Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/22/2018 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
3:32:05 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of House Bill 44 (HB
44). He said the committee will continue with public testimony.
3:32:25 PM
SENATOR EGAN joined the committee meeting.
3:32:46 PM
BARBARA BELKNAP, Advocate, League of Women's Voters, Juneau,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 44. She said transparency in
government is important to the league at all levels. She
asserted that a voting official with a conflict of interest
should not be voting on legislation that will benefit the
official more than the public. She stated that one of
democracy's greatest challenges comes from citizens who no
longer think government represents or cares about them and in
response fails to participate in democracy. She opined that the
erosion of confidence is evident from the declining numbers of
citizens participating in elections. She asserted that part of
restoring confidence is making it clear that legislators do not
use their position for personal gain.
3:34:26 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
He explained that in the previous hearing the committee wrestled
with different conflicts of interest, how to define conflict of
interest, and why is it good for one and maybe not good for
another body. He noted that Senator Giessel brought up a point
in the previous meeting that HB 44 does not change things too
much. It defines what a conflict of interest is with a dollar
amount of anything greater than $10,000. He asked if the member
still votes after declaring a conflict.
3:35:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 44, replied that the $10,000 helps the
definition of an employer. He continued as follows:
It's not in regard to what the benefit might be but
actually just putting it in statute what the
definition of that relationship between an individual
and an employer, what constitutes that relationship. I
think where the conflict comes into play is a
significant benefit, that is the term that is kind of
the key in terms of what might constitute the conflict
for an individual, their spouse or their employer, but
I think that is the main term regarding a potential
conflict, a significant benefit. The bill is what we
are focusing on is obviously the definition of
conflict of interest and when that might arise and why
would someone ask to recuse themselves from voting.
CHAIR MEYER asked if a legislator would still vote if somebody
objects.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN answered yes.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that Representative Grenn's proposal is
similar to what the Legislature currently does.
SENATOR WILSON asked if Legislative Research said that the
Ethics Committee identifies the "significant benefit" dollar
amount as $250.
3:37:16 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, recalled that Jerry Anderson,
[Committee Administrator for the Ethics Committee], said the
$250 amount was for a close economic association, not for a
significant benefit on a legislative matter.
SENATOR WILSON asked if there is a number for a significant
benefit.
MR. JOHNSTON answered no and Representative Grenn's office took
the $10,000 amount to mirror what was already in statute.
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced the definition of financial
interest in section 4 on page 3, line 9, paragraph (17). She
noted it talks about "professional or private relationship" and
asked if that is where the $250 comes in.
MR. JOHNSTON answered that a close economic association for a
professional or private relationship would fall under that
definition. In that situation, $250 would be the amount. He
added that he would clarify that with Jerry Anderson.
CHAIR MEYER asked Representative Grenn if he was involved with
or part sponsor of the initiative that deals with the conflict
of interest and other things.
3:39:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN answered yes. He explained that there is an
initiative that will hopefully be before the voters in November.
He detailed that it deals with five points that are focused on
legislative reform, one of them is regarding conflict of
interest.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the initiative would be removed from the
ballot if HB 44 was passed. He inquired if the initiative is
asking for different things than HB 44. He noted that the
initiative states that a legislator cannot vote while HB 44
states that a legislator can vote if a conflict of interest is
declared.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN explained that the bill addresses the
Legislature's uniform rules regarding the conflict of interest
definition whereas an initiative cannot change uniform rules. He
pointed out that the initiative closely mirrors the bill's
language.
He addressed the question whether the initiative would be
removed from the November ballot if HB 44 passed. He noted that
in previous rulings an initiative is ruled to be removed if the
legislation that becomes law is deemed to be similar to the
initiative. He pointed out that the initiative has many more
parts than conflict of interest.
3:41:53 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if he has spoken to Legal Services to see if
the initiative would be offset if HB 44 passes.
MR. JOHNSTON replied Representative Grenn's office has asked for
a memo from Legal Services.
SENATOR GIESSEL disclosed that the Senate Secretary's Office
verified that for similar conflict-of-interest legislation that
there is a public document recording when a legislator stands up
and states a perceived or possible conflict of interest. She
reiterated that she questioned what HB 44 changes that the
Legislature already does. She noted that section 1 of the bill
addresses a legislator's employer and referenced a related
situation in the House that occurred where an individual served
a jail sentence for a violation. She said she questioned what HB
44 is helping or changing about the Legislature's transparency.
3:44:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN replied as follows:
I believe that that section is in current statute
regarding negotiating for employment, that is our
current definition of where conflict of interests
might rise when there is an actual quid pro quo.
What we are saying is we believe that the bar can be
raised, and an actual conflict is there or even a
perceived conflict, we are trying to remove that
ambiguity of when people can rise. You see sometimes
where people rise to declare conflicts which given our
current definition are not conflicts, but they do so
because they want to be transparent and be open.
What this legislation is hopefully doing is now giving
an actual definition that we can all follow, and we
can point to when we do talk to constituents about us
following the actual statute when conflicts arise or
potentially arise. Our belief is that this puts us in
line with the majority of other states, states that
have dealt with actual corruption and they've
addressed those through conflict of interest in ethics
acts. Fortunately for Alaska I believe that we have
very few acts like that and we have a great integrity
within our body, but the main goal of this, increasing
transparency, increasing trust with the general
public; this would help put into law a standard that
is higher than what we have now and really creates
actually less ambiguity of what conflicts of interest
are.
CHAIR MEYER opined that Representative Grenn's statement is
subject to interpretation.
REPRESENTATATIVE GRENN concurred.
CHAIR MEYER said ethics rules and laws have changed over time
and there is nothing that says they cannot be changed some more.
SENATOR GIESSEL point out that Senator Coghill and Senator Meyer
have seen ethics rules both change and work during their
legislative tenure. She asserted that people on the Senate side
have been diligent in declaring conflicts of interest and noted
that she has stood up when voting on the budget to declare a
conflict of interest because cuts were being made to a
department that her husband worked in. She reiterated that the
Legislature currently follows its ethics rules and is quite
transparent.
3:47:17 PM
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that legislators currently make
financial disclosures on the record that include their families.
He asserted that the bill will now include family members that
may or may not be of real value. He addressed his history in the
Legislature and noted that he has, "Seen more shenanigans with
those kinds of things that real ethical issues brought to
light." He continued as follows:
Those are always a concern when we bring these
transparency things out is its how will they be used
in a political forum, and with you putting an
initiative forward you are pretty well aware of the
politics of that and how you can use both the real law
for real transparency and perceived problems as
political footballs and that has happened a lot down
here.
He said citizen legislators with families are encouraged to
report their financial status with their various family
entanglements. He added as follows:
The fact is, if people elect the legislators, and it
is true that people could game that and probably
aggrandize their family, but that's less likely to
happen because of the transparency we have on
financial reporting issues. I think what you are doing
is you are creating a place for "got you" rather than
real clarity of transparencies; those are the things
that I get concerned about and I've watched how the
media has used that to pick on their favorite people
to pick on and that is an unethical thing in my view
and you haven't been the beneficiary of it, I have
been. So, if you are accused of something in the
newspaper, it's a headline, you might as well be
guilty of a felony in many cases because your
reputation is just taken to the task that much. So,
there's a balance here between the transparency for
clarity or a tool to use people unwisely.
When I read these things, I try to watch for that
balance all of the time and I just don't know that
this hits that balance yet, but I've been quiet a long
time because I've had to think about how the
implementation of this works, it's just not what it
says, it's the implementation. I've been on the Ethics
Committee for a lot of years and I've been in the
Rules Committee, I've been part of the leadership
team, and I've watched how people's whole lives have
been taken to task inappropriately under the guise of
ethics or transparency. I've also seen people misuse
the rules and go to jail. I was here when my party-
guys were going to jail because they put their own
self interest above the others, but the rules that we
had back then were sufficient to put them in jail.
I was part of the group that put a huge change in
because the year after everybody was going to jail, we
probably had 40 bills introduced that year on how we
were going to make it more transparent and
accountable. Max Gruenberg and I got together and said
we can't have 40 bills floating through the
Legislature, so we as a bipartisan effort went to the
leadership and said that; I was the Judiciary chairman
at the time, let us work on them so that we can coral
them into a unit of a code problem, and even at that
we got into a bidding war on the floor, who was going
to be the most transparent, we couldn't help
ourselves, but we put in a code that had a few places
that is tough, but it's a better code than even when
people were going to jail, but the code that we put
into place was a higher bar, but the code that we had
in place was sufficient for those that were gaming the
system.
What we did do was we put into place some transparency
rules, but we also had to put confidentiality in there
because it became really apparent that it became a
whipping tool rather than an accountability tool. We
had to endure two or three years of misuse of the
press of people who were sterling characters but had
been charged just because of a technical or a
grammatical or some other error and they got charged
with being unethical when in reality it was not an
unethical thing, it was just a methodology thing. So,
those kinds of things do happen here, and they went
through a whole new cycle.
So, those are the kinds of things I watch what we are
doing here, now we are asking we are going involve our
immediate family, then what you are going to do is you
are going to create the questions upon if you forgot
something, and it was your third cousin; but, I can
tell you then they just go the next step beyond and
say well it was your third cousin, it was an
immediate. The trouble is in Alaska, we are a small
community and we have business dealings very broadly
and quite deeply quite often in communities. Now that
you are including the family in it it's a new wrinkle
and I've been thinking how that works, I can't say
that I've arrived at a good conclusion yet, but in
looking through this I've tried to take it
thoughtfully, but you just needed the benefit of some
of the history of how these things have both been well
used and poorly used.
3:53:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN commented that he takes no offense by
benefitting from Senator Coghill's and the committee's knowledge
related to the bill. He said he brings a new prospective. He
asserted that his constituents want something different than
what is currently in statute and that is the reason for his
passion for different reforms in the Legislature.
He referenced the family aspect and financial disclosures that
Senator Coghill noted and explained that the bill puts more in a
public forum that is not hidden on a website that is hard to
navigate. He asserted that the bill allows legislators to find
ways to add transparency and trust, especially when legislators
are away from their constituency during the session.
He disclosed that the definition used for "family" and
"employer" is used in 29 other states. He noted that some states
bar legislators from voting without a vote or objection when
there is a conflict of interest.
He said different states do it different ways, but his intent
was to define ways to keep the conversation going, especially
with the public when legislators are talking about transparency
and trust.
3:56:21 PM
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that Representative Grenn is a
legislator who has chosen to go into a "public manner" and that
becomes a political campaign over against a substantive
campaign. He said he would have been more open to the discussion
if someone had not said, "The Legislature isn't transparent
therefore we need to do this." He asserted that Representative
Grenn cannot have it both ways and said the representative was
going to have a struggle with him on the bill.
SENATOR WILSON asked if there is a timeline when conflicts must
be known. He noted scenarios where a legislator may not be aware
of transactions from close economic associations, especially
when voting.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN replied that he is not aware of a
retroactive rule when a legislator votes when not being aware of
a conflict. He noted that there is an ethics committee to confer
with if something comes up afterwards.
3:59:17 PM
SENATOR WILSON pointed out that the bill would make
nondisclosure a statute violation versus an ethical disclosure
act violation which may have a higher level of consequence as a
legislator versus an unknown error.
MR. JOHNSTON replied as follows:
Since this statute is under AS 24.60.030, which is the
legislative ethics, the same kinds of rulings the
ethics committee can do now also are the same under
this bill. So, it would be the same kind of
consequences that the ethics committee could decide.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the bill does the following:
• Does not bar a legislator from voting.
• Legislator must declare a conflict of interest and ask to
be excused.
• Legislator must vote if another legislator objects.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER said in that case he does not know that the bill is
too much different from what the Legislature currently does. He
noted that the next committee of referral is the Senate
Judiciary Committee. He said before the bill leaves committee he
would like to see the legal analysis if there is enough to
offset it from being on the ballot. He concurred with Senator
Coghill that, "Once you do an initiative then it becomes part of
the political campaign."
SENATOR GIESSEL inquired if offering a bill at the same time as
offering a ballot initiative is an ethical violation. She added
as follows:
It's an interesting question because it could be
viewed that way, depending kind of like beauty is in
the eye of the beholder, ethics conflicts could be in
the eye of the interpreter as well.
CHAIR MEYER said Senator Giessel brought up a good point and
that is why the topic is difficult to bring up. He summarized as
follows:
The bottom line is it is up to the voters to decide if
we are ethical or not ethical and whether they want us
to represent them or not represent them, but I
appreciate you bringing this forward and we will look
forward to the legal analysis.
4:02:30 PM
CHAIR MEYER held HB 44 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB 130 Version J.pdf |
SSTA 2/22/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Ltr from Div of Elections.pdf |
SSTA 2/22/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |