40,000 plus travel and associated expenses. 



COTTER and most of the members of the consortium signed the 

 contract in October, 1991; COTTER'S work on the contract 

 continued into 1992. The contract called for an analysis of the 

 different uses of crab waste, COTTER produced a report, dated 

 January 199?.. At the present time, we are unable to estimate the 

 report's value or the time expended in producing it. 



COTTER told the reporting agent that he traveled to Washington, 

 D.C. in the end of October, 1991 to discuss the I/O issue with 

 Alaska's U.S. senators. He said he paid for the trip with his 

 own money and did not charge the NPFMC for expenses. The members 

 of the seafood processing consortium made individual payments to 

 Pacific Associates just before the trip to Washington. However, 

 we did not find payments to COTTER or Pacific Associates from the 

 consortium that specifically matched the amounts of the trip, 

 i.e., we did not substantiate that any payments to Pacific 

 Associates were for the lobbying trip. The consortium did pay 

 COTTER separately for expenses for a trip to New Jersey he made 

 in connection with the crab waste contract. NPFMC documents do 

 not reflect payment to COTTER for the trip. 



