Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/19/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR37 | |
| HB281 | |
| HB368 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 281 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS 1:17:30 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next 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) as amended on 2/8/08.] 1:17:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 281, made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 281, Version 25-LS1115\N, Bullard, 3/18/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version N was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN characterized HB 281 as the flagship bill for ethics and suggested that it would be appropriate for it to "sail" from this committee and on to the House Finance Committee. He then summarized the main provisions of Version N as follows: it extends the statute of limitations from one year to five years for the review of complaints of alleged Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) violations or ethics committee complaints; and requires six years for retention of records relating to this act and when leaving office. Representative Lynn said that the five-year statute of limitations was supported by the APOC, the ethics committee and most constituents; in fact, recent events have illustrated that the one-year statute of limitations was inadequate. He noted that HB 281 is not retroactive, and urged passage of the bill from committee. CHAIR RAMRAS asked for an explanation of the title change and the differences between CSHB 281(STA) [as amended] and Version N. 1:22:51 PM MIKE SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee, on behalf of Representative Lynn, joint prime sponsor of HB 281, that there were many good changes made to CSHB 281(STA). First, the change proposed to AS 15.13.040(f) was deleted so as not to put the burden of recordkeeping on campaign workers or small print shops, and the title was "tightened." Next, language was added that allows a person who has left state elected office to file records in his/her final report. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether he could simply turn over all his records to the APOC while he is still in office. 1:25:30 PM CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Acting Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), explained that currently candidates and campaigns are required to keep their records with them for one year. She opined that her office would accept records in an electronic format as a portable document format (PDF) file, but the ultimate responsibility for the records falls to the candidate and the campaign. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS further asked whether receipts for expenses were required. MS. ELLINGSON said receipts or cancelled checks must be kept. The requirements are similar to those for any records kept for any type of financial transaction outside of a campaign. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that a candidate could scan receipts and invoices and provide the APOC with a disc containing the records. MS. ELLINGSON indicated that that would be an ideal situation, as long as the records are in an electronic format. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed his concern that he would not be able to locate a receipt from six years ago. CHAIR RAMRAS observed that everyone has an obligation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He expressed his concern about setting a standard with the APOC that is greater than that with the IRS. For his private sector business records, the IRS requires storage of many records. However, he indicated that he is in favor of the title change and the sponsor's other changes to the bill. Representative Ramras then spoke briefly about previous ethics legislation that was enacted and its effect on municipal office candidates. MR. SICA responded that IRS recordkeeping is based on a sliding scale; in fact, records are to be kept from three to seven years, and some should be kept indefinitely. 1:30:52 PM DENNIS "SKIP" COOK, Co-chair, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that the ethics committee was more concerned with the statute of limitations and has not discussed the retention of records. He opined that the records should be retained at least as long as the statute of limitations, but not longer. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that the intent of keeping the records available was to assist APOC and the ethics committee. He said that he felt the records should be retained for at least five years, and that six years would also be appropriate, although he is not adamant about maintaining that longer time period. MS. ELLINGSON pointed out that the bill calls for a retention of records in the event that they are needed. Her experience has been that the APOC has required past records in three or four cases over the last twenty years. She advised that a prudent person would want to keep the records because of tax implications on campaign accounts, and in the case of an investigation. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that he has stored all of his campaign records as a matter of protection. He noted that the bill would allow a complaint to be filed within five years and so the records could be needed. He said that he is not uncomfortable with this policy and admonished everybody to keep records in the case of an allegation that may come five years after the date of the alleged violation. 1:35:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM recalled the changes in her life when she first decided to run for office; in fact, if she had known all of the circumstances, she may have made a different decision. She explained that office holders live in a fishbowl, and with all of the restrictions on legislators, and requirements for recordkeeping, it is an almost overwhelming process to run for public office, particularly for a citizen legislature. Representative Dahlstrom warned that these circumstances may narrow the field of those who would run for public office; regardless, legislators must have the highest ethics. CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether unsuccessful candidates for office would be covered by HB 281 given that violations can occur during a campaign. MS. ELLINGSON advised that current law provides that if a violation occurs, regardless of when, the candidate and campaign are accountable. For example, if an illegal contribution is made, the candidate and the contributor are culpable, regardless of whether the candidate is elected. She described previous investigations that involved searching a campaign's records back three or four years. CHAIR RAMRAS referred to the added language on page 2, lines 7- 8, that read: A person who has left state elected office may submit the records required to be preserved under (a) of this section to the commission electronically. CHAIR RAMRAS then asked whether this addition allows a candidate to electronically submit his or her records to APOC for storage. MS. ELLINGSON said that her interpretation is that this provision applies to a person who has left state office. CHAIR RAMRAS suggested the need for a conceptual amendment to "level [the] playing field for candidates as well as elected officials." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred. 1:43:29 PM MR. SICA, returning to his explanation of the bill, said that Section 2 now allows a "person," as opposed to a qualified voter, to register a complaint. The language in Sections 3 and 4 of Version N is unchanged from that in CSHB 281(STA). REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the language on page 3, lines 4-14, which provides that 10 days are allowed to examine the statements and reports filed under AS 24.45, and that [there is] a duty to notify the person immediately if irregularities are found. He asked whether the APOC could reasonably respond to that 10-day deadline when year-end reports are filed. MS. ELLINGSON stated that this requirement affects lobbying reports that are submitted monthly and quarterly to the lobbyist specialist. MR. SICA reported that language in Sections 5 and 6 of Version N was changed for conforming purposes, and that the language of Section 7 of version N remains unchanged. In Section 8, "registered voter" was deleted and "person" was inserted, and unnecessary language was removed. Further, in Section 9, subsection (c), now no longer contains the language, "or a member of its staff". The language of Section 10 of Version N is unchanged. Mr. Sica pointed out that Section 12 repeals AS 15.56.130; this change allows a complaint, which may achieve the level of a criminal offense, to also have a five-year statute of limitations. He explained that this would create consistency for civil and criminal complaints and would allow the Department of Law (DOL) to follow up on an allegation forwarded to it by the APOC or the ethics committee. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed the committee's attention to Section 10, which he characterized as the ethics enforcement Act. He emphasized that under Section 10, only "a registered Alaska voter" may bring about enforcement of the Legislative Ethics Act, and opined that it should be broadened to a "person." One reason to do so is because there are those who do not register to vote for either religious convictions or other reasons. This population should not be precluded from filing a complaint. He concluded that this restriction is poor public policy and, in fact, may be unconstitutional. 1:52:23 PM BRENDA PAGE, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), informed the committee that she is unsure of the reason that "registered Alaska voter" remains in Section 10. She acknowledged that this language preceded the bill and offered to review the language for constitutional issues. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stressed that the tag line, "Enforcement by private citizens", was in conflict with "registered Alaska voter" and offered to make an amendment. MS. ELLINGSON explained that the law under discussion was not the executive branch ethics Act, but rather the public official financial disclosure law, which came about via a citizens' ballot initiative. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his belief that the reference should be changed to conform to the remainder of the bill. MS. ELLINGSON agreed, and noted that there was little improvement in this legislation from 1974 until about four or five years ago. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he prefers the version that requires the person filing a complaint to state their name instead of hiding behind an organization, such as a political party, or a "made-up" organization. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed. She added that she prefers "registered voter," and questioned why someone who was not registered to vote would be interested in political situations. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned attention to Section 12 and the repeal of AS 15.56.130, and questioned how this change would result in a five-year statute of limitations. [Following was a brief discussion about contacting Legislative Legal and Research Services.] CHAIR RAMRAS ascertained that Representative Gruenberg's staff would contact Legislative Legal and Research Services for that information. 1:59:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Page to comment on whether it is clear that the repeal of AS 15.56.130 would allow the general criminal statute of limitations, AS 12.10.010, to apply to Title 15. MS. PAGE indicated that she would need to defer this question to the criminal division of the DOL. MR. SICA remarked that Anne Carpeneti from the DOL had relayed that the repeal of AS 15.56.130 would result in a five-year statute of limitations as long as the committee states that that is the intention. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that in the real world of a trial lawyer, a statement on the record, after the repeal of a statute, was very shaky. He said that a statute of limitations is extremely important and that a voice in a committee meeting could be lost in the sands of time. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN acknowledged that point. CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 281. CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, such that on page 2, line 7, after "(c)", the phrase, "A candidate who has run for office or" would be inserted. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected, and asked whether the intent was for any candidate, successful or not. CHAIR RAMRAS clarified that the intent of Conceptual Amendment 1 is to level the playing field for a candidate and a state elected official so that both can avail themselves of the right to electronically file their records. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS removed his objection. CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:04:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 such that on page 5, line 4, the words, "AS 15.56.130 is repealed." would be deleted and replaced with the words, "A prosecution for an offense described in AS 15.05 - AS 15.60 (Alaska Election Code) may not be maintained unless it is begun within five years after the date of the election in connection with which the offense is alleged to have been committed." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He opined that Conceptual Amendment 2 pertains to criminal complaints. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed, and said, "This is a prosecution by the attorney general." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then asked about the scope of criminal complaints that would arise from the civil section of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that an example would be election fraud, which falls under the general Title 12 statute of limitations of five years. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his reluctance to have a five-year statute of limitations, even in the bill. He relayed that although he wants people to be held accountable for criminal actions, the cases addressed [by HB 281] are generally just infractions that may result in civil penalties and civil action. He removed his objection, but stated that he was unsure of his continued support for the bill. 2:07:54 PM CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that there were no other objections and announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the commencement of this statute of limitations is the election date, not the date of the offense, as it would normally be under Title 12. He stressed that his intent is not to change that aspect of the provision but to merely change the length to five years. [Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the current language of AS 39.50.100 came from a ballot initiative. He opined that using the terms "an individual" or "a person" would be more appropriate than using the term, "a registered Alaska voter." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 such that on page 4, lines 29-30, the words "registered [QUALIFIED] Alaska voter" are deleted and replaced with the word, "person". VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated that he doesn't want to have political parties bringing a civil action under AS 39.50.100 which is what using the term, "person" would allow. He suggested changing the language to something along the lines, "an individual Alaskan who would otherwise be qualified to vote." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated his acceptance of such language. MS. ELLINGSON reminded the committee that AS 39.50.100 pertains to the public official financial disclosure law, and that the APOC would investigate a claim brought by anyone. [Under this provision] the claimant could go forward and file [a complaint] with the court system if they are unsatisfied by the APOC investigation. According to her experience, she relayed, such complaints are generally always filed by individuals rather than organizations because the remedies can be quite harsh. She mentioned a couple such complaints. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he would be satisfied if the language is changed such that this provision applies to an individual human being. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed acceptance of that concept. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment 3 such that the words, "a registered [QUALIFIED] Alaska voter" would be deleted and replaced with the words, "An individual citizen who would be qualified to register to vote." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified, "An individual citizen who would be qualified to vote." REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether there were any objections to the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 3. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 3 was amended. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted. [Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.] CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the word "Alaska" was retained. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered, "Conceptually, it would have read, 'An individual citizen who would be qualified to vote' and, I would have no problem if we took another amendment to say, 'in Alaska'." CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4 such that "in Alaska" or "an Alaskan" would be added [to the language being added to page 4, lines 29-30]. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. 2:14:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that Conceptual Amendment 2 altered Section 12, and questioned whether the language on page 6, lines 1-3, that contains a reference to Section 12 needs to be altered as well. CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether the drafter, in incorporating Conceptual Amendment 2, would address that point. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stressed that he does not intend to make the statutes of limitations retroactive because that could cause constitutional problems. He said he would simply ask for the bill drafter to conform "this provision" as necessary. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his acceptance of Representative Gruenberg's position. He then questioned what effect the applicability provisions of Section 13, specifically subsections (a)(1) and (e)(1), would have on the proposed five-year statute of limitations provided for in Sections 2 and 7. MR. SICA indicated that the intent with the language in Section 13 is to merely have the statute of limitations provided for in Sections 2 and 7 apply to those investigations currently allowed under law. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that he may offer an amendment on the House floor to change "person" back to "individual". The committee took an at-ease from 2:19 p.m. to 2:21 p.m. 2:21:46 PM JANE W. PIERSON, Staff to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that the drafter has explained to her that the aforementioned language in Section 13 of HB 281 will simply ensure that the current look-back provisions pertaining to the current statute of limitations being altered by Sections 2 and 7 will still apply; no new time will be added to the proposed five-year statute of limitations. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he'd had a misunderstanding with regard to the change made via the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 2; in adopting Conceptual Amendment 2, none of the case law associated with the statute of limitations provided for in AS 12.10.010 would apply, whereas simply allowing the language of Section 12 to remain as is would still provide for a five-year statute of limitations. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee rescind its action in adopting conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objection, the committee rescinded its action in adopting Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2. 2:24:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 281, Version 25-LS1115\N, Bullard, 3/18/08, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 281(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|