89 



The Council rpqulations require Council moiv.bcrr, tu up.latc their 

 financial disclosure lorms "at any time a reportable imancial 

 interest is acquired or the financial interests are otherwise 

 substantially chanqcd." COTTEK disclosed his contract with the 

 consortium in a Statement of Financial Interests on November S, 

 l'J91. He told us that he thought he was allowed a 30 day grace 

 period to report new financial interests and said that at the 

 time he made his disclosure he thought he was m compliance with 

 the regulations. 



Conclusion 



COTTER participated in the I/O issue as a mer-ber of the Council 

 and entered into a contract with a consortiun of companies that 

 would benefit fror, the implementation of the Council's 

 reconnendations. Ke did not develop infor::iation that COTTER 

 performed any work for the Council on the I/O issue -during the 

 period after entering into contract negotiations with the seafood 

 processing consortium and before disclosing his financial 

 interest in Novemfcer, 1991. Thus, we did not establish any 

 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 208 or 50 C.F.R. § 601. 35 (b) (8) (ii) . 

 The nid-September payment by a member of the consortium is 

 troubling. The contract was not entered into until approximately 

 three weeks later, and precontractual payments are unusual. 

 However, we do not have information that the payment was made for 

 a purpose other than COTTER'S consulting work, as indicated by 

 the company. Therefore, we have no basis for alleging any 

 violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201 or 209. 



COTTER traveled to Washington to discuss his views on the I/O 

 issue with U.S. senators. We determined that the NPFMC did not 

 authorize or pay for the trip. Further, we did not substantiate 

 that the consortium: paid him for lobbying services. The law does 

 not prohibit any appearance of a conflict of interest that might 

 arise from COTTER'S lobbying senators at a tine when he has a 

 financial interest in a group of companies that would benefit 

 from his efforts. 



REFERRAL TO U.S. ATTORS'IY ' S OFFICE 



The results of this investigation were referred to the Criminal 

 Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office, A nchorage, Alaska . 

 Prosecution was declined on KEGGE, DYSOK, ^^■■i^ll^Bi^ and 

 COTTER. 



/- 



