Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/03/2017 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB44|| HCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
HCR 1-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
1:37:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44, "An Act requiring a
legislator to abstain from taking or withholding official action
or exerting official influence that could benefit or harm an
immediate family member or certain employers; requiring a
legislator to request to be excused from voting in an instance
where the legislator may have a financial conflict of interest;
and providing for an effective date." AND HOUSE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of
the Alaska State Legislature relating to voting and abstention
from voting.
[SSHB 44, Version O, and HCR 1, Version J, were before the
committee jointly.]
CHAIR CLAMAN advised this is the third hearing on SSHB 44 and
HCR 1, and that his intention is to hear amendments from
committee members and move the legislation out of committee
today. He said he will re-open public testimony on the
legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SSHB 44 and HCR 1.
1:38:44 PM
JAKE JACOBSEN said he represents himself and his family of 38
Alaskans. He turned to SSHB 44, and explained that the bottom
line on this important effort is to put some teeth into the
legislature's ethics rules and prevent an "800 pound gorilla"
from corrupting the process because Alaska has a "Tyrannosaurus
Rex" in the form of big oil. He referred to the passage of
Senate Bill 21, and pointed out that the deciding votes were
cast by two senators employed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.,
who are still holding seats in the Senate. He described that
that massive miscarriage of justice is the main reason Alaska
has such a huge fiscal problem today, and has had for the past
several years. Alaska lost approximately $2 billion in oil
revenues beginning the first year, and continuing on, since the
enactment of Senate Bill 21, because Alaska pays more in oil tax
credits than received from the oil [revenues], he stressed. In
that regard, Alaskans would not have had more than one-half of
their permanent fund dividend (PFD) confiscated in 2016. The
current legislative ethics rules require that a person declaring
a conflict of interest be forced to vote when a single member of
the body objects to [the abstention], he explained, and the
objecting person's name is not made public, absolving that
person of all accountability. This is reprehensible, he
expressed. [Indisc.] conflicts of interest potentially cripple
legislative action, but other states have such laws [indisc.]
issues of crime. He suggested that legislators get together
"and clean up this mess. You are the law makers, but the power
of your office is borne with privilege granted to you by voting
Alaskans." He stated that the "plain clothes patriots, like
myself" expect legislators to honor their oath of office and do
their duty. He urged the committee to get this bill to the
floor and pass it.
1:41:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SSHB 44 and HCR 1.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained to the new committee members that when
amendments are moved for adoption, sometimes people will object
for purposes of discussion, in the event there is no objection
the amendment is adopted.
1:42:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment [2], Version 30-
LS0208\O.3, which read:
Page 2, line 19, following "Unless":
Insert "otherwise"
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "may not vote"
Insert "shall declare a conflict of interest
before voting [MAY NOT VOTE]"
CHAIR CLAMAN said there being no objection to SSHB 44, Amendment
[2], Amendment [2] was adopted.
[The committee then turned to HCR 1.]
1:43:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt HCR 1, Amendment [3],
Version 30-LS0209\J.1, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "a majority of the membership"
Insert "two-thirds of the full membership of the
house"
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected.
1:43:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER explained that his objection to Amendment
[3] is based upon his research of Mason's Manual, Sections 401
and 398, which essentially read that if an amendment is the same
as a previously failed amendment within the committee, it should
not be brought forth again.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER opined that this amendment is essentially
the same as [failed Amendment 1 moved by Representative Eastman,
on 1/30/17], which read as follows:
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. Rule 34(b), Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature, is amended to read:
(b) Abstention. Every member present in the
house shall vote unless the house for special reasons
permits a member to abstain. All motions excusing a
member from voting shall be made before the house
divides or before the call for the yeas and nays is
commenced. A member requesting to be excused from
voting shall have up to five minutes to explain the
member's request to be excused from voting, [MAY MAKE
A BRIEF ORAL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST]
and the question of granting permission to abstain
shall be taken without further debate. A member may
not explain a vote, may not discuss the question while
the yeas and nays are being called, and may not change
a vote after the roll call result has been announced.
Upon division and count of the house of any question,
a member who is not within the chamber may not be
counted. A member may not be permitted to abstain
except upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
full [UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE] membership of the
house."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD argued that [Amendment 1] had "a lot
more wording" with it and the committee focused primarily on the
five minutes." She continued that this is "just a couple word
amendment."
1:44:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that as the maker of [Amendment
1], he agreed that he "did have quite a bit more in my original
amendment than appears here."
1:44:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded Representative Eastman that he had
previously asked Representative Eastman whether the gist of this
amendment was the two-thirds vote rather than a majority vote,
and Representative Eastman advised that that was really the gist
of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that it would be appropriate to
rule whether the amendment is procedurally in order.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he would rule on the objection after hearing
any comments or questions from the committee on the procedural
question.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP recalled that when [Amendment 1] was before
the committee, the discussion regarding the minutes issue lasted
a while, and he could not recall focusing on the two-thirds
question. He said, he personally did not focus on that
provision of the amendment.
1:46:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Mason's Manual, Sec. 401(5), which read
as follows:
Sec. 401. Frivolous and Improper Amendments
5. The presiding officer should never rule an
amendment out of order unless certain that it is. In
cases of doubt the presiding officer should entertain
the amendment, subject to the right of a member to
raise a point of order, or the presiding officer
should submit to the house the question of whether the
amendment is in order.
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded the committee that the committee should be
careful to not go down the road repeatedly, and while he
believes there is an argument that this is going down the road
repeatedly, the committee will vote on Amendment [3].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX continued to maintain her objection.
1:46:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD pointed out that this is a subjective
bill, and the amendment is to have a more objective two-thirds
vote. In that manner, it would not pit the minority against the
majority this year or in future years. She said she is
absolutely about transparency and some legislators declare
conflicts far more than others.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she does not see this bill as
necessarily a partisan political issue and, consequently, she
does not understand how [the amendment] helps to not pit the
majority against the minority. She explained that she can see
the requirement for abstentions sometimes hindering union people
just as much as hindering oil company people because the bill is
not geared to any particular party. Therefore, she stated, the
bill does not need to read two-thirds vote rather than the usual
21 votes.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would benefit from more
information and particularly looking at other precedent and
political behaviors from other states with different thresholds.
He advised he is on the next committee of referral, he will vote
against the amendment, but he is sympathetic to its intent and
would like to further examine the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that in a legislative setting
it can be "very tried and true to, all too easily, fall into the
habit of voting with one's party," and that is not right or
wrong in particular instances. He asked the sponsor whether he
had comments regarding the amendment.
1:51:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, responded
that when drafting the bill he included the language of the bill
based upon Alaska's statutes, and asking other municipalities
and other local governments to "do themselves." For consistency
sake, he related, that is where he started and he feels
comfortable with leaving that language as is. Sometimes
gamesmanship is in the minds of people and sometimes there is a
thought to protect against that, he acknowledged, but this bill
was not drafted with that in mind. The intent of the bill is
that all 60 legislators are trusted to rise and declare
conflicts of interest based upon the guidelines in the bill.
Thus, he pointed out, it is not to be a partisan matter, but
rather outlines what the law would be.
1:52:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that each legislator represents
roughly 18,000 people, and to not allow [constituently] vetted
elected legislator [to vote] is disingenuous for many of the
districts, especially for a simple whim vote without performing
a thorough investigation of every single immediate family
member, and every single financial report. She extended that it
is reasonable to have a two-thirds threshold "because what we do
in this legislature is in a little body back -- back, you know -
- on a lower level that impacts just the community, it impacts
statewide 750,000 people." The actions taken by the legislature
are serious and it requires a reasonable threshold, she said.
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the current practice of using one
objection to make sure someone votes, and pointed out that under
the two-thirds amendment, the legislature would move from simply
one person objecting, to two-thirds of the legislature excusing
someone from voting. Therefore, without the amendment, the
legislation would require a majority of those present to excuse
someone from voting.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained her objection.
1:54:35 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
1:54:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Reinbold,
and Kopp voted in favor of Amendment [3]. Representatives
Fansler, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment [3] failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-4.
[The committee returned to SSHB 44.]
1:55:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to adopt Amendment [4], a
handwritten amendment, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 25-27
Delete "a substantial class of persons to which
the legislator or the family member who has the
financial interest belongs as a member of a
profession, occupation, industry, or region."
Insert '[THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF THE STATE]"
Page 3, lines 7-9: "a substantial class of
persons to which the person belongs as a member of a
profession, occupation, industry, or region.
Insert '[OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF THE STATE]"
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
1:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER related that he is highly in favor of
this bill, and explained his original concern was that the
current language regarding a "substantial class of persons to
which the person belongs as a member of a profession,
occupation, industry, or region" would actually lead to
conflicts of interests being suppressed. He opined that rarely,
especially in policy, does a bill come forward affecting one
sector of a profession or industry over another sector of a
profession or industry. It was his understanding, he related,
that "with that in there" as long as it was affecting a good
portion of the industry as a whole, a person would not have to
rise and declare a conflict of interest. He offered that the
applicable group should be the general public of Alaska, such
that the public would be the group of people a legislator [would
ask themselves] "Will I have a conflict of interest because I
will benefit substantially from the general person that is our
constituent and that lives in the state."
1:57:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested examples of what the amendment
does in the real life of Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER used the example of a right-to-work bill,
and advised that during the last 12 months he worked in a union
as a faculty member. In the event the right-to-work bill
affects all unions, under the current language, he would not
rise and declare a conflict of interest because it substantially
affects the whole class of unions. However, [under his
amendment] if comparing this to the whole class of the general
public, he rightly should rise and put on the record that within
the last 12 months he was in a union, and the vote be taken.
1:59:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Representative Fansler to describe
himself working for an oil company or in the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER responded that it would be the same
situation, a bill comes forward that substantially affects his
financial interests, he rises and declares that he works for an
oil company, and the vote is taken.
1:59:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Legislative Legal and
Research Services was online because she was unsure the
amendment [accomplishes the intent of the sponsor]. Under this
amendment, if Representative Fansler had an financial ownership
interest in a company it would be included, but simply to be an
employee of a company or a union ... The intent of the
amendment, she opined, is if a person is working for a company,
union, or other entity, that is significantly impacted by a
bill, it would be up to a vote as to whether or not it is
appropriate for the person to vote. She reiterated that she was
unsure whether this amendment accomplishes the intent.
2:01:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the example of having been
previously unionized a year or so ago, and asked Representative
Fansler to define "financial interest." He said he could see
how an argument could be made that if a person previously had an
occupation that paid their salary and the person gained an
amount of wealth through that occupation, it could be said that
the person had a financial interest. He offered that his first
reading was that it had to be more of a present tense financial
interest, such as stocks or bonds, and posited that if it does
go back into history, how far back does it go.
2:03:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Fansler described a
situation where he was employed by the university and a member
of the faculty union, which meant he was paid by the university
and not the union. In contrast, he related that he was aware of
examples, including some legislators today, who are actually
employees of the union in their job, which may create a
variance.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER referred to [Section 1, AS
24.60.030(e)(3)(D)] page 2, lines [15-17, Version O], which read
as follows:
(D) from whom the legislator or a
member of the legislator's immediate family has, in
the immediately preceding 12-month period, received
more than $10,000 of income.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER explained that "was where I was forming
that." Perhaps, he extended, he should have gone with the
easier example of working directly for a union, wherein he rises
and declares that he currently works for a union and is paid by
the union. He stressed that his intention with this amendment
is something where, once again, his utter belief is to get these
things on the record. He pointed out that he would always error
on the side of caution even if he wasn't being paid directly by
the union, he would declare that he did have a financial
interest because [the union] negotiated his contract. The
intent behind the amendment is to be as broad as possible, and
have conflicts of interest recorded so the public can have the
transparency it deserves, he expressed.
2:05:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that the committee wants to be
certain this is never a private industry versus the public
sector, or union people versus non-union people, and to be
certain this is not another internal conflict that is going on.
She related that even if a legislator had to disclose they
worked for a union, some people would ask whether the legislator
is voting on behalf of their interests, or the legislator's
interest, she said. Therefore, it could be argued that "you
having to vote on a right-to-work issue would even be more
transparent because now you're on public record." Possibly, she
pointed out, the legislator's constituents would want the
legislator to push the button "yes or no" on a right-to-work
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER responded that he completely agrees that
his constituents may want him to vote, which is why there is the
vote, thereby, becoming the will of the people through their
elected legislative officials to determine. He said he likes
the ability to rise and the vote in part because this is the way
to accomplish the transparency people want. Legislators will
certainly hear if someone makes a wrong decision and excludes
someone, the public will be there and this gives them the
ability to have their voices heard, he said.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Dan Wayne, Legislative Legal and
Research Services was online.
2:07:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated her question and asked whether
the passage of Amendment [4] would prevent someone from voting
on something they had no financial interest in themselves, but
worked for a corporation, union, or any other entity impacted by
a bill before the legislature.
2:08:42 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Affairs Agency, explained that he was just now joining the
meeting, asked which amendment was being discussed, and to
please restate the question.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised it is Amendment [4], relating to page 2,
lines 25-27, and page 3, lines 7-9.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, with this amendment, would SSHB 44
preclude someone from voting on a bill for which their employer
had an interest, unless 21 representatives voted that the person
needed to vote.
MR. WAYNER opined that the amendment is mostly dealing with
financial interests in the context of Sec. 2, of the bill,
because Sec. 2, relates to "substantial class of persons," and
so forth. Section 1 of the bill relates to employers. He
further opined that Sec. 2 could be related somehow to the
employment relationship a person has, but it has more to do with
their financial interests in a business.
2:12:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that he was saying that the bill,
as amended, would not accomplish that goal.
MR. WAYNE said with regard to voting, the answer to the question
is yes.
MR. WAYNE, in response to Representative LeDoux, advised that he
was asked whether it does not accomplish the goal, and his
response to that question was yes, it does not.
2:14:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Wayne for suggested language he
could offer, on the fly, as an amendment that might accomplish
what the committee is trying to do on Amendment [4].
MR. WAYNE advised he was unable to provide any language on the
fly that would solve that problem at this time.
2:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Mr. Wayne to explain what he
believes this amendment does.
MR. WAYNE answered that he did not draft the [handwritten]
amendment, he is just now looking at it, and he does not really
know what it does. He suggested asking the drafter of the
amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN then asked the name of the drafter in Legislative
Legal and Research Services.
MR. WAYNE advised that the [handwritten] Amendment [4] was not
drafted by Legislative Legal and Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER stated his belief that it was.
2:16:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that a question had been raised as to whether
the committee prefers to proceed, or hold off on acting on this
handwritten amendment to let the next committee of referral take
up this question. He acknowledged that he saw several heads
nodding, and asked Representative Fansler his pleasure.
2:16:59 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:16 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.
2:17:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER withdrew Amendment [4], a handwritten
amendment.
2:18:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN brought Sponsor Substitute to HB 44 and HCR 1
before the committee and asked for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that, under the definitions of
the statute and within the bill, there was not a definition of
"official action," and asked how the term "official action" was
to be construed.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that Legislative Legal and Research
Services and others would probably say that "official action" is
defined in different parts throughout the Alaska Statutes, and
that he was fairly certain the courts have had more than one
occasion to make a determination as to what constitutes an
"official action." He opined they would say it is a combination
of statutory and common law interpreting the statutes, and that
the notion of "official action" relates to action on behalf of
the state or governmental body, and in this case it would be the
state.
2:20:08 PM
MR. WAYNE advised there is not a definition of "official action"
within the ethics act. The ethics act does define legislative
action to mean "conduct relating to the development, drafting,
consideration, sponsorship, enactment or defeat, support or
opposition to or of a law amendment, resolution, report,
nomination, or other matter affected by legislative action or
inaction." He explained that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics sometimes writes advisory opinions, and
subcommittees of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
sometimes write complaint decisions. When those complaint
decisions are written, he explained, it interprets the ethics
act, and if there is a word in the ethics act that isn't defined
in the definition and the meaning isn't clear from common usage
then, if necessary, it assigns some meaning to it. He opined,
if memory serves, it has said that "official action" and the
ethics act includes legislative action, and he could not recall
whether it had defined it any more broadly than that. He
further opined that what it has done is suggest that it may
include more things besides legislative action, but that it does
include legislative action.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for a motion to move the bill.
2:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report SSHB 44, Version 30-
LS0208\O out of committee, as amended, with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for discussion of SSHB 44.
2:22:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD opined that all legislators want open,
honest, transparent government and many wish they could abstain.
Currently, the only option is walking out or obtaining an
excused absence. However, she stated, her constituents want her
to make hard decision on the floor of the House of
Representatives and be accountable for her votes. This bill is
based on the honor system and there have been many times she
believed people should have stood up and they didn't, she
remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that if this legislation is to
pass, the committee must specifically define "immediate family,"
and once there is a definition, she will put the burden on the
sponsor to request the financial records of all because
objective information is needed. This is not a fair and
equitable bill, she advised, because possibly a person has more
wealth, or they may have many children versus those without
children, and it will be an undue burden for them to come up
with the financial records of all of the children. The word
"conflict" must be defined exactly and who it applies to because
it doesn't seem fair that it may apply to someone in the private
sector but not to someone in the public sector, she said. In
the event this legislation moves forward, at a minimum, everyone
must declare conflicts in full for all of their family members
on the appropriations bill because that is direct expenditures
from the state to individuals, she reminded the committee.
2:27:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that this bill does not
include voting on an appropriation bill, and pointed to [Sec. 2.
AS 24.60.030(g)], page 2, lines [27-30, Version O], which read
as follows:
(g) ... However, notwithstanding (e)(3) of this
section and the limitations of this subsection, a
legislator may vote on an appropriation bill that
meets the requirements of AS 37.07.020(a) or 37.07.100
(Executive Budget Act).
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that Representative Reinbold made a
good point about the definition of "immediate family." She
remarked that, assuming one's immediate family is defined as
children living with the legislator, domestic partners or
spouses living with the legislator, that information is already
included on the financial disclosure statements.
2:28:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he supports the bill, and
commented that he was unsure he shares Representative LeDoux's
optimism about the lack of gamesmanship in the legislature.
Unfortunately, he said, there have been small examples here and
there throughout the legislature, which speaks to comments and
amendments offered by Representatives Reinbold and Eastman. In
anticipation of the political cultural trends in this country,
he said he increasing sees various tenents of small "d"
democracy imperiled and questioned in ways he finds deeply
troubling and deeply unreasonable. He expressed that
gerrymandering is a great example of gamesmanship to a "T" on
both sides. Democrats gerrymandering the Republicans in the
State of Maryland, and Republicans gerrymandering Democrats out
of any notion of electoral competiveness in the State of Ohio or
Michigan.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINSS explained that during this last
election cycle the governor's mansion of North Carolina
transferred from one party to another. The governor, who was
defeated in his re-election bid, together with the legislature
which was controlled by one party, systematically neutered the
Office of the Governor of executive branch powers and passed
those powers to the legislature. Thereby, allowing [the
executive powers] to remain within the party opposite of the
newly elected governor. He described that as completely wrong
and undemocratic, and it is a virus spreading around the
country. While he does not see the virus having infected Alaska
in a meaningful way, he opined it is worth anticipating and
thinking about policies acknowledging this trend in the country.
He suggested it would be intelligent to keep [the virus] in
mind, and to the best extent possible for legislators to
inoculate themselves against that type of gamesmanship. There
is a tremendous precedent of this type of behavior in this
country, and Alaska is not invulnerable in any manner. He
remarked that he wanted his thoughts on the record because it
presents his perspective wherein more than anything he is an
Alaskan and an American, and he has no tolerance for
partisanship and gamesmanship.
2:31:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that beyond his comments
of appreciation to the sponsor, this bill is moving in the right
direction. He offered his willing and interest in working with
all parties, including members of this committee who may not be
on the next committee of referral, to find as much consensus as
possible. He said he supports moving this bill out of
committee.
2:32:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded to earlier comments regarding
appropriations and stated that his understanding of this
legislation is that the exception is to the budget; therefore,
the exception is limited to the governor's appropriation, but it
would not encompass any other appropriation bill that came
before both chambers. Generally, he noted, while he applauds
the bill sponsor for his efforts in credibly wanting to put
responsibility where it needs to be, he reiterated his comments
regarding the current practice related to conflict of interests
and putting personal responsibility back into the process so
those voting on these types of issues feel it acutely.
Although, he commented, if the process would be such that a
simple majority of members can overrule nearly one-half of the
representatives in that body, it occurred to him that a majority
of Alaskans may say "this is something that should be voted upon
by the representative in question," but simply 21
representatives can say "No it's not" and under this law, that
representative would not be able to vote. Legislators are
empowered to speak on behalf of their constituents, "it's their
vote, and not ours" which is, in this case, silent and perhaps
by not even a majority of Alaskans represented in the
legislature, he said. While the legislation is pursuing
personal responsibility for votes, he noted, the committee can
agree that this bill is not ready for final passage. Yet, he
commented, there is a strong temptation to pass all personal
responsibility onto another committee or onto the floor of the
House of Representatives to do the final work that needs to be
done, and he sees that irony. In the bills present form, he
said, he is not willing to pass that responsibility on, and
believes it is the committee of first referral's responsibility
to do the heavy work of getting the legislation into the form
the committee believes it should be.
2:37:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he shares the same thoughts as the
other speakers, and specifically highlighted Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins comments in being concerned that sometimes the
best of intentions are not realized in practice. He stated that
something like this makes it a hard policy call, and commented
as follows:
When the testimony is often focused on a former piece
of legislation that was in front of this body, it
muddies the waters because we can do -- we can do the
right thing but maybe have the wrong motives driving
it sometimes. So, that previous piece of legislation
always gets brought up, and there's been a lot of
misinformation about, you know, how that benefited
Alaska, but um, it, you know. So to make something
like this not be about that, I think discussion going
forward needs to really focus on what all possible
conflicts we're talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related there is a lack of understanding of
all of the possible conflicts that could come under this bill,
such as, what the penalty is that applies. There should be a
better definition about "immediate family," and what it means to
insert this into the judiciary branch to be the decision maker,
and bringing it out from the uniform rules, which is the
legislature's prerogative. He said this committee is leaving
the next committee of referral with a lot of work to do. He
concluded his comments as follows:
But I -- I think as a sendoff note the more we can
keep this discussion away from oil tax credits and
just on the general discussion of ethics, it would be
a more healthy discussion and um, and -- and I think
more consistent with what we all want to drive at, is
a good transparent process.
2:39:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after seeing Representative Reinbold's hand
raised, advised her that she previously spoke to this [bill],
and unless she had something very different to say, she has had
her chance to speak. He related that he is not inclined to hear
Representative Reinbold a second time in that the rules limit
comments and debate, he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD interrupted that "we've never ever
limited discussion in a committee, ever." The committee is
moving a piece of legislation ...
CHAIR CLAMAN stopped Representative Reinbold and advised her
that it is Representative Fansler's opportunity to speak, and he
would think about it.
2:39:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said everyone's comments are well taken
and he appreciates all of the work offered with the best
interests of the state in mind, hard as it may be sometimes for
all to come together. He specifically thanked and applauded
Representative Grenn for bringing this issue forward and that
Alaska is a better state for it even being in the discussion
stage. He then urged Representative Grenn to provide the
statistics he had previously requested regarding other states
that had this type of language and all of the language. He said
it was refreshing for him to see that this language wasn't
something wherein people were not allowed to vote time and
again. In fact, he noted, there were only three times it
happened over a course of a couple of years, and it is not
something that is ever intended to be used as a weapon.
2:41:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said he would speak to a comment brought
up as to the lower legislative bodies, and municipalities, and
that they are not doing what the legislature is doing. He said
he disagrees, coming from a municipality city council, and while
it may not be to the same scale, municipalities are struggling
with the exact fiscal crisis because the state's budget reflects
their budgets, it's a ripple effect. He expressed that he
wanted to give a shout out to all of Alaska's municipalities
because they are doing the best they can, and that's where it
comes to the idea of leading by example. He further expressed
that he finds it sad the legislature would deign itself so much
better than municipalities in that municipalities are held to a
higher standard, while the legislature says "What's good for you
is not good us." He stressed that he wants to be certain the
legislature is doing what's best for the state and is also held
to the same standards expected from others. He advised that
this amendment is headed to the House State Affairs Standing
Committee and it will be refined in a manner that addresses this
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER, in speaking to Representative Reinbold's
comments, related that this bill is to be comprehensive and not
target one group with equal investment, putting it on the record
with the transparency the two bodies deserve, and reinvesting
the public's faith in their government.
2:43:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Representative Reinbold, with regard to
continuing to debate over a pending motion, the uniform rules
specifically say that when a motion is before the committee
everyone, except the person moving the legislation or
introducing the legislation, speaks once. He pointed out that
HCR 1 is before the committee today, pertaining to the exact
topic, and Representative Reinbold will have an opportunity to
express exactly what she wants to say [at this moment] during
the discussion of HCR 1. He remarked that he will review this
issue further because Representative Reinbold's point is well
taken that the committee tends to have open debate. He then
ruled that, for today, he will not hear Representative Reinbold
a second time as to SSHB 44.
2:45:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the bill presents an interesting
question because there is a sense that, as a legislator, to
always be there voting for their constituents. The notion that
a legislator would advise their constituents that they have a
conflict of interest and couldn't vote on a certain bill, there
is a feeling that somehow the legislator is not doing their job.
He recalled serving on the Anchorage Assembly and occasions he
was not permitted to vote wherein constituents asked why he
hadn't debated. Chair Claman related that he'd explain he had a
conflict of interest, and "every single time" the constituent
would thank him for removing himself from that discussion, and
that they didn't feel cheated he didn't vote on something. He
noted that he understands Representative Reinbold's sentiments
that legislators represent their constituents, but this is a
citizen legislature and this bill is about public perception.
The question the committee is attempting to address is how the
legislature can show the public it is being responsible to its
duties as legislators, and to the duties as citizen legislators
with real lives, he remarked.
2:47:36 PM
[After beginning the roll call vote, Representative Kopp
interrupted the roll call vote with a question.]
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the committee is voting to
move SSHB 44 from committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised he was correct, it is a vote to move SSHB
44 from committee, and Representative Kopp will have the option
to fill in the box "do pass, do not pass, or amend" and move the
bill on to the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
2:48:22 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Fansler,
Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, Claman voted in favor of passing SSHB 44
out of committee, as amended. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted against it. Therefore, SSHB 44(JUD) was reported
out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
[The committee turned to HCR 1.]
2:48:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report HCR 1, Version 30-
LS0209\J out of committee, with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.
2:49:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Reinbold whether she preferred
to speak first or last.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, in response to Chair Claman's inquiry,
asked whether Chair Claman will limit the discussion on the
legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN responded "As to this pending motion, yes, one
time."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD argued that usually when legislation is
discussed, the committee goes "round and round," and she further
argued "but you are going to be hindering us from -- from
speaking to one another after another issue, when we're passing
key legislation."
2:49:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that his perspective on it is that often
there is a lot of discussion about a bill ...
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD interrupted Chair Claman and said "We're
in a hurry, in other words. Getting this outta here fast."
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that part of the courtesy of the chair
is that he doesn't interrupt her, and she doesn't interrupt him.
In the event she wanted to hear him finish what he has to say,
he would be happy to finish, and in the event she wants to
interrupt him, he can work differently.
2:50:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that when the committee is having a
discussion of a bill before a motion is on the floor, there is a
lot of back and forth discussion and comments. The uniform
rules, he stated, are fairly clear that when a motion is on the
floor, everyone speaks once, which is how he is ruling today.
He remarked that because he is aware Representative Reinbold
would like to respond to what others have said, he was
specifically offering her the opportunity to speak last as to
this particular motion. He said he will review the issue
further after today's meeting.
2:50:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS opined that Representative
Reinbold said she has more thoughts to put on the record, and he
then reiterated Chair Claman's perspective to have a full airing
of thoughts and committee discussion before a motion is made and
once the motion is made, everyone speaks once.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that that is the perspective he was
trying to communicate, although not as artfully as he would
like.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that if there are those
constraints after a motion has been made, it would be valuable
to give as much heads up on any motions as far in advance as
practicable. In the event that limitation will be there, he
said he would like to have a copy of the script in advance so he
knows what is happening and has the opportunity for discussion
before that motion is made.
2:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled that Chair Claman reopened public
testimony and Jake Jacobsen testified, Chair Claman then closed
public testimony. Subsequently, she said, she could not recall
whether Chair Claman asked if there was any further discussion
on this bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that after closing public testimony, he is
fairly confident he did not ask whether there was any further
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that is the cause of the concern.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered appreciation for Representative LeDoux's
comments, and stated he will make clear the time for open
discussion, and that once the motion is made "we need to move it
along."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that courtesy has always been
shown, although, when using gamesmanship a rule can be pulled
out, or shut someone out by using the gavel. The bottom line is
that courtesy needs to rule, she opined.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the legislative rules create a
framework for courtesy, orderly discussion, and debate.
2:54:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN turned the committee to the pending motion to move
HCR 1 from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she understands the
concerns about gamesmanship and caucuses voting solely with
their caucus, and she would still like it to be 21 votes as
opposed to the two-thirds votes being discussed in the
amendment. Gamesmanship, she related, appears to come into play
more often on issues that are either a budget bill, or ruled as
a procedural motion. She explained that within her previous
caucus, a representative had to vote with the caucus on the
budget or uphold the Speaker of the House of Representatives as
to a procedural ruling. She offered that she was unsure whether
there is any manner in which to state that this vote is not
procedural, within HCR 1. In the event it was procedural, she
said she could see that it would come down to caucus versus
caucus, but when it's not procedural, people are all over the
place, as was seen today on the floor of the House of
Representatives and in this committee, she pointed out.
Representative LeDoux suggested giving more thought to how it
can be done so there is never a chance this would be considered
a procedural vote when it gets to the next committee of
referral.
2:58:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the comments on procedural votes are
well taken. He then used the example of downloading software
that requires a person to read pages and pages of text. As a
practical matter, he assumed, people probably do not read all of
the text of things they've agreed to because there is a cost-
benefit analysis that people take when recognizing they don't
have an extra hour to read it. He questioned whether the
committee is in a parallel situation because legislators are
being asked to make a decision on a conflict of interest
involving family members, financial disclosure statements, "and
the whole nine yards." He described it as an unfunded mandate
because new time is not created for each legislator to
accomplish the leg work in untold situations where someone will
have to rise and declare a conflict. He stated "We're going to
have to turn to someone else for their recommendation on how to
vote." The procedural aspect of caucus discipline is one thing
but, he said, he was unsure it gets to the point of a formal
disciplined scenario wherein someone tells the representatives
how to vote for the sake of the party or caucus. He added that
it will happen by default, because individual citizen
legislators do not have unlimited time to delve into all of the
nuances of a particular legislator's family or professional
history in a situation, he remarked. "We're still going to have
to defer the responsibility, in some number of cases, for
whether or not someone should be permitted to vote on behalf of
their district to someone else. And so, I think it's going to
be very likely that someone else is going to be making that
decision," he related. The irony is that it defeats the noble
purpose behind the ethic disclosure process of making it a
legislator's responsibility as to whether or not to let someone
vote on a particular issue. He acknowledged he doesn't know an
easy way to fix it.
3:02:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that her "no vote" on the
previous bill was because it needs work, nonetheless, she
believes it is a good idea and an issue the public wants the
legislature to address. She stressed her belief that
legislators should be able to completely abstain on the floor of
the House of Representatives, and she will be "voting no" on HCR
1 because it needs more work. Her concern, she noted, includes
the billions and billions of dollars that move from the state's
savings account to "out there in the community," and that the
real conflict is when that money exchanges hands. She remarked
that a minimal expectation would be that people are able to
abstain on a budget bill, and that there be a definition of
"immediate family" together with all records, in order to make
an informed decision on the floor of the House of
Representatives where gamesmanship may or may not be taking
place.
3:06:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Fansler,
Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted in favor of passing HCR 1 from
committee. Representatives Eastman, Reinbold, and Kopp voted
against it. Therefore, HCR 1 was reported out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
3:07:35 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:07 p.m. to 3:12 p.m.
3:12:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN brought the committee back to order and adjourned
the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR001 & HB044 Amendents 2 - 4 2.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 2/3/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 44 HCR 1 |