PDA

View Full Version : F&G Commissioner Charged with Conflict of Interest


Noyo Jim
03-17-2009, 02:36 PM
Sutton downplays conflict in ocean talks

By DANIEL LOPEZ
Herald Staff Writer
Updated: 03/17/2009 01:33:32 AM PDT

Michael Sutton of Monterey says he will take part in decisions about the state Marine Life Protection Act as a member of the state Fish and Game Commission. He dismisses allegations by critics that he has a conflict of interest.
Sutton, 51, who was reappointed to the commission last week for a six-year term by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, says the allegations are an effort by special-interest groups to prevent the marine environmental law from moving forward.

At a commission meeting earlier this month, the panel was presented an anonymous letter and other materials accusing Sutton of having a conflict of interest because he works for the Monterey Bay Aquarium and was previously employed by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

The argument of the author, identified as a "concerned citizen," was that Sutton should recuse himself from commission business concerning the Marine Life Protection Act because the aquarium supports establishing marine protected areas, and the Packard Foundation has given millions of dollars to support the state law through its Resources Legacy Fund Foundation.

Sutton and a deputy director of the commission say his job at the aquarium and his role on the commission aren't in conflict.

But others, primarily sport and commercial fishing interests, say otherwise.

"The aquarium is pushing its agenda on the public through its people," said Jiri Nozicka, a Monterey commercial fisherman and spokesman for People United for American Commercial Fisheries, an industry advocacy group.
Sutton is vice president and founding director of the aquarium's Center for the Future of the Oceans. Before joining the aquarium, he was director of the Packard Foundation's conservation and science program from 1999 to 2004.

"There are no conflicts," he said last week.

The Marine Life Protection Act, passed in 1999, will establish a network of marine protected areas along California's coast. In some zones, fishing is banned, and in others new restrictions on sport and commercial fishing are enforced.

Some fisherman object to marine protected areas because they say they are being driven out of business.

Sutton said that while the aquarium may have a position, he does not necessarily have to share it.

"I'm going to make up my mind based on evidence," he said.

Sutton was first appointed to the commission in 2007 to complete the term of another commissioner.

Adrianna Shea, deputy director of the commission, said the state Attorney General's Office evaluated Sutton at that time and found no conflicts of interest. There is no new information to merit an investigation, she said last week.

Sutton said attorneys for the aquarium evaluated the potential for conflicts of interest before his first appointment.

"We found no reportable conflicts and nothing has changed," he said.

Sutton said his job and his concern about the ocean do not create conflicts for him as a commissioner.

"There is one job, no matter where you are coming from. It doesn't matter what our background is," he said.

Regulations for California's first 29 marine protected areas, located between Pigeon Point on the San Mateo County coast and Point Conception near Santa Barbara, took effect in September 2007.

Other zones, in the planning stages, will be established from Santa Cruz County to Mendocino County, and from Point Conception to the Mexican border.

"Powerful interests in Southern California don't want to see it happen," Sutton said.

ralphthehalibut
03-17-2009, 04:15 PM
I love this: ""Powerful interests in Southern California don't want to see it happen," Sutton said. "



Yeah, and what the corrupt bastard is leaving out is that powerful interests nationwide DO want to see it happen, and that those same powerful interests are paying him to make sure it does happen.


What a total piece of shit.

sciencemike
03-17-2009, 04:18 PM
Nice Post.

I like the part where he said

"I'm going to make up my mind based on evidence," he said.

Funny.

WESTBURY
03-17-2009, 06:16 PM
Jim
Where do you stand on this "conflict of interest"?
I'm curious what you have to say about this.

Kale
03-17-2009, 08:35 PM
I hope anybody that reads this will never spend a cent at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. It's disheartening to see how this whole process is so blatently bought and paid for. The only good thing I can see coming out of it would be conservation zones that allow recreational take.

rojodiablo
03-17-2009, 10:31 PM
I hope anybody that reads this will never spend a cent at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. It's disheartening to see how this whole process is so blatently bought and paid for. The only good thing I can see coming out of it would be conservation zones that allow recreational take.
Once you see hwat those consist of, you aren't going to like them much. Come to the MLPA 101 and find out just how lousy they could be.


So Hewlitt Packard pollutes the enviroment, and the CEO creates a foundation to help cover his tracks through subterfuge. How very thoughtful of him. And, conflict of interest??? Just because someone gives you $123 MILLION dollars in 3 years does not mean you would be beholden to them.:rolleyes: No really. Plenty of people give away a hundred mil just for shits and giggles.;)



Just not to us.:cool:

Noyo Jim
03-18-2009, 11:45 AM
Jim
Where do you stand on this "conflict of interest"?
I'm curious what you have to say about this.

I personally do not believe that Commissioner Sutton is an impartial vote on marine reserves in California. Many fishermen who attend Fish & Game Commission meetings share that view.

At the last Commission meeting in February 2009, Mike Sutton responded to the fishing community's concern about the lack of funding for monitoring, evaluation and enforcement of the MLPA (estimated at $35 million a year.)

He said, "Vern, I hope you are not suggesting that because the state has budgetary problems, we should ban all fishing and hunting in California?"

I thought, "Does this guy not understand that we contribute $50 million annually through our sportfishing license fees alone? What about the $5,000 reward that Sonoma County Abalone Network gives out for information leading to the arrest and conviction of for-profit abalone poachers? What about all the time and money anglers donate to fish hatcheries?" I felt truly insulted by Sutton's glib comment.

Kale
03-18-2009, 06:55 PM
Once you see hwat those consist of, you aren't going to like them much. Come to the MLPA 101 and find out just how lousy they could be.


I would love to come to the mlpa101 meeting and thanks for putting that together. Unfortunately due to distance and work obligations I won't be able to make it. I hear you though, we have a conservation zone that only allows commercial harvest of kelp.

WESTBURY
03-19-2009, 02:09 AM
I personally do not believe that Commissioner Sutton is an impartial vote on marine reserves in California. Many fishermen who attend Fish & Game Commission meetings share that view.

At the last Commission meeting in February 2009, Mike Sutton responded to the fishing community's concern about the lack of funding for monitoring, evaluation and enforcement of the MLPA (estimated at $35 million a year.)

He said, "Vern, I hope you are not suggesting that because the state has budgetary problems, we should ban all fishing and hunting in California?"

I thought, "Does this guy not understand that we contribute $50 million annually through our sportfishing license fees alone? What about the $5,000 reward that Sonoma County Abalone Network gives out for information leading to the arrest and conviction of for-profit abalone poachers? What about all the time and money anglers donate to fish hatcheries?" I felt truly insulted by Sutton's glib comment.


Thanks Jim