Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
05/03/2007 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB225 | |
| HB237 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 237-REMOVING A REGENT 2:20:05 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 237, "An Act authorizing the governor to remove or suspend a member of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska for good cause; establishing a procedure for the removal or suspension of a regent; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR RAMRAS commented that the problem of removing a regent seems to have cured itself; nevertheless the committee must still respond to HB 237. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as the chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 237, said that although some of the immediate problem has been resolved, this might occur again. He said that if the governor appoints an individual to a position, the governor should be allowed to remove or suspend that individual for good cause. The bill will look out for the university system, which includes the students and all of Alaska. 2:23:02 PM CHAIR RAMRAS asked the sponsors whether the university supports HB 237. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he was not sure, nor was he sure that it was totally relevant. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the committee packet includes an unsigned document from Pete Kelly, (former senator and representative from Fairbanks) which Representative Gruenberg referred to as a bill authorizing removal of regents by the governor. The University Board of Regents is not taking a position, and the University of Alaska has not taken an official position, he relayed. 2:24:56 PM MICHAEL BARNHILL, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs, Department of Law (DOL), relayed that the administration and the DOL support HB 237. He offered to discuss each of the provisions and answer any questions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has spoken with John Bitney, Legislative Liaison, and Governor Palin, who both support the bill. MR. BARNHILL explained the bill creates two due process procedures. First, the governor may remove a regent for good cause. Second, the governor may suspend a regent under certain circumstances. Section 1 of HB 237 discusses legislative findings and purposes, among which is a finding that the framers of the constitution intended to insulate the university from politics. However, it did not intend to immunize the university from nonpolitical and appropriate legislative and executive branch oversight. Section 1 also finds the legislature has delegated the Board of Regents the power of self regulation, but the Board of Regents has not adopted a bylaw that provides for the removal of a regent. The legislature has the power to create a procedure under which the governor may remove a regent for good cause, or suspend a regent under appropriate circumstances. MR. BARNHILL continued the review of the bill. He explained that page 2, lines 6-14, set forth purposes to clarify that the governor may not remove a regent without good cause. The bill prescribes the due process procedure under which the governor may remove a regent for good cause, suspend a regent in certain circumstances, and accomplish each of these purposes while continuing to insulate the University of Alaska and the Board of Regents from politics. Section 2 sets forth the removal and the suspension procedures. MR. BARNHILL first described the removal procedure, as set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of Section 2. The governor can remove a regent for good cause by providing the regent a copy of the allegations with an opportunity for a hearing. The hearing date must be given with at least 10 days notice. After the hearing, a record of the proceedings must be submitted to the lieutenant governor. Good cause is defined in subsection (g), page 3, lines 11-27. There are a variety of types of good cause, including a violation of the executive branch ethics act; a conviction of a felony; a conviction of certain types of misdemeanors, including dishonesty, or breach of trust; or a misdemeanor involving the University of Alaska. This could include nonfeasance in office, misconduct, inability to serve, neglect of duty and confidence, unjustified failure to perform duties, and failure to meet the requirements of service as a regent, essentially citizenship of the United States and residency in Alaska. MR. BARNHILL next described the suspension procedure. The governor may suspend a regent in the following circumstances: a felony indictment; or a misdemeanor charge involving a crime of dishonesty, or breach of trust, of the University of Alaska; or allegations of non-feasance in office. CHAIR RAMRAS asked if a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction would be included. 2:30:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded if this were a misdemeanor DUI, it would not fall under the misdemeanors as outlined. If the misdemeanor DUI occurred on University of Alaska property, this may be reviewed differently. If there is a felony DUI, that could be cause to suspend or remove, he said. MR. BARNHILL closed with a reminder that the regent is afforded the opportunity for a hearing both before and after the suspension. The governor may delegate the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing, but the final decision is made by the governor. 2:32:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted, for the record, that the bill is crafted such that if the governor wants to remove the regent, the regent can also request a hearing. This will specifically authorize the Office of Administrative Hearings and a professional administrative law judge to conduct the hearing, provide the decision, and have this reviewed by the governor. As with any other administrative hearing, it would be subject to appeal through the superior court and the supreme court. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that Representative Coghill had some questions before he left. MR. BARNHILL responded he was aware of this and although he had not spoken directly with Representative Coghill, he did leave a message with Representative Coghill's office. 2:33:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that Representative Coghill had concerns regarding page 3, line 12, which contains some technical violations of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Representative Coghill was concerned that a regent could be removed for violating a technical provision of this act. MR. BARNHILL replied there had been a similar discussion in House State Affairs Standing Committee. It was agreed during this prior discussion that the governor "may" remove a regent, but it is not mandatory. Mr. Barnhill offered his belief that there would need to be an egregious violation of any of the provisions before the governor would take the unprecedented step of removing a regent. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added that Representative Coghill expressed the need for better definitions for each of the charges of misconduct, neglect of duty, and incompetence, as they are vague. He recalled that Representative Coghill also asked whether there was a model for this bill, or was the whole clause drafted. MR. BARNHILL reported that the original version of this bill was based on an already established procedure for the removal of commission members from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission. The committee desired to draft a procedure with which the people and the courts were already familiar with, he said. 2:36:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification of the terms misconduct in office, neglect of duty, and incompetence. MR. BARNHILL replied that these are all common terms in removal statutes. He related his confidence there were cases that interpreted the meaning for each of these terms. He reiterated his belief it would be unlikely for a governor to employ this basis for removal unless the grounds showed egregious conduct. 2:37:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked why the Board of Regents had chosen not to vote on this and put it in its bylaws. MR. BARNHILL responded he did not believe the Board of Regents had expressed a view as to whether this bill was necessary. He referred to page 1, lines 12-14, of the bill, which illustrates there is a statute already on the books, AS 14.40.170(b)(1). The aforementioned statute authorizes the Board of Regents to regulate and formulate policy both for the governance of the University and the Board of Regents. Under that statutory authority, the Board of Regents could provide a procedure for removing regents, but the board has not done so. He suggested that as this issue is unprecedented, the regents never thought they would have to address such a situation. 2:39:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referring to page 2, line 19, asked Mr. Barnhill to clarify who would chair the hearing. MR. BARNHILL replied that on page 3, lines 9-10, the governor is authorized to delegate who conducts the hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings, but that is discretionary. This provides the governor the opportunity to set up the hearing before a neutral and objective decision maker, to avoid any appearance of political interference. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to how the hearing would be held, should the governor chose not to delegate the hearing. MR. BARNHILL replied the governor may conduct the hearing himself/herself, or appoint a hearing officer. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Barnhill had spoken with Mary Hughes, Chair of the University of Alaska Board of Regents. MR. BARNHILL offered that when he'd spoken with Ms. Hughes, she indicated to him it was the policy of the Board of Regents to not take a position on any pending legislation. However, she did express the need to know if DOL views the bill as constitutional. Mr. Barnhill advised her that it is constitutional. He added that this is not to say that there could not be constitutional concerns brought up with respect to the bill, and in that case, ultimately a court would decide. 2:42:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned why not just leave it to the regents since there is a provision that allows the regents to put a procedure in place. MR. BARNHILL characterized it as a policy question. This bill would create a check and balance on the University of Alaska. If the Board of Regents don't take action in an egregious circumstance or doesn't have the necessary authority at the time of the circumstance, HB 237 would allow appropriate action to be taken. 2:44:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how many times regents have retired or resigned in the middle of a term. 2:45:22 PM NANCY MANLY, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, in response to Representative Samuels, said she didn't know whether any members of the board had resigned in mid term. She then related that she had spoken with Mary Hughes, Chair of the Board of Regents. Ms. Hughes said the board was not taking a position on the bill and would prefer not to testify. 2:46:29 PM CHAIR RAMRAS offered his personal feelings that he would like to see this regent affair go away. He questioned whether this unusual situation should continue to perpetuate through unique legislation, which he felt was probably not relevant for decades to come. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS questioned whether this legislation would add a layer of politics and negate the entire point of having a Board of Regents. With this legislation, a governor could have a hearing on an issue that might be political in nature. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS continued by explaining he felt the entire point of having a Board of Regents is to insulate the university. This legislation was proposing to reel the board back into the political arena. It allowed the governor to have a hearing if a regent does something a governor doesn't like. For example, a regent could have a fundraiser for the wrong person, and it could create a witch hunt atmosphere. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his belief the legislation succinctly lists those things that would provide cause for suspension and removal. It was too big a stretch to believe this would get into partisan politics, he opined. 2:50:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 237(STA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 2:50:44 PM CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion. He felt it perpetuated a bad chapter in the history of the State of Alaska and the history of the university. It involved someone he has known for 20 years, and he said he "would like to leave the family a little bit of privacy, and what little dignity they are entitled to, until they go before a court of law and are adjudicated." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the bill would provide a set of good cause for any body like the Board of Regents so it was insulated from politics while also providing known standards. The review would be before an administrative law judge, professionally, and it would insulate the possibility of a witch hunt. Currently, there are no standards. To leave it with the regents may make it really political, as there are no standards. Furthermore, it would put them in the difficult position of removing one of their own. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed, given the length to which the constitution went to insulate the university from politics, it would be best to first see if the regents would put some procedures in place. She said she would like to hold off on this bill, as the issue is very rare, until the regents decide. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed the hope that [with introduction and hearing of the bill] the regents will get the message, and thus the bill will act as an impetus to do something. 2:53:40 PM CHAIR RAMRAS commented that he did not see a need to perpetuate this situation, as the Hayes family has a long way to go in their journey, as well. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN responded this is not about any particular family or individual who is not guilty of anything at this point. This is about being prepared for future events, drawing bright lines and standards for very specific reasons. It is not political or vindictive. It is a bill whose time has come. "Be Prepared" as the Boy Scouts say, he remarked. 2:54:16 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Holmes, and Gruenberg voted in favor of reporting CSHB 237(STA) from of committee. Representatives Ramras, Samuels, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 237(STA) failed to move from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|