Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
02/01/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB286 | |
| HB281 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 281 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS 2:26:40 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 281(STA).] 2:27:48 PM MIKE SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, said on behalf of Representative Lynn, one of the bill's joint prime sponsors, that HB 281 basically does two things. It increases the statute of limitations, from one and two years to five years, for filing a complaint with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and establishes a period of six years for the retention of records related to such complaints. The bill also contains several conforming changes. The goal is to create a uniform standard for time limits and the retention of records under four of the provisions of statute that are overseen by the APOC and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics: AS 15.13 pertaining to state election campaigns; AS 24.45 pertaining to regulation of lobbying; AS 24.60 pertaining to standards of conduct for the legislative branch; and AS 39.50 pertaining to public official financial disclosure. MR. SICA said that in 2003, the aforementioned statute of limitations [for filing a complaint with the APOC] was changed from four years to one year, but problems have since arisen because of that shorter statute of limitations in that certain alleged violations cannot now be investigated; the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics currently has a two-year statute of limitations but no statute of limitations in instances of intentional prevention of discovery. Again, the bill would increase the statute of limitations for filing a complaint, with either the APOC or the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, to five years. Referring to the change requiring that records be retained for six years, he observed that this proposed change makes sense if the statute of limitations is changed to five years because then the records associated with any complaint filed within that timeframe will still be available to the investigating authority. MR. SICA offered assurance that both agencies will still have the same speedy adjudication process in place; for example, once the APOC begins investigating a complaint, statute requires that that investigation be concluded in 60 days. The statute of limitations in some other states ranges from one year to five years, Georgia has a three-year statute of limitations for two- year terms and a five-year statute of limitations for four-year terms, some states have no statute of limitations, some states have an "intentional prevention of discovery" clause, and some states have a combination of the aforementioned. MR. SICA noted that in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, an amendment was adopted that would change current law with regard to who can file a complaint. Currently, under almost all the aforementioned provisions, any person can file a complaint, and the term "person", as statutorily defined, covers everyone from a natural person to an organization or a political party. He relayed that Brooke Miles from the APOC has told him that in fact most of the complaints filed with the APOC come from political parties during election time; "they do a wonderful job of keeping each other in line," he added. Mr. Sica relayed that Representative Lynn feels that allowing political parties, rather than just individual candidates, to file complaints depersonalizes and depoliticizes the complaint process, thus alleviating what could otherwise turn out to be a nasty feud between candidates. MR. SICA added that that's how the process has worked in the past, and that [Representative Lynn] would like this committee to revisit that issue because he feels that the process should be based on the merits of the complaint rather than on the qualifications of the person filing the complaint. House Bill 281 addresses a [potential] loophole, and increasing the statute of limitations will be a step forward, particularly if it doesn't limit legitimate complaints. 2:33:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as a joint prime sponsor of HB 281, relayed that he has had two complaints filed against him during election seasons, and both were dismissed after the elections were over. It's fairly easy to file a complaint on a person, he noted, adding that the newspapers received word of the second complaint before he did; therefore he takes a strong interest in who can file a complaint, how a complaint is heard, and how one recovers from a complaint being filed. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that Section 1 would change AS 15.13.040(f) to read: All businesses, persons, or groups that furnish any of the following services, facilities, or supplies to a candidate or group shall maintain a record of each transaction for a period of six years from the date of the election: newspapers, radio, television, advertising, advertising agency services, accounting, billboards, printing, secretarial, public opinion polls, or research and professional campaign consultation or management, media production or preparation, or computer services. Records of provision of services, facilities, or supplies shall be available for inspection by the commission. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that any company he hires to do a print job for him, for example, isn't going to know that it will be required to keep records of that transaction for six years. Referring to Section 2, he indicated that once he leaves the state legislature, he won't be inclined to keep for six years any records related to his term of office, though he acknowledged that he could probably just put all his records in a box and hope he doesn't lose it during any subsequent moves. He asked whether other states require that records be kept for six years. MR. SICA mentioned that that provision falls under the purview of the APOC, and offered his understanding that current law is silent on the issue of how long records must be retained. 2:37:57 PM BROOKE MILES, Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), said that although a provider of services may include a small print shop, the provision is meant to apply to "the bigger people" such as campaign managers, media providers and producers, and poll providers and producers. She clarified that currently such entities are required to keep such records for a year, and noted that the APOC has heard a lot of comments from the public regarding the APOC's current one-year statute of limitations. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, referring to Section 1, relayed that she'd hired a campaign manager who worked for her for only eight weeks, and asked whether under the bill that individual would have to keep all records related to that work for six years. MS. MILES said that in that type of situation, the APOC would expect the candidate to keep such records, since the employee would have merely had a contractual agreement to work for the candidate. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he agrees with that intent, but pointed out that that's not what the bill says. MS. MILES noted that the language regarding who is required to keep such records is already part of existing statute, and all that's being changed via Section 1 is the length of time records must be kept. She acknowledged that Section 1 could be crafted more carefully, and pointed out that she is only relaying how the APOC staff has used this provision as an enforcement tool. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to Section 2, and offered his understanding that unless an entity is required to report to the APOC, that entity won't be required to preserve records. Concurring with Ms. Miles's statement that it would be the [candidate] who is required to maintain the records, since it is the candidate who is required to report to the APOC, he asked whether the language of Section 2 would alleviate members' concerns regarding Section 1. MS. MILES said that Section 2 - which is proposing to insert a new section of statute - addresses "the filer's" retention of records, and pertains to candidates, political parties, political action committees (PACs), and groups supporting or opposing ballot measures including individuals who must file reports as a result of having participated in independent expenditures. Section 1, in comparison, requires providers of services to retain records. 2:43:12 PM JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that Section 8 deals with the Legislative Ethics Act, and proposes to change the statute of limitations regarding when a complaint must be filed from two years to five years, and therefore also removes language specific to complaints against former legislators. With regard to the provision in CSHB 281(STA) requiring that complaints be filed only by registered voters as opposed to any person, she noted that the Legislative Ethics Act has always said that complaints may be initiated by "any person", and that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has not had any issues arise regarding that language. To her knowledge, she relayed, only individuals, rather than groups, have filed complaints with the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics; furthermore, no one from out of state has filed any complaints. MS. ANDERSON noted that under the Legislative Ethics Act, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics reviews a complaint and determines whether [the alleged behavior] falls under its jurisdiction and whether the allegation if proven true would be a violation; if the complaint does meet those criteria, then the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics moves forward with it. If a complaint doesn't meet those criteria, though, it is dismissed and nothing is made public. Complaints filed with the APOC, on the other hand, are all made public regardless of whether any investigations ensue. She indicated that for the sake of consistency, [the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] recommended that the statutes pertaining to complaints filed with the APOC be changed such that there would be no statute of limitations in instances of intentional prevention of discovery. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that replacing the word "person" with the term "registered voter" would preclude a political party from filing a complaint, and offered his understanding that Mr. Sica had said that allowing political parties to file complaints would makes the complaints less personal. MR. SICA concurred, noted that both current law and the bill as originally drafted allowed political parties to file complaints, and reiterated that the change from "person" to "registered voter" occurred in the House State Affairs Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his recollection that part of the discussion that occurred in the House State Affairs Standing Committee pertained to limiting who could file complaints, and some members in that committee felt complaints should only be filed by voters. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that the language currently in HB 281 doesn't specify which state the voter must be registered in. MR. SICA relayed that members' packets include a proposed amendment defining the term, "registered voter" as meaning a person who is registered to vote under AS 15.07. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that that point should be clarified if the bill retains the term "registered voter". Although political groups can currently hold each other accountable, he added, the complaint process can also be used by them as a delaying tactic. 2:50:36 PM MS. ANDERSON said she agrees with Mr. Sica's comments. A compliant filed by the Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG) or the League of Women Voters of Alaska, for example, is different than a complaint filed by an individual, because clearly it is a group and not just one person that feels there is an issue. She opined that they should leave open the option for organizations to file complaints, as opposed to just allowing registered voters to file complaints. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL also noted that complaints filed with the APOC become public, and indicated that an issue to consider is whether complaints filed by groups are legitimate. CHAIR RAMRAS asked what HB 281 will achieve for the public good. MS. ANDERSON said that the main intent is to increase the statute of limitations regarding when a complaint can be filed. The question is whether the current statute of limitations is long enough, particularly given that sometimes the facts of a situation don't become evident until after the current statute of limitations has run out. Increasing the statute of limitations to five years will allow the public, if they obtain knowledge within five years that a possible wrongdoing has occurred, to still be able to file a complaint; for example, if the subject of a complaint had been trying to influence others in order to get legislation passed. She mentioned that some such incidents came to light during the recent indictments of certain legislators. CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that the bill focuses on the conduct of elected officials while in office and increases the statute of limitations regarding when a complaint can be filed, and that these proposed changes were engendered by recent events. MS. ANDERSON concurred with that summation. 2:57:01 PM MS. MILES explained that it was the APOC which requested that the statute of limitations be increased. The current one-year statute of limitations has proven to be far too short, and, as a result, the APOC has been raked over the coals and blamed for that; furthermore, she relayed, she, personally, has been attacked for complying with the existing statute of limitations. Therefore, the APOC went on record as saying that the statute of limitations needed to be expanded, and the APOC strongly supports that expansion. In working through the statutes that the APOC administers, it was determined that there is a mishmash of statute of limitations and sometimes none at all is specified. With regard to possible violations that the APOC could not pursue because of the current one-year statute of limitations, one issue pertained to major corporations having all their executives make campaign contributions that were actually paid for directly by the corporations; this is a clear violation of the law, but the APOC was unable to do anything about it. With regard to records retention, it only makes sense for the period of time in which records must be kept to at least match - or supersede by one year - the statute of limitations so that the investigating authority can access substantiating documents, because, without those documents, it will be more difficult to investigate complaints of wrongdoing. MS. MILES indicated that the APOC is in favor of removing from the bill the proposed term of "registered voter." Under the laws administered by the APOC, one provision pertaining to lobbying requires that the person filing the complaint be a qualified voter; without this requirement, a complaint could be filed by anyone, including APOC staff. The argument raised in the House State Affairs Standing Committee was that if complaints weren't limited to a qualified voter, then even a foreign national could file a complaint against a candidate. That has never happened, she pointed out, though complaints have been brought forth by groups and political parties, none of which are a registered voter, and sometimes, in the heat of a campaign, having the complaint brought forth be a nonperson helps depoliticize the complaint. It is true, she acknowledged, that with regard to complaints filed with the APOC, the complaint [form] itself becomes a public document, and staff makes every effort to get a copy of it to the subject of the complaint as soon as possible. Unfortunately, sometimes when someone files a complaint with the APOC, his/her very next stop is with the press. When a complaint doesn't meet all the criteria outlined in law, the staff themselves can reject it. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that although he can see the advantages of allowing organizations to file a complaint, the downside is that individuals get to hide behind the name of an organization. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned how one would know that all members of an organization have agreed to file a complaint. He also opined that the term "registered voter" should be replaced with the term "registered Alaska voter". 3:02:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, opined that if candidates are going to be held accountable, then complaints shouldn't be used as political tools; "if someone has the fortitude and the knowledge and right on their side to put their name on it -- but a 'person' by definition under [Alaska] statute is anything." CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 281 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|