Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 409

Thread: BOF Appointments

  1. #1

    Default BOF Appointments

    It appears that Gov. Walker has reappointed Orville Huntington to the BOF.

    Good deal - Orville seems like a decent dude. Like Ruffner, he is willing to talk to anyone.

    There is a Confirmation Hearing on Friday @ 1:00PM for Ruffner - not sure if Huntington also at that time or not. I believe public testimony will be taken.

  2. #2

    Default

    Agreed. I think Orville has done a good job. Perfect? Who is, but he wants to hear all sides....unlike some members.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Orville's a good guy, and he doesn't forget his constituency, which is bush Alaska. Good call by Walker.

  4. #4

    Default

    Just noticed this article. It's a week old, but interesting.

    http://www.adn.com/article/20150323/...ick-fish-board

  5. #5

    Default

    http://www.adn.com/article/20150331/...oard-fisheries

    Sounds like Mr. Johnstone is still bitter-pants...

    I fail to see why someone from the Peninsula cannot represent the interests of Anchorage sportfishing residents - most of whom travel to the Peninsula to utilize the Personal Use fishery just like Mr. Ruffner.

    I also cannot understand why Mr. Johnstone and Co. are so determined to suppress any voice from the Kenai Peninsula when it comes to fisheries issues, regardless of how knowledgeable or level-headed they may be.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Seems like a retired judge would not have so much trouble interpreting AS 16.05.221(a)

    The appointed members shall be residents of the state and shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence.

  7. #7
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    City of residence should have nothing to do with the qualification of a board member. Residence is a political qualification, not a scientific or management one. Johnstone is just trying to sway people away from ruffner
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  8. #8
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    The former Chair of the BOF publicly going after a new BOF appointee who will replace him, and publicly requesting the legislature not to confirm that new appointee. Using the sole rationale that someone who lives in Anchorage must be on the Board to represent the interests of the largest population base of the state. Not one single word about Ruffner not being qualified, not a single word opposing his appointment on any grounds other than Ruffner does not live in Anchorage.

    I thought I'd heard it all in the politics wrapped around BOF, but this really takes the cake.

  9. #9
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Funny thing to, doesn't johnstone live in lower 48 part of the year?
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    This whole discussion and Karl's position just baffles me and yet it continues in the legislature as I write this. So here is my question and perspective on this.

    Question: Could anyone tell me one Board of Directors for a major corporation or non-profit that uses only a single criteria to pick a Board member?

    My perspective on Boards and Commissions is that Directors are selected based on a number of criteria and a balancing of a Board is done relative to the goals and objectives of the organization. I know of no Board that is selected on a single criteria - whatever it is. In this case there are a number of individuals who feel that a Board member must be a sport fisherman, personal use, commercial or subsistence user. Others feel that they need to come from some sub-section of the State. To me both positions fail the test of selecting a qualified Board members. I would assume that a Board of Fish appointment would want to have some criteria other than where one lives and how one catches a fish.

    Here are a few criteria I would be looking at: 1) ability to listen to all sides of an issue and work toward consensus 2) is knowledgeable about fish/shellfish and fishery management issues statewide 3) has the ability to communicate with the public at their level whatever that may be 4) has integrity and ethical standards which keeps the Board on which one serves operating at high standards 5) is committed to the Board with the time and effort to serve the public interests 6) has the ability to make a decision and defend it with rational arguments 7) is a person who is transparent and open about how they conduct the public business 8) is someone who can take large volumes of information and digest it and sort out the good from the bad 9) has the ability to work with other Boards and Commissions and Agencies that require mutual decision making 10) has some unique or specific knowledge presently not on the Board 11) knows the limitations of their position and does not try to use the position to influence or direct activities over which they are not directly involved 12) has the ability to learn quickly about areas of the State one does not live in and 13) is knowledgeable about the legal framework the Board operates in and is willing to question the legal foundation for any action the Board takes.

    There are other criteria but I think you see my point. Corporations want Board members who meet the above criteria and the State of Alaska should also seek out people with the idea they represent all Alaskans and in order to do that they must be more than a fisherman or live in a specific area. A litmus test that makes those the first criteria is not helping the State of Alaska move into the future.

    I believe Robert Ruffner meets the criteria I have noted. My experience with Robert is that he will work to the good of the citizens of this State and he will put in the time and effort to do it.

    I wish more legislators had Roberts abilities rather than what I am seeing from some of them.

  11. #11

    Default

    http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/201...mation-hearing

    Sounds like there was lots of support for Ruffner, save for a few crazies.

    I've heard from multiple independent sources in Juneau the exact same thing - that KRSA (despite not taking a position publicly) is in Juneau singing the same tune as Johnstone - that this seat should be an Anchorage seat. They are making the rounds to whoever will listen, casting doubt on Mr. Ruffner as a person, and attempting to convince legislators that the only way the Anchorage area can be represented is by someone who lives there (or at least has a house there, as the case were).

    How ironic that a Soldotna-based nonprofit that cannot legally be spending its time lobbying is indeed lobbying (heavily) against the best interests of their community... and all Alaskans.

    I hope people from the Anchorage area write their legislators and tell them not to cave to this crap.

    I'm having a hard time figuring out their strategy... If they successfully block confirmation of a candidate, whomever Walker appoints next would serve a full year on the BOF before facing confirmation if I'm not mistaken. Walker does not seem to be the type of person to lay down for a bully. Do they think he will cave? Do they think he will overract and make a terrible appointment? What's the long game here?

    Regardless of their long game, their current game hurts every single Alaskan. Write your legislators. And, while you're at it, write the IRS and encourage them to enforce the laws regulating conduct of 501C3 charities.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    I have been thinking about this and I would not lump Karl Johnstone with KRSA on this issue. He has spoken for an Anchorage seat but to my knowledge has said nothing negative about Robert Ruffner. In contrast KRSA representatives have and that is a big difference. It is fair to say that if you want to represent the people of the State then one person on the Board of Fish from the largest city in the State is not unreasonable - if you use number of citizens as the criteria. I do not support that philosophy but this debate has played out since the start of this country. I hear all the time two Senators from Alaska with 700,000 people have the same voice as two Senators from the most populous state in the union.

    All this discussion about representation is still around criteria that in my mind should be low on the list. Heck we went through this on the Peninsula with the school board. Use to be KPB wide seats and not they are in districts because some felt that the larger cities were running the show.

    I would just say that KRSA has a right to object to Robert but I wish they would just be honest about it. Not saying in public they have taken no position and then have their representatives meet in back rooms in Juneau and say they object to him. It is costing them. I hear the Soldotna Chamber of Commerce is pulling out of helping them with the Classic this year or next.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    It is fair to say that if you want to represent the people of the State then one person on the Board of Fish from the largest city in the State is not unreasonable
    It's fair to say it, but if one is a retired judge advocating for that approach without mentioning that what one is advocating of an approach that is directly contrary to the constitutional language regarding boards, that's not playing fair. I give KJ zero credit on this one, because he knows better and he knows that a number of people will be swayed by his argument without realizing that he is advocating for the governor to ignore the constitution.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HikerDan View Post
    It's fair to say it, but if one is a retired judge advocating for that approach without mentioning that what one is advocating of an approach that is directly contrary to the constitutional language regarding boards, that's not playing fair. I give KJ zero credit on this one, because he knows better and he knows that a number of people will be swayed by his argument without realizing that he is advocating for the governor to ignore the constitution.
    Hiker Dan, if he is ignoring the constitution (not sure I agree with that position at all but will accept it for the sake of discussion) then every Gov since I have been in the State has ignored it. I have been around a long time and geographical representation has been a major consideration in appointing Board members. Could you cite where the constitution is specific to this topic.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Hiker Dan, if he is ignoring the constitution (not sure I agree with that position at all but will accept it for the sake of discussion) then every Gov since I have been in the State has ignored it. I have been around a long time and geographical representation has been a major consideration in appointing Board members. Could you cite where the constitution is specific to this topic.
    I suspect Hikerdan was referring to Alaska Statutes. I don't believe this was covered in the constitution. Nonetheless, the statute is pretty specific and consistent with Dan's point.

    At best, Johnstone's point is willfully ignorant of what the BOF selection should consist of, as you (Nerka) pointed out previously. Where someone lives within the state is arbitrary to making statewide fisheries regulations for the good of all Alaskans and Alaskan communities. Plenty of people own a homes in both Anchorage and Kenai - who do they represent?

    IMO the notion that the board should have weighted interests (3 sport, 3 commercial, 1 subsistence) is the most offensive and contrary to the statute. It specifically says that these people should have a view to providing diversity of interests. If they can be classified into one narrow viewpoint, they are not fit for service on the BOF.
    AS 16.05.221. Boards of Fisheries and Game.

    (a) For purposes of the conservation and development of the fishery resources of the state, there is created the Board of Fisheries composed of seven members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the field of action of the board, and with a view to providing diversity of interest and points of view in the membership. The appointed members shall be residents of the state and shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence. The commissioner is not a member of the Board of Fisheries, but shall be ex officio secretary.

  16. #16

    Default

    Huntington's confirmation hearing was before House resources this afternoon. Lasted like 5 minutes. Two testimonials in support - Gease and Morisky. His name was forwarded for a full vote.

    I bet most will support his reconfirmation. Sad that KRSA still must put their approval on a candidate in order for his/her confirmation to be considered easy. I hope their influence continues to fade.

    Good luck Mr. Huntington.

  17. #17
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I testified last week for our org in support of Robert Ruffner. Lots of testimony and I only heard one that was negative. Coming up in Sen. Resources later this week, hope to make that one too.

    The only real negative (if one could call it that) I've heard from some other groups on Ruffner is, "well if you want a greenie on the BOF, then he's your man." I had to laugh at that ... we've gotten so far away from what real environmentalism and habitat protections are all about that some consider Robert too "green." Otherwise the other comments I've heard are really based on "we don't know which side he is on," pertaining to sport/commercial/PU. Like I told the Resources Committee in our testimony, "
    While some may want someone with specific ties to a certain user group, commercial or sport fish or personal use fisheries, we feel that Mr. Ruffner canít really be tied to any particular group except the group whose main concern is the health of the resource and the sustainability of our fish stocks. We certainly view that as a positive.​"

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    I testified last week for our org in support of Robert Ruffner. Lots of testimony and I only heard one that was negative. Coming up in Sen. Resources later this week, hope to make that one too.

    The only real negative (if one could call it that) I've heard from some other groups on Ruffner is, "well if you want a greenie on the BOF, then he's your man." I had to laugh at that ... we've gotten so far away from what real environmentalism and habitat protections are all about that some consider Robert too "green." Otherwise the other comments I've heard are really based on "we don't know which side he is on," pertaining to sport/commercial/PU. Like I told the Resources Committee in our testimony, "While some may want someone with specific ties to a certain user group, commercial or sport fish or personal use fisheries, we feel that Mr. Ruffner canít really be tied to any particular group except the group whose main concern is the health of the resource and the sustainability of our fish stocks. We certainly view that as a positive.​"

    Alaska administrative code is consistent with your view:


    5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries (a) The Board of Fisheries (board) and Department of Fish and Game (department) recognize that (1) while, in the aggregate, Alaska's salmon fisheries are healthy and sustainable largely because of abundant pristine habitat and the application of sound, precautionary, conservation management practices, there is a need for a comprehensive policy for the regulation and management of sustainable salmon fisheries;

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    I love it when someone says " he is too green" - Wow. From a resource perspective we have had a terrible environmental record around urban areas and continue to do so. We have fractured agencies in how they approach issues and we have habitat degradation taking place on a fairly significant scale in some areas and all the while lamenting the lack of salmon and pointing fingers at other harvesters. I am wondering just who these people are that are labeling Ruffner as "too green" and what that means. If it is status quo and no change then shame on them. I would take someone who puts fish first over users as our State leaders stated over 50 years ago.

    Mark, good testimony at the hearing. You are right on

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I love it when someone says " he is too green" - Wow. From a resource perspective we have had a terrible environmental record around urban areas and continue to do so. We have fractured agencies in how they approach issues and we have habitat degradation taking place on a fairly significant scale in some areas and all the while lamenting the lack of salmon and pointing fingers at other harvesters. I am wondering just who these people are that are labeling Ruffner as "too green" and what that means. If it is status quo and no change then shame on them. I would take someone who puts fish first over users as our State leaders stated over 50 years ago.

    Mark, good testimony at the hearing. You are right on
    Every agenda can get taken too far. I consider myself environmentally conscientious, however I'm sure that you and I have different ideas about what is environmentally responsible, and what tradeoffs we consider acceptable. Everything, including public access and utilization of a resource, comes at a cost. Just like with competing users and escapement goal / harvest tradeoffs, I want someone who is balanced and fair, and can make decisions that are in the best interests of Alaska. I support both of Walker's appointments for that reason.

Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •