Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB368 | |
| HB281 | |
| 1 - KEEPING THE BEVERAGE RECEIPTS || 2 – THE ISSUE OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS | |
| HB366 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
2:33:17 PM HOUSE BILL NO. 281 An Act extending the statute of limitations for the filing of complaints with the Alaska Public Offices Commission involving state election campaigns. MIKE SICA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained that HB 381 will strengthen the oversight of Alaska's ethics laws by allowing watchdog agencies more time to receive complaints and properly investigate alleged violations. The bill would establish an adequate period of time for the retention of records related to complaints. The act would cover the four areas of oversight assigned to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics: · Campaign disclosures (AS 15.13) · Lobbying (AS 24.45) · Legislative financial disclosure (AS 24.60) · Public Official financial disclosure (AS 39.50) Mr. Sica continued, HB 281 creates a standard statute of limitation of five years for complaints filed with APOC and the Select Committee. It codifies a period of six years for the retention of required records. The bill provides an important follow-up to the recent efforts from the Foundation of Trust between Alaskan's and the government. 2:36:45 PM Co-Chair Meyer asked if previously, it had been four years. Mr. Sica replied yes. Co-Chair Meyer asked why the change was proposed. Mr. Sica explained that choosing five years, captures the longest term and twelve of the eighteen months that a legislator is allowed to campaign before being seated. Co-Chair Meyer inquired if legislators then would be required to keep their records for five years. Mr. Sica explained that the provisions in Section 1, sub section (c), clarifies that language and added that the records could be electronically submitted. Co-Chair Meyer noted that most of his own records are not electronically capable. 2:38:43 PM Co-Chair Meyer asked about the requirements for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Mr. Sica pointed out that the IRS recommendations present a sliding scale from between three to seven years. Representative Gara understood that the "thrust of the bill" extends the Statute of Limitations, which he supports. He referenced Section 1 and asked which records would need to be saved. Mr. Sica did not know. 2:40:23 PM CHRIS ELLINGSON, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, explained that the retained records would need to represent all the necessary items each legislator was given as a candidate when undertaking those activities. Representative Gara asked about keeping every beverage receipt. Ms. Ellingson stated that each legislator needs to be able to file a disclosure report and that they must save receipts from fund raising and the expenses associated with that. 2:42:28 PM Ms. Ellingson reiterated that each legislator needs to be able to report the numbers turned in to the agency when filing their disclosure report in case of an investigation. Representative Gara could not believe that would mean, keeping a receipt for every item including beverages. Ms. Ellingson reiterated some type of receipt is required. Representative Gara inquired about the current rules. Ms. Ellingson explained at this time, records must be retained for two years. Co-Chair Meyer wanted to avoid any complication on taxes and asked what the wisest amount of time needed to keep receipts. Ms. Ellingson said that four years should be sufficient. Mr. Sica echoed four years for record retention. Representative Gara advised there are no statutes on the retention of records, noting that AS 111 proposes a new provision and asked if the referenced material was instead a regulation. Ms. Ellingson acknowledged that it is regulation for record-keeping retention. Representative Gara inquired if the records needing to be kept through regulation were the same as those defined in the bill. Ms. Ellingson said yes. 2:44:49 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the language was prospective and could change the Statute of Limitation for record- keeping requirements. Ms. Ellingson commented it would within one year of the effective date and then on or after the effective date indicated in Section 1. Representative Thomas asked the association between the convictions and the reporting of expenses by legislators. Mr. Sica explained since the statewide events, there has been trial testimony and proceedings indicating questionable campaign contributions, beyond the current one year APOC regulations. Co-Chair Chenault asked how many complaints had been filed. Ms. Ellingson thought between fifteen and twenty, which resulted from trial information. She added, the Commission had directed staff to look into those complaints. 2:48:31 PM Representative Gara voiced concern with APOC investigating items older than one year, which criminal law allows APOC to go back five years. He asked if HB 281 allows APOC to go back more than one year. Ms. Ellingson explained that had been written into the applicability and date. She said Representative Gara was correct. Representative Gara reiterated his concerns that the law allows APOC to go five years back to investigate a crime. Ms. Ellingson stated the agency does not provide criminal investigations, only civil. Representative Gara pointed out that an agency cannot file a civil complaint if it is more than a year old, but definitely can be investigated. Representative Gara asked if APOC was investigating claims more than a year old. Ms. Ellingson said yes they were, but they would be unable to issue civil penalties for such issues; they would instead be referred to the Attorney General's Office if appropriate. 2:51:16 PM Representative Gara pointed out additional concern with hidden evidence and asked if APOC had issued a determination on that. Ms. Ellingson responded they had not at this time. JOYCE ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR, SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS, interjected that the Legislative Ethics Act does have a Statute of Limitation that would apply. Representative Gara pointed out that the Ethics Committee is allowed to do that and thought that APOC should also. Ms. Ellingson explained that APOC does not have the same provisions as the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. 2:53:35 PM Representative Thomas referenced survey funding and how to eliminate electorate confusion. Ms. Ellingson said that the statutes that APOC administers have a provision to address such concerns; however, there is no section regarding the polls. She added that is not within the limits of the bill, but should be closely scrutinized. Representative Thomas suggested that an amendment be added requiring all public opinion surveys to indicate who is paying. 2:56:04 PM Ms. Ellingson did not know if that could fit into the bill. Representative Gara offered to work with Representative Thomas. He commented that some people form groups to cover up their name. The language should be written to indicate that if a candidate or party is paying, the information is revealed. JAN DEYOUNG, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LABOR AND STATE AFFAIRS DIVISION, CIVIL SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference, offered to answer questions of the Committee. Representative Hawker asked if lawmakers had the authority to ban the use of polling for the purposes of information used in political campaigns. Ms. DeYoung believed that there may be first amendment questions related to that. Not all polling is done through a candidate or group, the areas where APOC regulates and that there are polls done outside the regulatory scheme of APOC. Representative Hawker wanted to see a broader scope. Ms. DeYoung encouraged examination of the first amendment issues. 3:00:10 PM In response to a query by Representative Gara, Ms. DeYoung pointed out that there is a provision where a poll would not be considered a contribution as long as it was limited to issues not mentioning a candidate. Representative Gara wanted the person for whom the poll was given, to know which group was paying for it and hoped it would indicate the major donors. 3:02:02 PM Representative Hawker added that corporations & unions should be included. Ms. DeYoung responded that to narrow the scope of the provision, the first amendment concerns would be reduced, especially when moving into the areas of regulation comparable to advertisement paid for by disclosure. Representative Gara asked if to add "or business or union" would be acceptable. Ms. DeYoung stated that would move into the appropriate area for an expenditure, which currently a union or corporation already makes; there already are restrictions on campaigns related to those activities. Ms. DeYoung thought that would cause no harm; however, the question remains whether a poll would be an expenditure. Each poll would need to be scrutinized to see if it fell within that prohibition. She requested time to determine the ramifications. Representative Gara did not believe there would be constitutional concerns making someone reveal who paid for a poll. He reiterated that some polls hide behind other group names. He was interested in seeing an amendment to address the concern. 3:05:36 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze requested clarification regarding polls mentioning candidates. Ms. Ellingson thought that Vice-Chair Stoltze was referencing the definition of when something was a contribution. Vice-Chair Stoltze acknowledged polls can be valuable tool. Co-Chair Chenault recommended determining the issue that arises from up-front disclosures. He said he does not support illegal polls. Representative Gara reiterated his concern with polls that undermine the economic interests in the State of Alaska. He maintained that people have the right to know who is behind each poll. 3:09:01 PM Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. Representative Gara OBJECTED. (Copy on File). Co-Chair Meyer explained the amendment would keep the time period consistent to four years on Page 2, Line 2, Line 10, Line 16; Page 3, Line 27, Line 23, Line 27; Page 4, Line 8, Line 15, Line 23, and Line 29. Representative Gara stated that these are two separate issues; · #1 - Keeping the beverage receipts · #2 - The issue of the Statutes of Limitations Representative Gara pointed out that current law indicates five years in the Statutes of Limitations, recommending that be the civil time amount. He noted support for the amount of time needed for keeping records. Co-Chair Meyer understood that a legislator would need to keep their records for five years. Representative Gara stated that the violation is determining if the legislator received an illegal campaign contribution. Representative Hawker did not care how long the time limit is, but recommended that it be consistent. 3:12:34 PM Representative Joule interjected that our current system is not broken. Representative Gara maintained his objection, pointing out that the criminal Statute of Limitations is five years and that the civil should also be five years. Ms. Ellingson advised that APOC has no criminal jurisdiction. Representative Gara refined the statement, explaining that the Department of Law is allowed to go after an APOC violation for five years if it is a criminal violation. Ms. Ellingson did not know if that was true. Ms. DeYoung interjected that AS 15.56.130 is the criminal Statute of Limitation. Representative Hawker requested that the amendment be made consistent with the five year number already in place. 3:15:15 PM Mr. Sica clarified that on Page 4, Section 11, the current section is repealed for the Alaska Election code. Repealing that language would make the State default to AS 12.10.010, the general time limitations for a complaint to APOC. Representative Gara clarified that the five year limit is not a criminal code and if it is a crime under APOC, it would be a civil matter. He reiterated that it be placed at five years. Co-Chair Meyer asked what would constitute a criminal versus a civil crime. Representative Gara explained that if it does rise to the level of a crime, an illegal campaign donation, five years should apply. 3:18:11 PM Ms. DeYoung pointed out that currently, there is a one year criminal Statute of Limitation. The repealler in Section 11, repeals the one year statute, defaulting back to five years. Under HB 281, if it is adopted, there would be a five year criminal Statute of Limitation, which is not the current case. Co-Chair Meyer understood that it could be repealed to four years. Ms. DeYoung advised that in the criminal provision, the repeal has the effect of five years, criminal statute, which would need to be adopted. She requested that the criminal unit of the Department of Law testify on the particulars of how to achieve that. Mr. Sica understood the concern voiced by Representative Gara. A civil complaint could rise to the level of a criminal offense. Co-Chair Meyer agreed it does not make sense. Mr. Sica recommended that keeping records is for a person's own protection. 3:20:32 PM Co-Chair Chenault noted that with Amendment 1 in place, a complaint could be filed anytime within four years. After four years, no complaint could be filed. Mr. Sica said yes, unless the bill is passed as is and the person intentionally intended to violate that point in statute. Co-Chair Chenault questioned the chances of discovering some illegal activity in the fifth year versus the fourth year. Mr. Sica replied that would be about a 20% possibility. He added, Representative Lynn prefers five years. 3:22:10 PM Mr. Sica advised in the past, these type concerns had been addressed through regulation. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW Amendment 1. 3:23:04 PM Co-Chair Chenault questioned the rules that affect advertising with regard to reporting contributors. Ms. Ellingson clarified that reference was to "issue communications" and under the definition in statute, communication either directly or indirectly identifies the candidate or addresses an issue of national, state or local political importance & does not support or oppose a candidate for election to public office. The only requirement is that there is a proper identifier. The statute has three definitions concerning such types of communications: · Issue communication · Electioneering communication · Express communications Co-Chair Chenault wondered if the statute should be amended. 3:27:01 PM HB 281 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|