Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/26/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB355 | |
| HB420 | |
| HB368 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 420 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 368 - ETHICS: LEGISLATIVE & GOV/LT GOV [Contains brief mention that HB 368 is intended to clean up some of the provisions of HB 109.] 2:49:08 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 368(STA).] 2:49:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 368, Version 25-LS1326\O, Wayne, 3/20/08, as the working document. There being no objection, Version O was before the committee. 2:50:25 PM JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), stated that HB 368 is a clean up bill from last year, HB 109, which was an all encompassing ethics bill. Additionally, some recommendations by ethics committee members are incorporated into HB 368. She reviewed the changes in Version O by section. She stated that in Section 1, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics recommended not to allow campaign fund raising during a legislative session regardless of the location of the fundraiser. She noted that Section 2 of the bill refers to gifts. Last year, a provision was added to HB 109 that would prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts to legislative staff. However, the change created an inadvertent consequence in that it also prohibited spouses from giving gifts to staff. Thus, spouses were prohibited from giving gifts to their significant others for birthdays or anniversaries. The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics recommends that gifts should be allowed from immediate family members to legislative staff. MS. ANDERSON advised that Sections 3 and 4 of the bill are not changed. Section [6] requires that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics publish summaries of its decisions and advisory opinions annually instead of semi-annually, which reflects current practice and was recommended by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. She also pointed out that the advisory opinions are placed in the newsletter immediately after issuance and are placed in a searchable database on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' website. She further advised that complaint decisions are also placed in the advisory newsletter and will soon be posted on the website, as well. She highlighted that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics also notifies the press of any decision or opinion as part of its internal policy and its rules of procedure. MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the summaries of decisions and advisory opinions are submitted to the House Chief Clerk and the Senate Secretary annually, which then becomes part of the legislative journal. Section [7] of the bill pertains to the fine structure. Currently, the committee can impose a fine for late filing of disclosures. The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics recommends adding language that would separate out and make a distinction between "inadvertent" and "willful" late filings. Currently the fine imposed for late filings is $2 per day, with a maximum of $100 for each disclosure. The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics recommends limiting the fine for inadvertent late filing to $25 and would impose a fine for willful late filing in the amount of $100 for each day, not to exceed $2,500. She related that a former legislator refused to file his/her disclosures, eventually filed his/her disclosures, and was fined. However, the former legislator refused to pay the fine and since the fine consisted of two $100 fines, the attorney general's office declined to prosecute. The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics stresses the importance of filing final disclosures. Thus, the fine structure was changed to encourage timely filing of disclosures after leaving office or leaving employment. Ms. Anderson highlighted that her research of other states showed that their fines ranged between $5,000 and $10,000 for late filings, so the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics felt that $100 per day fine was reasonable. She noted that she worked with staff on an amendment, which she could address later on for the committee. 2:57:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related her understanding that under current law the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics could not take any action with respect to a former legislator. She related her own experience with a late filing and offered her view that it was her personal responsibility to pay the fine, which she did. MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the newspapers did run an article to publicize the late filing in that instance. She surmised that Representative Dahlstrom probably was referring to an APOC late filing rather than a case that came before the Ethics Committee for late disclosure filing. She characterized the three-tier fine structure as meeting the needs of legislators and staff. She pointed out that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics reviews extenuating circumstances. CHAIR RAMRAS related that his campaign finance manager is receiving treatment for cancer and he said he appreciates the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' willingness to consider extenuating circumstances. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to lines 1-6 in proposed AS 15.13.072(g). He referred to "municipality" and inquired as to how this subsection would apply if the regular or special session of the legislature convened in an area that was not a "municipality." MS. ANDERSON offered her recollection of past discussions. She posed a scenario in which a special session is held in Girdwood, that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would not allow fundraising to occur in Anchorage. The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would view the provision to include the entire area. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to whether municipalities would include boroughs, such as the Fairbanks North Star Borough. He opined that only one municipality exists and it is the Municipality of Anchorage. He further inquired as to how it is defined. 3:02:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the Alaska Bar Association (ABA) disciplines attorneys. The ABA can issue a public reprimand, he noted. He suggested that the committee consider providing the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics similar power in situations in which the activity is considered wilful conduct or refusal. In response to Ms. Anderson, Representative Gruenberg explained that the public reprimand is one that is provided to the attorney and also a notice is placed in newspapers of general circulation around the state. He stated that he would be prepared to offer such an amendment. MS. ANDERSON answered that the committee has discussed this matter and has in its rules of procedure that if willful conduct of that type occurs that the conduct would be listed in the in the advisor's newsletter. She noted that the advisor's newsletter did list information on the legislator who refused to pay his/her fine. She pointed out that the advisor's newsletter is also posted to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' website. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated that he would offer the amendment at the appropriate time, similar to the ABA disciplinary action. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would strongly object to such an amendment. He opined that the fine would be enough. He stated that disciplining members should remain with the body. He further stated that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has enough authority. However, he stated that he wants the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to perform its functions well. CHAIR RAMRAS reminded members of the fourth estate which is quite capable of undermining the reputation of members in good standing. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN answered that the person is no longer part of the body so the concern shouldn't apply and would not make any difference. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to page 2, in proposed AS 15.13.072(g), and inquired as to whether "municipality" would also encompass the cities and boroughs. 3:07:48 PM DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), explained that the general definition of municipality means a political subdivision incorporated under the laws of the state, a home rule or general law city, a home rule or general law borough or a unified municipality. CHAIR RAMRAS, after first determining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 368. 3:08:36 PM CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25- LS1326\O.1, Wayne, 3/26/08, which read: Page 1, lines 3 - 4: Delete "who are members of their immediate families" Page 2, line 30, following "(B)": Insert "a contribution to a charity event from any person at any time, and" Page 3, line 7: Delete "or" Page 3, line 10, following "family": Insert "; (D) a gift delivered on the premises of a state facility and accepted on behalf of a recognized nonpolitical charitable organization; or (E) a compassionate gift under AS 24.60.075" REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. MS. ANDERSON, in response to Chair Ramras, offered that the change proposed in Amendment 1 would place all of the exceptions for a lobbyist in one provision of statutes for easier access. She explained that AS 24.60.030(a)(2)(K) and AS 24.60.080(c)(10) currently contain the language to allow contributions to a charity event from an person at any time, such that it allows for the Fahrenkamp Classic to be held. She noted that all of the changes contained in the Amendment 1 are existing law. This amendment would place them in the appropriate section of statute for easier access. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:12:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, which was handwritten, as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 5, line 3, add the following sentence: "In addition to any fine that may be imposed, if the committee finds that the late filing was willful, it may issue a private or public reprimand." Representative Gruenberg opined that the committee should also have the authority, in addition to any fine imposed should have the ability to issue a private or public reprimand. He conveyed that a private reprimand, similar to the ABA rules, means simply a letter to the person involved. However, a public reprimand would be same as it is for the ABA, that a notice would be placed in the newspaper. He offered, in response to Representative Coghill's comments, that it seems to him that the person's reputation is important, that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would not invoke this provision often and only in egregious cases. However, he stressed his belief that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics should have the authority to do so. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt an amendment to Amendment 2, as follows, to authorize the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to impose corporal punishment on any member that does not file its paperwork in a timely fashion. CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that his sarcasm is intended to convey his sense that corporal punishment is equally inappropriate as any committee, such as the Ethics Committee, holding the authority to impose public disciplinary sanctions to this body. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 2. 3:15:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for HB 368, labeled 25-LS1326\O, Wayne, 3/20/08, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 368(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|