Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/21/2017 05:30 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB44|| HCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
HCR 1-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
5:35:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only order of business
would be CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44(JUD)
"An Act requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or
withholding official action or exerting official influence that
could benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain
employers; requiring a legislator to request to be excused from
voting in an instance where the legislator may have a financial
conflict of interest; and providing for an effective date." and
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing an amendment to the
Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to voting
and abstention from voting.
5:36:39 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, continued the PowerPoint presentation, titled "HB44
and HCR1" from where he left off at the 3:00 p.m. House State
Affairs Standing Committee meeting of 2/21/17. He referred to
the citizen legislatures of New Mexico and Wyoming on slide 18,
titled "Citizens Legislatures," and reviewed their statutory
language as it relates to conflicts of interest. He relayed
that the New Mexico legislature uses "majority consent of the
body" in requiring an abstention from voting and the "general
public" language for determining a conflict. The Wyoming
legislature uses "majority consent of the Rules [& Procedures]
Committee" in requiring an abstention from voting and the
"substantial class" language in determining a conflict.
MR. JOHNSTON moved on to slide 19 showing two more examples of
states with citizen legislatures - South Dakota and Idaho.
South Dakota uses the "majority consent of the body" language
but language other than "substantial class" or "general public."
He said that Idaho is an example of a state with separate rules
for the Senate and House: the Senate uses two-thirds consent
[for abstention from voting], and abstentions in the House are
allowed after the declaration of conflict of interest is made on
the floor.
5:38:52 PM
MR. JOHNSTON referred to slide 20, titled "Current Procedure,"
which shows a flowchart of the current procedures under Alaska
statute. He relayed that under current procedure, if a
legislator believes he/she has a conflict of interest under AS
24.60.030, the legislator stands on the floor, declares the
conflict of interest, and requests to abstain from voting. He
explained that a unanimous consent [of the body] is needed to
allow the legislator to abstain from voting. He said that if
there is no objection, then the legislator abstains from voting;
however, this has never happened in the history of the Alaska
legislature, since the statute was enacted. He added that if an
objection is raised, the legislator is required to vote, and the
objection is not recorded in the journal. He maintained that in
that case, there is no record made of the actual conflict of
interest, only that "X representative" declared a conflict of
interest, there was an objection, and he/she was required to
vote.
MR. JOHNSTON referred to slide 21, titled "Procedure Implemented
by HB 44 & HCR 1," to review a flowchart of the procedures
proposed under CSSSHB 44(JUD) and HCR 1. He related that CSSSHB
44(JUD) would amend AS 24.60.030 to add employer, immediate
family member, and immediate family member's employer. He went
on to say that the legislator would declare a conflict of
interest on the floor, explain the conflict of interest, and ask
to abstain from voting. He relayed that at that point, a
majority consent is required to allow for an abstention from
voting. He said if there is majority consent, then the
legislator can abstain from voting and does not vote. The
allowance of the abstention is recorded in the journal. If
there is not a majority consent, the legislator must vote, and
the vote is recorded in the daily journal.
5:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether if the majority consents,
the legislator must vote.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that if a majority vote was cast to allow
for the abstention, the legislator would not vote.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if other legislatures use majority
vote to disallow a vote, rather than a majority vote to allow a
vote. She asked what the procedures were in municipal
assemblies in Alaska.
MR. JOHNSTON responded that other state legislative bodies use a
method like what is proposed - a legislator makes a motion to
abstain from voting on proposed legislation, and the vote of the
body is on that motion. He related that the statute relating to
municipalities in Alaska describes a process whereby an assembly
member asks the presiding officer if he/she can abstain, and
depending on the decision of the presiding officer, the assembly
can vote to override the presiding officer's decision.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered "if the presiding officer says
'yes, you can abstain,' then it would take a majority to require
that person to vote, and vice versa."
MR. JOHNSTON replied that in his understanding that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP confirmed that the procedure in an assembly
meeting is exactly as Representative LeDoux stated. He
described the procedure in an assembly meeting: an assembly
member declares a conflict of interest; the presiding officer
decides on the validity of the conflict of interest; and at that
point, any member of the assembly can object to the presiding
officer's opinion and ask for a vote of the assembly to overrule
the determination. He added that if the presiding officer rules
that the assembly member has a conflict and a member objects to
his/her ruling, it would be decided by a vote of the full
assembly, excluding the member with the conflict. He said that
if the majority of the assembly votes to override the presiding
officer's ruling, then the member who declared the conflict of
interest would be required to vote. If the majority of the
assembly votes to uphold the presiding officer's ruling, then
the assembly member would abstain from voting.
5:44:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Representative Johnson's
mention of people taking sides on an issue and suggested the
possibility of the system being "gamed." She asked
Representative Knopp's opinion on how the system worked in the
assembly on which he served.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP responded that in the assembly on which he
served, there was no partisanship whatsoever, and it was rare
for members to disagree with the presiding officer's opinion on
a conflict of interest. He added that he is unsure if it would
be an issue with the legislature but expressed his belief that
legislators would vote on the validity of each issue.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if in Representative Knopp's
experience, there was ever an occasion in which the presiding
officer was overruled.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP replied yes, but it was rare.
5:46:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to slide 13, titled "Substantial
Class in Other State's Statute," and asked for information on
the 21 states not included in the breakdown of states in the
slide.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of CSSSHB 44(JUD) and HCR 1, answered that for the
states listed on slide 13, the statutory language for
"substantial class" and "the effect on the general public" was
foundational. He maintained that the remaining states either
used language taken from other states or language that was not
as clearly defined. He offered that there is a breakdown of all
50 states regarding statutory language included in the committee
packet.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS cited Mr. Johnston's earlier testimony
stating none of his contacts with other states revealed a
"gamesmanship" approach to majority consent votes. He expressed
his concern regarding that possibility and asked which states
Mr. Johnston was in contact with about this concern.
MR. JOHNSTON responded that his contact in Wyoming claimed to
have never seen someone use the conflict of interest majority
vote system in a way to prevent a vote. Mr. Johnston pointed
out that New Mexico is a prime example of a citizen legislature
- the legislators receive no salary and only $163 a day for the
session. He maintained that the New Mexico legislators clearly
have outside work and related conflicts. He relayed that he
spoke with the chief clerk and the chair of the Rules [& Order
of Business] Committee, who both maintained that they had never
seen a situation where someone used the conflict of interest
procedures as a mechanism against another legislator; people
take the process seriously and make decisions objectively based
on the facts.
5:49:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that a two-thirds majority or a
three-quarters majority would constitute a more stringent
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that a simple majority was chosen
to be consistent with what is required of municipalities. He
offered that he is open to amending the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that the assembly on which
Representative Knopp served was non-partisan and was smaller
than the legislative bodies. He expressed that in the
legislature, there are many partisan and party line votes, and
Representative Johnson's suggestion has merit. He asked for
confirmation that the introduction of the legislation was not
due to a specific instance but the desire for transparency and
public trust.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN replied Representative Wool is correct. He
said the desire to introduce the legislation was not based on
any previous actions.
5:52:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his belief that there are examples
of the public losing confidence and trust. He offered the
example of an individual working for the oil industry voting on
a bill affecting the oil industry. He suggested that the
proposed legislation would not address that situation.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that under the current statute, there is no
provision for an employer/employee relationship; it is only
about negotiating employment. He maintained that the proposed
legislation does include employer, but the situation would have
to meet the "substantial class" standard. He gave the example
of a legislator working for the Atlantic Richfield Company
(ARCO), who is considering oil legislation that specifically
affects ARCO, either benefiting or harming the company, more
than the rest of the oil industry. He asserted that in that
example, there would be a conflict of interest that would need
to be declared. He asserted that determination of conflict of
interest situations is very fact-driven.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if under CSSSHB 44(JUD), a legislator
working for an oil company would have no conflict of interest
voting on proposed oil tax legislation, if the legislation would
affect the whole class of oil companies.
MR. JOHNSTON answered that there are situations where an
executive of any business would have to declare a conflict of
interest, and because it would go to a vote of the body, the
legislator could make the case for substantial conflict and be
excused or make the case for objectivity in voting. He
maintained that HCR 1 is focused on putting the proceedings on
the record. He stated that the proposed legislation would add
"employer" to AS 24.60.030(e).
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that the intent of the proposed
legislation is not for the legislator to justify his vote but to
declare a conflict of interest to abstain from voting, and the
vote of the body would be on the abstention. He asked if after
a legislator declares a conflict of interest on the floor, there
is additional disclosure and discussion on the potential
conflict.
MR. JOHNSTON responded that the motion for abstention is not
debatable. After the legislator speaks to his/her conflict,
there would be an immediate vote on the motion.
5:58:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if changing the current practice to
make an objection to a motion of abstention more formal would
constitute the necessary improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN expressed his belief that the proposed
legislation focuses on beneficial changes to statutes.
5:59:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that if an individual stood up
and objected, he/she would want to give a reason for the
objection but avoid a debate on the floor with 40 members of the
legislature. He further commented that the proposed legislation
has public support because of perceived conflicts of interest.
He expressed his belief that the conflicts of interest are
[just] perceived, because historically there have been no issues
of conflicts of interest, and legislators are good about
declaring them. He mentioned that he also dislikes the current
process but would prefer that the presiding officer make the
decision and the legislative body decide whether to object to
that decision. He added that he doesn't support all the
proposed statutory changes regarding what constitutes a conflict
of interest. He expressed his concern that the proposed
procedure would be cumbersome and inefficient on the floor of
the legislative bodies.
6:02:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that she appreciates that the
proposed legislation addresses an issue for which the public
wants reassurance.
6:02:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she supports CSSSHB 44(JUD)
and HCR 1.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSSSHB 44(JUD) and HCR 1
will be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR001 ver J 1.20.17.PDF |
HSTA 2/21/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HCR001 Sectional Anaylsis 1.23.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/21/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HCR1 Fiscal Note 2.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/21/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HCR001 Sponsor Statement 1.23.2017.pdf |
HSTA 2/21/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HCR001 Hearing Request 1.23.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/21/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HB044 and HCR001 Power Point Presentation 2.21.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/21/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 44 HCR 1 |
| HB091 Supporting Document APOC Budget 2.21.17.PDF |
HSTA 2/21/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 91 |