Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/10/2004 08:55 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 563-LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE & ETHICS GUIDELINES
MS. JANET SEITZ, staff to Representative Norm Rokeberg, told
members that the version of HB 563 that passed the House differs
from version H of SB 397 [companion legislation] in two ways:
· on page 2, lines 15-23, regarding who appoints the
replacements to the disqualified members when there is a
group complaint, the new language says if the disqualified
members are part of the Majority Caucus, then the presiding
officer shall appoint; if they are part of the Minority
Caucus, the Minority Leader shall appoint.
· The second change pertains to the definition of "caucus" on
lines 29 and 30 on page 2. Commas were added to that
sentence so that it reads "'caucus' means a group of
legislators who share a political philosophy, or have a
common goal, and who organize as a group."
CHAIR SEEKINS pointed out that the Minority Caucus leader will
appoint the member from the other house.
MS. SEITZ said that is correct if the disqualified members are
minority members.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that change was made via a floor
amendment.
MS. SEITZ said the change was made with a floor amendment that
was agreed to by Representative Rokeberg. She added that
Representative Rokeberg had offered an amendment to clarify some
language that was discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee
about member versus members and some clean-up language that the
committee wanted to offer. During the floor debate,
Representative Gara and others pointed out that if the
disqualified member is a minority member, the Minority Leader
should appoint a replacement. She explained:
This is when ... the complaint is not filed against an
entire caucus but maybe just the members of that
caucus who serve on the ethics committee are part of
the group the complaint is filed against, then the
first step is to appoint - for example if the House
majority members were disqualified, then the presiding
officer would appoint another member from the House
Majority to sit in on that group complaint. If the
Minority members were disqualified, then it would be
the Minority Leader.
And then the second part goes into it if it's all
members of the caucus, for example all members of the
Majority Caucus so all members of the Majority Caucus
would be disqualified from participating in the ethics
committee in regards to the complaint.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked, "What if the complaint goes against a
coalition of the caucus where part of the members are Majority
and part of the members are Minority? In that case, the Minority
Caucus leader shall appoint the member. To illustrate his point
he talked about the ad hoc fiscal caucus, which had a member
from the minority party. If that caucus violated the ethics act,
the Minority Caucus leader would do the appointing. He said:
I think what we're trying to get to here, if I'm
correct, is that if all the members in one house of
the Majority Caucus are part of the complaint, it's
brought against the entire caucus, then the presiding
officer appoints from the other body who the presiding
officer wants to appoint to be the replacement. If
it's all against the Minority Caucus, and none of the
majority members are involved, then the Minority
Caucus leader gets to do the appointment. Is that what
we're after?
MS. SEITZ affirmed that is what the House was after. She did not
think they envisioned a case where all four legislative members
of either body serving on the ethics committee would be
disqualified.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed. He then added, "If it's caucus A's ox
that's being gored, then caucus A gets to appoint from the other
body. If it's all caucus B's ox that's being gored, then caucus
B gets to appoint replacements from the other body that
represent their caucus. So if that's the intent, and it's very
clear on the record that that's what we're doing, and that was
how the drafters were instructed to draft this then I don't have
a problem with it."
MS. SEITZ affirmed that to be the intent.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked members if that was their interpretation and
there was no dissent from members.
SENATOR THERRIAULT suggested changing the word "members" on line
16 of page 2 to "member".
MS. SEITZ said that would not work because the [ethics]
committee has a member and alternate from each party so for that
provision to kick in, both the member and the alternate have to
be disqualified, otherwise the alternate would serve.
CHAIR SEEKINS responded, "And it strictly ... gives within that
body the opportunity for the majority or the leader of that
caucus to do the appointing of who replaces the disqualified
person. I don't have any objection to that. Do you guys have a
problem with that?"
MS. SEITZ said that change, and the comma change on lines 29 and
30 to clarify the definition of "caucus," are the only changes.
CHAIR SEEKINS took a brief at-ease from 9:05 to 9:09 a.m.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that he would set aside SB 397 from
further consideration so that HB 563 was the vehicle before the
committee. He then took public testimony.
MR. MYRL THOMPSON, representing himself, made the following
statement:
Okay, I haven't totally gone over this newest CS for
the House bill but it's looking to be along the same
lines as the other. I have certain problems with it
as far as the - on page 5 now and the complaint
dismissal part of it. That's still a First Amendment
right to [indisc.] government if we disagree with
these things.
I actually went through and spoke to a number of
people in my neighborhood and then a couple of
associations yesterday and they had no idea that this
bill was even in there but I think that you'd be
pretty interested to know that those folks think that
this is just outrageous. I showed them a copy of the
bill and explained to them - and I also showed them a
copy of testimony. The folks out here just think that
this is crazy that the legislature is trying to write
the rules that the legislature has to go by.
As I said in previous testimony, the best place for
this type of bill to be written, or come out of
anyway, would be the ethics committee because of its
balance. It has five members of the public and two
members from each house. This is a committee of one
where this bill is coming from and it's just not the
best place to address this. You have to have the trust
of the people and respect of the people and that's
written into the code and, by having a fox guard the
henhouse, that's not showing us any respect and it's
certainly not going to get our trust and that's the
most important thing here. I'll let you go with that.
CHAIR SEEKINS said at the last meeting, a comparison was made
between a grand jury investigation and an ethics complaint being
kept confidential while under review. He sees the two as similar
because of the potential for abuse - a mere allegation of an
ethics violation is being made against someone as a political
weapon. The suggestion is that until the ethics committee has a
chance to review it, you don't want to set the committee and
process up as a political tool. He asked Mr. Thompson if he is
suggesting that the grand jury system is going against the will
of the people.
With no further participants, CHAIR SEEKINS closed public
testimony. He agreed with Senator Therriault that the operating
procedures of the legislature are very clear. They are set out
in Mason's Manual and the Uniform Rules. In addition, the
procedures under HB 563 are very public. People can always
suggest additional rules for consideration. He is not aware of
any other governmental body that allows someone else to
prescribe the operating rules for the other body. He said he has
no problem with this bill and he has no problem with the fact
that if people try to use an ethics complaint for political
purposes to harm an individual, they should not be able to do so
by announcing their complaint to the media.
SENATOR OGAN said he had suggested an alternative way to deal
with the issue of confidentiality and while he does not disagree
with what committee members have said, he wanted to state for
the record that he tried hard to get the bill amended in the
other body to allow the ethics committee to assess the
administrative cost of the complaint process against someone who
files a frivolous complaint. He noted that unfortunately, the
debate in the House went into the late hours and additional
amendments could not be considered. He explained that the
amendment would have required a title change, which would kill
the bill at this point in the session. He stated that he does
not object to the bill moving out of committee although he would
have preferred to amend it. He said he would be recommending on
the committee report that the bill be amended.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSHB 563(JUD)am(efdadd) from committee
with individual recommendations.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that with no objection, the bill moved
from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|