So we have an election year before us and what appears could actually be a race for the governor's house. While changes to the BOF process have long been debated and discussed, no better time than just before an election to talk about what should happen. Mr. Walker has stated several times he is open to reforming the process. Mr. Parnell and his cabinet have said so too, however that is about all they've done... Maybe some tough discussion in this election year will spur some forward momentum in reforming the process to help better represent the Alaskan people and weed out some of the dirty dogs. So, given that this process should be public and as such will never be perfect, how do we fix it?
My tops:
- 5 year board cycle. 3 years make no sense. It's a waste of time and money for everyone except those who profit from the process.
- Complete restructuring of the board generated proposal process. While they still may be necessary, some sort of cooling off period or chance for public input is imperative.
- VERY clear rules of order and conduct for all involved. Right now the boldest get the reward. For instance, I was told it was illegal to hand a board member information on paper without it being RD'd (public record), so I did that with everything only to find that other board members were slipping notes and scurrying out to the catered Sportfishing Syndicate war room and penthouse to plan the agenda and strategy. Literally, I asked the state's law rep - there are no rules of order - only "precedence". To me that says "better to ask forgiveness than permission", and that's exactly how it plays out. No more.
- Advisors. This is my alternative to a "professional board". While that may be what we need, from what I saw, simply a couple people (could even be user group reps) with knowledge of the area and the freedom to interact with the board during deliberation would be a great deal of help, seeing as a lay board can't possibly know all the facts of every fishery and the ADFG employees who do have the facts have been ordered not to say anything.
So, what ideas does everyone else have? What I experienced last winter cannot continue if we plan to have sustainable fisheries into the future.
My tops:
- 5 year board cycle. 3 years make no sense. It's a waste of time and money for everyone except those who profit from the process.
- Complete restructuring of the board generated proposal process. While they still may be necessary, some sort of cooling off period or chance for public input is imperative.
- VERY clear rules of order and conduct for all involved. Right now the boldest get the reward. For instance, I was told it was illegal to hand a board member information on paper without it being RD'd (public record), so I did that with everything only to find that other board members were slipping notes and scurrying out to the catered Sportfishing Syndicate war room and penthouse to plan the agenda and strategy. Literally, I asked the state's law rep - there are no rules of order - only "precedence". To me that says "better to ask forgiveness than permission", and that's exactly how it plays out. No more.
- Advisors. This is my alternative to a "professional board". While that may be what we need, from what I saw, simply a couple people (could even be user group reps) with knowledge of the area and the freedom to interact with the board during deliberation would be a great deal of help, seeing as a lay board can't possibly know all the facts of every fishery and the ADFG employees who do have the facts have been ordered not to say anything.
So, what ideas does everyone else have? What I experienced last winter cannot continue if we plan to have sustainable fisheries into the future.
Comment