Sunday, January 27, 2013

Full disclosure?

A common complaint we hear about the nation's regional fishery management councils is the apparent conflict of interest some members have in voting on the issues.

To some degree, these conflicts are by design and unavoidable. The councils make recommendations to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The council system gives people most affected by fishery management decisions — commercial fish harvesters, for example — a seat at the table.

To make sure the public knows who's who, council members are obliged to file federal financial disclosure forms reflecting their involvement in the fisheries, or in lobbying and advocacy.

Sounds good, right? Keep everything above board at least.

But current financial disclosure practices are weak and need improvement, says a new report from the Commerce Department's Office of Inspector General.

A review of 72 disclosure forms turned up numerous instances of incomplete information, the inspector general says.

The report says it's essentially up to council members themselves to judge what information to disclose, and NMFS "does not independently verify the information."

Further, council executive staffs don't feel much empowered to deal with suspected misreporting on the disclosure forms, the report says.

The inspector general says NMFS should strengthen financial disclosure requirements and procedures. Specifically, the agency should do formal reviews of financial interest disclosures, and should tighten policy on identifying and handling conflicts of interest.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council, based in Anchorage, has 11 voting members. Four are government officials from Alaska, Washington and Oregon.

The rest are from the private sector; their financial disclosures forms are posted here.

NMFS has told the inspector general it accepts all the recommendations in the report, and will implement them.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Improved disclosure is all well and good, but it won't change the greed and conflict that underlies the votes.

Anonymous said...

When you have a representative from
the fishing industry that owns himself or relatives that own
millions of dollars of shares of
stock in a benefiting cannery
sitting next to a guy thats married
to a lobbyist for the TRAWLERS AND
PROCESSORS YOU NARROW THE PLAYING
FIELD AND THE PLAYERS IN THE GAME.

Anonymous said...

The conflict of interest people have played their games too long. Now we're losing the King Salmon in Western Alaska because of this sloppiness! There is no excuse for this lack of oversight from the government.

Anonymous said...

Now they get a conscience.
There's nothing left to split up.
With all the O I G investigation
reports coming out this week,
I can't help but wonder why
Dr Lubchenco would leave,when they
need supervision the most.
Run Jane run.

Anonymous said...

I see Duncan omits that he owns/represents 13 setnet permits.

Anonymous said...

Read it again - Duncan is a one third share partner in a family set net operation.

Anonymous said...

NOAA in Alaska is Pro dragging.Only an outcry from the voting Public can stop trawl by catch.Call your Senator today!

Anonymous said...

At least if someone on the Alaska Board of Fish has a conflict they cannot participate in voting on any regulation that would impact themselves either from a personal or financial point of view. You almost have to have a conflict to be on the Council and are expected to vote in your best interests. How Corrupt is that? Instead of voting in the best interests of the resource they vote in the best interests of their pocketbook. It is disgusting!

Anonymous said...

The reason the Council members can vote on issues affecting them is that they are "advisory" to the Secretary of Commerce.

The Alaska Board of Fisheries is an actual regulatory body. Plus State vs. Federal governance.

I am concerned about the corrupting influence on people I know by serving on the NPFMC. But, some seem to be immune to the corrupting influence while others succumb.

The most important factor is the personal integrity of the fishing industry appointments by the Governor. I was surprised by the illegal activities and conviction of Arne. My experience with both him and his father Ed led me to believe he was the kind of individual with the personal integrity to withstand the corruptive influence of the Council.
For some other past members I was not surprised at all by them using their Council appointment to line their pockets both while serving and afterwards.
I think the history of our grand experiment with the Council Fishery management system is that it is a seductive succubus or incubus as far as a corrupting influence on its members.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing that disqualifies a council member.

Joe Kyle got put on as a CDQ rep then took on new clients (Trident) before an important vote.

Council member have gone into business together after they were seated on the council.

Every vote is a new money making opportunity.

Anonymous said...

It is true that council members are advisory to the Sec of Commerce. However it is indeed very very rare that the council recommendations are not adopted by the Sec.So as a practical matter the Council is de-facto a regulatory body. I do not blame the Council members as they are doing what is provided for by law. It is the system that permits the terrible abuse. Anyone in their position would do the same. I agree with 8:59, it is disgraceful and countrary to the principal that the resource should come first

Anonymous said...

Not everyone succumbs to the temptation. You are right in that the Council is a de-facto regulatory body. I was just explaining why they get to vote on issues where they have an interest.

Resource first, what alternate reality are you in? And what did you ingest to get there? Oh, wait I know, you are a time traveler from Alaska in the 60's and 70's.

Anonymous said...

8:59 - You want more disgusting? Just hang around the Council meeting hotel on a Friday night and watch the foxes of the hen house come stumbling out of the elevator after poker in the penthouse that our tax dollars rented for their amusement.

Anonymous said...

Maybe they drink to forget the pain of being greedy and dishonest. Trap them like the lushes that they are. That'll clean out the henhouse.

Anonymous said...

To 6:56: Perhaps I am unrealistic. But I stand on my statement that the resource should come first. And I am not ready to throw in the towel just yet. It sounds like you have, though. I encourage you to resist and continue to speak out against this failed experiment called the NPFMC. And truth be known, the State of Alaska would be far better at managing the resource. At least it has a CONSTITUTIONAL mandate to manage the resource for sustained yield. Actually, I am a time traveler who came to alaska in the 60's and remember the abundance we once had. And I did ingest something to get to that reality. It was called seafood, lots that I could acquire quite easily on my own or buy for a reasonable price. Halibut and Chinook at over $20. per # is a far cry from those days. Happy with that reality?

Anonymous said...

"Full disclosure"
Have the OIG's inspector's looked
into the retirement packages
some NPFMC past and present will
receive as part of "advisory fees"
for duties performed while on the
NPFMC,Sounds more like bought votes.
How many of these have not made
the financial disclosure forms
because they were not paid while
sitting on the council ?

Anonymous said...

Reply to 8:36. I gave up on the NPFMC 20 years ago. MOre recently I gave up a nice job because I couldn't stomach the dysfunction and corruption co-opting otherwise good people.
I came to Alaska in the 40's so I saw the devastation caused by Federal Management colluding with powerful fisheries interests. Namely canned salmon and fish trap cartels. I fear similar happening now with trawl interests and the NPFMC.
Of course the resource should come first, but do you really see that happening at the Council these days? I am thinking the rotton apple of the NPFMC is spoiling the whole barrel of fisheries management around Alaska. Look at the Fishermen at the IPHC voting to overharvest in every area except SE. Look at the buy out of the Native conservation vote through the CDQ system.
Tell me where you see the resource coming first? As far as the State of Alaska doing better, I wonder. Remember who appoints the members of the Board of Fisheries and the leaders of ADF&G. Confident in that person placing the resource first?
I don't buy halibut or king salmon. I harvest it to eat and share. I buy good wine and I am pretty happy with that reality.

Anonymous said...

Before rationalization the most influential fisheries are those that involve the participation of the most people. Political representation. Votes.
After rationalization the richest fishery cannibalizes the relatively poorer ones economically.
Now they want to own and process bycatch. Who is left to stop yhem. Who hasn't been morally compromised by engaging in an immoral management regime?

Anonymous said...

"..the richest....cannibalizes...the poorer ones economically." That's the simplest description of the Western Alaska CDQ program that I've seen since the program was born of the Pollock Fishery 21 years ago.

Anonymous said...

A review of 72 disclosure forms turned up numerous instances of incomplete information, the inspector general says.

The report says it's essentially up to council members themselves to judge what information to disclose, and NMFS "does not independently verify the information."
Any pay by processors to
NPFMC members IS LEGAL, and not a
conflict of interest,bribe. Even
if they are paid lobbyists, it's
legal under the present rules.
If your company was going to
make 100 million a year, every
year for say a Quota share system
How much would you pay a Voting
member in legal fees to be on
your side of the decision.

We know some received these FEES
leading up to the Crab RatZ Votes
Many past and present are
Lobbyists. Isn't this where
we need to start,

Anonymous said...

Congress has the power to shut it all down, clean it up, and most importantly, give the resources back to the little guy so that communities along the coasts can continue to survive. It'll be better for the government in the long run - less people to care for on the Welfare Train to NoWhere.

Anonymous said...

To 6:48 AM, I couldn't have said it better. Lysol and sunshine.

Anonymous said...

To 8:22 PM, I'd use Pine Sol instead of Lysol for the scrub down. That way we'll all be able to smell 'em before we see 'em.

Anonymous said...

A good place to start the Congressional Scrub Down is in Western Alaska. The CDQs stick out like a sore thumb. Their state stamped self-reviews is a strong indication that there is a lot of poppycock and unethical BS going on.

The stink is strong and over bearing. Even Pine Sol can't dilute the smell. The Native Salmon Culture of Western Alaska is being destroyed by all those involved.

Anonymous said...

And the people in New England are learning very well how to work the system from within.

I can't help but think they are using the Alaska situation as a blueprint to screw their fellow downfall in the end. SO SAD fishermen.

Greed will be everyones

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to see what kind of connections these measures would expose on the NEFMC. When will they start to really look into outside influence?
Just this one measure would expose connections to ENGO’s and any other bad actors lurking in the weeds.

Anonymous said...

They are all connected. A handful demanding the right to harvest and pissing on the resource owners on top of it all.

One hand out, the other slapping the poor folk down.