195 



- n - 



interests as they relate to any harvesting, processing or 

 marketing activity in connection with a fishery over which the 

 council has jurisdiction. Unlike other federal financial 

 disclosure requirements, once this disclosure is made there 

 is no requirement for the member to recuse him or herself — no 

 matter how directly the council member may benefit from the 

 outcome of the issue under consideration. At a minimum, council 

 members holding a financial interest (or representating those who 

 do) who would derive an economic benefit from action of the 

 council should be required to recuse themselves. Moreover, the 

 corresponding list of statutory prohibitions and penalties should 

 be amended to include the failure to recuse where otherwise 

 required. 



While I recognize the potential difficulties in fashioning 

 the precise language to define the economic interest that would 

 trigger recusal, I believe it is essential that this issue be 

 addressed in one way or another. Recusal could be limited only 

 to those issues where actual economic allocations are at stake, 

 and not be required for a range of other day-to-day decisions 

 that councils must make. I also recognize that this requirement 

 could work to the detriment of Royal in that any fisherman 

 council member whose interests are similar to ours would have to 

 recuse himself thereby leaving the decision to the remaining 

 members who may have very different interests. However, where 

 the allocation of billions of dollars of the nation's resources 

 are at stake, fundamental precepts of good government and 



