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 |
1:47:10 PM HOUSE BILL NO. 368 An Act modifying the limitations on political fund raising during legislative sessions by candidates for governor or for lieutenant governor, and amending the Legislative Ethics Act to modify the limitation on political fund raising by legislators and legislative employees during legislative sessions, to allow legislators and legislative employees to accept certain gifts from lobbyists within their immediate families, to clarify the Legislative Ethics Act as it relates to legislative volunteers and educational trainees, to reduce the frequency of publication of summaries by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, to revise procedures and penalties related to the late filing of disclosures required by the Legislative Ethics Act, and to add a definition to that Act. MIKE SICA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, introduced the legislation & Ms. Joyce Anderson from the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. JOYCE ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR, SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS, advised that the State Ethics Committee had recommended and requested that the House State Affairs Committee bring the bill forward. The legislation contains recommendations by the Committee & provides a clean-up measure from HB 109, the major ethics bill last year. · Section 1 Section 1 addresses campaigning while in a municipality where the session is being convened, presently, stating the "capital city". She noted that following discussion, the Ethics Committee determined that there should be no campaigning in the place where the legislative session is being held. 1:49:10 PM Co-Chair Chenault addressed the issue of whether campaigning comes into play within 90-days of a special session or only the primary general election. Ms. Anderson explained during a regular session, legislators are prohibited from campaigning and that 90-days of a primary election, becomes the start point for the 90-days. Within that period, legislators are allowed to send solicitation letters & hold fund raisers but not the legislators living in the municipality, where special session is to be held. Co-Chair Chenault asked if any legislator would be allowed to have a fund raiser while in the capital city. Ms. Anderson said yes as long as it is not convened in the place of that session. 1:51:29 PM · Section 2 Ms. Anderson explained that Section 2 addresses the gift statute, which the Select Committee recommends to be relaxed. Last year a section was inserted, prohibiting any gifts from lobbyists unless it fits into certain exceptions. She pointed out that statute affects some spouses of lobbyists. The language proposed in Section 2 provides clean-up language allowing gift exchange for that class of employee. She pointed out that legislators are not allowed to have spouses that are registered lobbyists. Ms. Anderson continued, language was added to Page 2, Line 30, "a contribution to a charity event", attempting to place all exceptions regarding lobbyists into one area. Additional language was added to (d) & (e) from other parts of statute, loosening gift restrictions from lobbyists, placing all other restrictions into that section as well. 1:53:37 PM Representative Joule referenced Section 1, reiterating concerns about fundraising in the capital city. Ms. Anderson stressed that would not be okay. Representative Joule stressed that the three legislators from Juneau would not have a level playing field with other legislators. Ms. Anderson agreed. Representative Nelson commented that is a disservice to those constituents. Ms. Anderson referenced the campaign year which three special sessions happened in which many concerns were voiced by the Juneau legislators, who were unable to campaign during those sessions. It was an issue. Representative Nelson worried that the proposed special session could last up to 60-days, reiterating the challenges to the local legislators in the area. Ms. Anderson clarified that only those covered by the Legislative Ethics Acts would be prohibited from campaigning. Representative Nelson inquired if the sponsor was amenable to amending that language. Mr. Sica requested that Ms. Anderson explain the intent of that section. Ms. Anderson stated that the intent was to prohibit fund raising, preventing the appearance of impropriety. She did not know a "good amendment" to address the concern but acknowledged the unfair playing field. Co-Chair Meyer agreed with the need level the playing field, however, worried about fund raising activities. Representative Nelson mentioned what could happen when special sessions occur in other cities; she asked if it would apply to Anchorage legislators when it happens there. Ms. Anderson restated that nothing can occur in any borough of the place where the session is being held. 1:57:59 PM Representative Joule interjected that the issue is short sighted. Co-Chair Chenault directed comments regarding "any" municipality and asked if Juneau legislators could campaign and fund raise in Douglas. Ms. Anderson read the definition of municipality: "A political subdivision incorporated under the laws of the State that is a home rule or general law city, a home rule or general law borough, or a unified municipality". Representative Thomas recommended considering an amendment that if the Legislature called themselves into special session, then any legislator would not be able to raise money; however, if the Governor called the special session, it would be difficult. He pointed out that most special session issues are related to oil. Ms. Anderson commented on past legislation, which provides an exemption for Juneau legislators. Representative Thomas recommended language specific to the location of the special session. 2:01:52 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out that the Juneau legislators have not requested the addition of changed language to the current ethic standards. 2:04:07 PM Representative Crawford echoed the sentiments expressed by Representative Joule and recommended that an exemption be made for local legislators. Co-Chair Meyer encouraged Ms. Anderson to provide the appropriate language for an amendment. Mr. Sica pointed out that Representative Lynn was carrying the bill on behalf of the House State Affairs Committee (HSA) and that the Legislative Ethics Committee would do whatever is advised by them. 2:05:29 PM Representative Gara emphasized that having a rule in place which limits three of the sixty legislators is "not the right thing to do", maintaining that what happens during special session should apply to all legislators. The rules should be the same for everyone. Co-Chair Meyer questioned if it was okay to make campaign phone calls from a hotel room. Ms. Anderson explained the legislator is prohibited from raising funds during a regular session; however, during a special session, a legislator can campaign as long as it is not in the place of the capital city. The treasurer of each campaign would still be able to make the phone calls or send out a fund raising solicitation letter. Vice-Chair Stoltze recommended the query be addressed by the Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) rather than the Legislative Ethics Committee. Ms. Anderson responded that the ethics code covers legislators with regard to campaigning and APOC covers the filing of campaign reports. 2:09:33 PM Representative Gara agreed with Co-Chair Meyer regarding telephone calls, however, maintained that the playing field would not be level and that the capital city legislators would not be able to leave on the weekends to undertake their campaigning. Co-Chair Meyer agreed it is a gray area. Co-Chair Chenault realized that the bill is complex and has unintended consequences from the one passed last year. He mentioned the APOC disclosure issues. He noted concerns brought forward from his district regarding recording requirements, an issue which could over-step legislative bounds. He agreed that ethics concerns should be tightened. 2:12:11 PM Ms. Anderson continued: · Section 3 Ms. Anderson stated there was no change in Section 3, except that it splits the statute. The split language was moved into the next section. · Section 4 Ms. Anderson stated that Section 4 restructures language for the Act as it relates to legislative volunteers and trainees. · Section 5 Ms. Anderson pointed out that currently in statute, the Committee is supposed to publish semiannual summaries of complaint & advisory decisions. To date that has not been happening. The Committee recommends that requirement be changed to only annual reports, corresponding with current procedures. There is a procedure in place guaranteeing that the information does get out. The publication is a booklet assembled by the Committee and provided to the House Clerk & Senate Secretary. · Section 6 Ms. Anderson noted that Section 6 speaks to the fine structure. At present time, there are two fine; the first, $25 dollars for the inadvertent late filing of an ethics disclosure & the second, a $2 dollar a day fine for a maximum of up to $100 dollars. The Committee has recommended a third fine structure for willful late fees in the amount of $100 dollars per day, not exceeding a maximum of $2,500 dollars. 2:15:41 PM PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED 2:16:07 PM Co-Chair Meyer referenced Section 1, proposing amendments to address the legislators affected by the area of where special sessions are held. He requested that Ms. Anderson provide the research on that concern. Representative Gara emphasized that the language should be worded to cover only special session and not regular session and maintained that no legislator should fund raise during regular session. He asked about a wedding that happened for a staff person and if gifts less than $250 dollars should be reported. Ms. Anderson responded that a person is allowed to receive a gift up to $250 dollars, given their connection to legislative status. If not connected to that, such as a wedding, the gift could exceed the $250 dollar amount. If a group of individuals got together to purchase a gift and the value of that gift exceeded $250 dollars, it would be okay. 2:18:59 PM Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 25-LS1326\V.1, Wayne, 3/28/08. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Co-Chair Chenault explained that the amendment would prohibit members of the Select Committee from being able to file complaints. He stated that members from either the Ethics Committee or APOC should not be able to file a complaint on the complaint. Co-Chair Meyer asked the number of members that serve on the Ethics Committee. Ms. Anderson replied that two from the House and two from the Senate, one minority and one from a bi-partisan working group serve on the Committee. Representative Gara asked if at this time, a member files a complaint, would they then be exempt from making a decision on that complaint. Ms. Anderson explained that the Ethics Committee would file the complaint on behalf of the Committee; individuals do not file complaints. She did not understand the amendment. Representative Gara advised that the language of the amendment would prohibit the Committee from filing a complaint, which he thought was contrary to the purpose of APOC. There are essentially two types of complaints, the first filed by a "watch-dog" committee. The amendment could make the two committees close to "toothless". 2:22:38 PM Co-Chair Chenault countered that under the amendment, staff of either committee could still file a complaint. Co-Chair Meyer asked if a member finds a violation, could another legislator bring it forward. Co-Chair Chenault understood that currently that could happen. Under the amendment, a member of the Committee would not be able to file a complaint but their staff member could. 2:23:50 PM Representative Gara referenced Section 2, pointing out that in current law, the Committee can initiate a complaint, while the amendment states the opposite. Co-Chair Chenault stated that the correct wording was "or take other appropriate action". Ms. Anderson interjected that Section 2 only refers to the State benefit and loan program. She agreed with Representative Gara that removing that language, if the Committee determines unfair and improper influence, the matter would be referred to the Attorney General's office. The other appropriate action would be the Committee initiating a complaint. Ms. Anderson referenced that under Section 8, regarding a complaint initiated by anyone other than the Committee and pointed out that in the past couple years, fewer complaints had been filed by the public than in the past, perhaps because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the federal government's involvement in some of the current statewide issues. The Ethics Committee has initiated some complaints in the past year. Ms. Anderson thought to not allow the Committee to file complaints, could tie their hands. The way the statute reads, if proven true, there could be a violation. 2:29:26 PM Co-Chair Chenault commented that if the Committee has the ability to recommend and also be the "judge and jury" of that complaint, the result could be troublesome. He recommended reviewing the amendment for the next meeting. Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW Amendment 1. 2:30:33 PM Representative Gara stated that he opposes Section 8 as currently written, which stipulates that the committee or APOC can not initiate a complaint. He agreed to language indicating that if a member of that committee initiates the proceeding, then the person should not be part of deciding that case. Co-Chair Chenault stated he proposed the amendment because it is the correct action to take. 2:31:39 PM Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, Page 5, Line 3 & Line 5, deleting "willful" and inserting "willful". Co- Chair Chenault OBJECTED. Co-Chair Meyer explained that Amendment 2 would correct a typo. Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out that either spelling was correct. Ms. Anderson noted that in the rest of the Statute, it is spelled with two "l's". 2:32:51 PM HB 368 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|