189 



- 5 - 



Chief among my concerns are those involving actual and 

 perceived conflicts of interest among council members charged 

 with the stewardship of our national fisheries resources. I am 

 not alone in these observations. A widely read series of 

 articles and editorials in the Seattle Times have documented the 

 problem. They characterized the councils as "monopolized by 

 fishermen, riddled with multimillion dollar conflicts of interest 

 that would not be tolerated in the landward, oil or timber 

 industries". The Times called for a "seriously overdue new look" 

 at the Act. 3 Even the Anchorage Daily News concluded that "We 

 shouldn't turn federal fisheries over to fishermen whose 

 decisions directly affect their personal fortunes" and called the 

 council system "ethically bankrupt". 4 It must be clear to all 

 that this is a problem in serious need of attention. 



There are a number of ways to get at the problem, ranging 

 from strengthening the financial disclosure requirements and 

 adding a recusal mechanism for those who have conflicts, to 

 restoring the original system of checks and balances envisioned 

 by the Act's framers. Even re-examining the threshold 

 requirements for membership on the council should be considered. 

 But before turning to these, I want to review briefly how the Act 

 got to its present state. Surely the authors of the Act were 

 aware of the potential conflict of interest problems inherent in 

 the council system they had fashioned. 



3 Seattle Times . Mar. 31, 1992, at A10, col. 1. 



4 Anchorage Daily News. Dec. 16, 1991, at B6, col. 1. 



73-212 - 93 - 7 



