A legislative audit committee instructed the state auditor to investigate the past three years of process and legal compliance of the board tasked with developing policy and managing Alaska’s fisheries.
Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and chair of the House Fisheries Committee, made the request for the special audit of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The bicameral Legislative Audit and Budget Committee approved it at a hearing on Thursday.
“The breadth and frequency of stakeholder complaints about the Board’s process make it clear the Board has lost the public’s trust. As Chair of the House Fisheries Committee, I am compelled to act,” Stutes wrote.
She said the board has been “increasingly characterized as lacking transparency, unethical, and/or unlawful.”
The seven-member Board of Fisheries is appointed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy and confirmed by the Legislature. Each member serves a three year term. The legislative audit committee authorized an examination of the board’s activity from an Oct 12, 2023 meeting through July 1 of this year.
In a letter requesting the audit, Stutes cited concern that board members have “ethical impairments,” and pointed to recent action by the Acting Attorney General Cori Mills overruling the board’s decision to implement some fishing restrictions in an Aleutian Island fishery, Area M, as evidence.
In an unusual move, Mills stepped in and voided the regulations passed by the Board of Fish in February that implemented restrictions on the Area M fishery to allow more salmon to pass through to Western Alaska spawning streams. Area M has been the center of years of fierce debate and growing concerns from subsistence and Tribal communities in Western Alaska, where salmon runs have reached crisis lows.
Following the board’s February action, Aleutian fishing groups, local and Tribal governments filed ethics complaints against several board members citing conflicts of interest, then a lawsuit challenging the board’s action. The acting attorney general voided the decision in May. In response to that action — and in support of Western Alaska subsistence and Tribal communities — advocates filed a motion to reconsider that challenged the Attorney General’s authority to void the regulation changes and asked a court to review the decision. A judge denied the request.
The Board of Fish’s chair did not respond to a request for comment on the audit on Monday.
On Monday, a spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law said that following the Attorney General’s disapproval memo, the board has an opportunity to reconsider the regulations to the Area M fishery “as long as they conform to the proper process.”
“In general, disapproval memos are rare as we are normally able to work with the respective state agencies throughout the regulations process and ensure the regulations comply with all necessary statutory requirements,” said Sam Curtis, a public information officer with the department. “In this case, the Department of Law took action pursuant to the Ethics Act and those proceedings are confidential by law. We cannot disclose any further information.”
Legislative committee approves the audit request
In the hearing on Thursday, Sen. Scott Kawaki, D-Fairbanks questioned the motives of the special audit request. He said claims that the board actions lacked transparency or were unethical were “rather inflammatory.”
“I want to make sure that the request is targeted at the board process and whether the processes are being adhered to, and so it’s not an opinion,” he said. “If there’s a disagreement, you can litigate and you can go to Superior Court, and that seems like that process should be separate.”
Stutes told the twelve House and Senate committee members present that the audit would focus on the board’s process and procedures only, not actions taken by the board.
“We’re not addressing any decisions that have been made by the Board of Fish. Our intent through this audit is to address the process in which these decisions are being made,” Stutes said.
Kris Curtis, a Legislative Auditor for the state and that leads the Division of Legislative Audit told lawmakers at the hearing that her office has extensive experience auditing state boards — including the Board of Fish and the Board of Game — and that the state audit would adhere to the criteria outlined in the request. That includes compliance with fisheries regulations and statutes, public notice and comment requirements and compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and Executive Branch Ethics Act.
“We conduct all of our audits in accordance with auditing standards that require that we maintain our independence, both in fact and appearance. I have no concerns about that,” Curtis said. “To be able to address these objectives using objective criteria, we will gather sufficient, appropriate evidence, like we always do for every performance audit we issue, and we will come back to the committee with an independent, objective report.”
Curtis replied to lawmakers’ questions about the Attorney General’s decision by saying it would be evaluated by auditors.
“The answer is absolutely,” she said. “It’s informative. It’s factual. If we didn’t, we would be deficient. We will also be collecting other evidence. We will be having interviews. We’ll be reaching out to stakeholders. We’ll be examining meeting meetings. We’ll be looking at meeting minutes. We’ll be looking at the process. We’ll be doing all kinds of audit procedures.”
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, asked her what would happen if auditors found the Attorney General acted improperly.
Curtis said her office would assess the case law cited in the decision. “If I found the Attorney General acted inappropriately, I would have to probably consult legislative, legal or outside counsel, depending on the subject and whatever we’re looking at, to inform us, the legislative audit team, about what decision they made. It’s not uncommon to seek additional legal advice when evaluating something,” she said.
House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, and a former commercial fisherman, acknowledged that the Board of Fish has often drawn criticism and controversy.
“You’ve audited just about every moving thing out there, if I recall, as a long-term legislator, and this issue is always going to be controversial,” he said. “There is a lot of concern out there on a number of fronts about the Board of Fisheries, as there always is.”
Edgmon noted that the auditors’ recommendations can be taken up by the Legislature if needed.
Curtis said auditors will work closely with the Board of Fish, who will have an opportunity to respond to the audits’ findings and recommendations. With the committee’s approval, Curtis said her office will likely begin the audit investigation in August and complete its work in four to six months.