Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/10/2020 01:00 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 | |
| HB133 | |
| HB201 | |
| HJR15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 201-DEFENSE OF PUB. OFFICER: ETHICS COMPLAINT
2:15:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 201, "An Act relating to legal representation of
public officers in ethics complaints."
2:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor introduced HB 201. She stated that HB 201 is a
simple bill. She remarked that in the past, when an ethics
complaint has been filed against the governor or the lieutenant
governor, the defense of the complaint has not been represented
by the attorney general. She remarked that there are some
regulations in the works that will allow the attorney general,
in his/her sole discretion, to determine whether to defend an
ethics complaint against the governor or lieutenant governor.
She expressed that she thinks returning to the regulations that
previously existed is the proper way to go. She explained that
in the system proposed under HB 201, the governor or lieutenant
governor would pay his/her own fees up front, or the state would
pay the fees up front when necessary, and he/she would be
reimbursed after he/she was completely exonerated. She added
that she does not think it is appropriate to spend state funds
when the governor or lieutenant governor may have done something
unethical and is not completely exonerated. She remarked that
HB 201 "takes us back to the status quo and doesn't allow those
regulations to supersede the status quo."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she would like to make it
perfectly clear that HB 201 is not a criticism of the current
governor or lieutenant governor of Alaska; as a matter of
course, she said that she thinks it is more appropriate for an
individual who has been charged with an ethics violation to have
his/her fees paid by the state only if he/she is exonerated.
She added that she does not think the attorney general should be
defending the governor or lieutenant governor.
2:19:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether HB 201 would be applicable
to legislators overall, in addition to the executive branch.
2:19:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that HB 201 would not apply to
legislators. She offered her understanding that currently, a
legislator pays his/her own fees and can then go to the
Legislative Council for reimbursement, if he/she is completely
exonerated. She added that she thinks it would be a good idea
to put a reimbursement policy into statute, rather than having
an anecdotal system which legislators may know about through its
previous use by another legislator.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Representative LeDoux whether she
would propose that a legislator exonerated of an ethics
violation complaint go to the Legislative Council and ask for
reimbursement, or whether she proposes an established system
that automatically reimburses an exonerated legislator.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she is not suggesting a
change to the current system. She opined that if the committee
was concerned about this issue and wanted to amend HB 201 to
include legislators, the system should work the same way it does
currently.
2:22:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that the committee had discussed
how HB 201 would affect the legislative and executive branches.
He questioned how the proposed legislation would affect the
judicial branch; for example, what would happen if a judge was
involved in an ethics violation complaint?
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she did not know the answer
to that question, but Dan Wayne from Legislative Legal Services
might be able to answer the question.
2:23:32 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State
Legislature, remarked that he helped to draft HB 201. He stated
that the bill currently amends the executive branch ethics act
only. Referencing page 1, lines 5-6, of HB 201, he pointed out
some cited sections of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
which could be potential hurdles to reimbursing public officers
in the executive branch in an exoneration.
2:24:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that Representative Eastman did not ask
about the executive branch; he asked what would happen if a
judicial officer was accused of an ethics violation.
MR. WAYNE replied that he thinks judicial officers follow a code
of ethics that they administer themselves through the Alaska Bar
Association or the Alaska Supreme Court.
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he thinks it is called the Judicial
Conduct Commission, which consists of members appointed by the
governor and approved by the legislature.
MR. WAYNE replied that he thinks Chair Claman might be more
knowledgeable on the topic than he is, and probably also knows
that this is not in statute or regulated by the legislature.
2:25:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that he did not think that Mr. Wayne
provided the answer the committee was looking for, and he
suggested that someone from the court system or the Judicial
Conduct Commission answer the question for the committee at a
future time. He remarked that the question he thinks
Representative Eastman is hoping to hear an answer to is whether
the state ends up paying when there is a complaint against a
judge.
2:26:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed that that is correct; he is
hoping to find out who pays in that situation and the effects of
extending HB 201 beyond just the executive branch.
2:26:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX reiterated that HB 201 only applies to the
executive branch, but if the committee were to amend the bill to
include the other branches, she is sure it would get answers to
all those questions.
2:27:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that he noticed it was mentioned
that HB 201 was introduced in response to a regulation change,
and he wondered why HB 201 would be a better option than the
legislature clarifying the regulation itself.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she had approached the
Legislative Legal Counsel and asked to have something drafted
that would address the new regulations, which she does not want
to see go in to effect.
2:27:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the reimbursement structure would be
a "pay to be paid clause," in which the executive would have to
write a check to his/her attorney for representation on an
ethics violation complaint and would then seek reimbursement, or
the executive would be able to send the bills directly for
payment and not have to pay out-of-pocket at all, unless he/she
lost the ethics violation complaint, in which case he/she would
have to pay the fees back.
2:28:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she thinks the idea is that
an executive could either pay up front and be reimbursed by the
state if he/she is exonerated, or the state could pay the fees
and the individual would have to agree to pay the fees back if
he/she were not totally exonerated. She suggested that Mr.
Wayne might have more information on the subject.
2:29:02 PM
MR. WAYNE remarked that HB 201 does not go into detail on who
the payment would go to; it just specifies that there would be
an authorization of reimbursement. He suggested that
reimbursement could be interpreted differently by different
people. As an example, he explained that money could go
directly from the stated to a law firm and could be called
reimbursement. He expressed that the bill was based on existing
regulations, which is where the criteria for reimbursement was
drawn.
2:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referencing page 1, lines 9-11, of HB
201, stated, "It would seem to me that somebody could accept
reimbursement before the case is finally adjudicated, because
otherwise why are we asking them to pay it back if it turns out
they're not fully exonerated?"
2:30:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, referencing the eighth edition of Black's Law
Dictionary, defined reimbursement as: "Repayment" and
"Indemnification." He added that indemnification was defined
as: "The action of compensating for loss or damage sustained"
and "The compensation so made."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative LeDoux whether she
considers everything pertaining to the current regulations as
excellent, considering that HB 201 would put the current
regulations into statute, or whether there are some areas that
work better than others. Referencing page 1, line 11, of HB
201, he remarked that it states, "exonerated of all violations".
He expressed that he thinks there could be more than one
allegation lodged against an executive official at a time. For
example, if one is an egregious violation that he/she is
exonerated of but the other is a minor violation akin to
littering that he/she is found guilty of, then the executive
official would be required to pay for the expenses of the
egregious offense that he/she was exonerated of, even if those
expenses comprised 99 percent of the total cost.
2:33:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that Representative Eastman made
an excellent point, and she had wondered if it might make sense
to consider a system similar to that used in a court fee
situation with attorney fees, where fees are reimbursed if the
individual is exonerated on most of the charges.
2:34:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that in a court fee system, the prevailing
party is entitled to get back his/her attorney fees; however,
the attorney fees are almost never 100 percent fees. He asked
Representative LeDoux whether this factors in to how she would
approach the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she is not certain. She said
that she thinks in public interest litigation it is 100 percent
of the fees, and she thinks that if the individual prevailed on
99 percent of the claims, he/she would be reimbursed 99 percent
of his/her fees. She remarked that HB 201 was written to
parallel the existing regulations, but she is not sure herself
of what the correct approach is.
2:35:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether she understood correctly
that an official must be exonerated in order to receive
reimbursement.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that that is not the case. She
Referenced language on page 1, lines 9-11, of HB 201, which
read: "A public officer or former public officer who accepts
the reimbursement under this section shall promptly repay all
money received if the officer is not exonerated of all
violations." She remarked that an official could accept payment
to begin with, as not everyone has the funds to pay up front
out-of-pocket.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that she thinks Representative
LeDoux may have just made a point for her; if an official
doesn't have the funds to pay up front, and the state covers the
up front cost but the official is not exonerated, when the state
looks for the official to pay back those fees he/she might not
pay the fees back.
2:37:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that "nothing of Representative Stutes'
question is to suggest that any legislator, or the governor, is
a deadbeat."
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that that is certainly not the
case. She asked whether there would be an adversity to having
legislation requiring an official to be exonerated in order to
apply for reimbursement. She added that she thinks most
attorneys would be amenable to that idea.
2:37:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that many attorneys might be
amenable to that idea, if there were a standard in place which
allowed for most prevailing counts - and not all counts - to be
exonerated. She added that she thinks there would be political
considerations; not only would the official be facing the stigma
of having faced an ethics violation, he/she would have to face
his/her next election with public knowledge that,
"Representative so-and-so is a deadbeat; they owe the state 'X'
number of dollars."
2:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that she appreciated what
Representative LeDoux was saying; however, she recounted that
many people in Juneau have commented to her that they will not
rent to legislators, as they will not pay their rent. She added
that she has heard this approximately four times from different
people.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she finds that somewhat
appalling.
2:39:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that there is potential for an attorney's
fees bill to range from $25,000 to $50,000 in a complicated
ethics violation case. He stated that the questions of the
ability to repay and whether the state should be advancing these
funds are significant. He added that these dollar amounts may
not seem to be big items compared to some of the items discussed
in the state budget; however, public suspicion may be raised if
funds were being routinely advanced for fees relating to ethics
complaints, where the essence of the complaint is that the
official is acting outside of the law.
2:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the executive branch has
the same limitations on accepting legal help as the legislative
branch. He clarified that in the legislative branch it would be
considered unethical for a legislator to accept pro bono
representation from an attorney, as it would be considered
accepting a gift over $250.
2:41:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she did not know whether the
executive branch has the same limitations as the legislative
branch, but her understanding is that the legislative branch can
set up a legal defense fund, which is not governed by the $250
gift rule.
2:42:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Wayne whether he could clarify
Representative LeDoux's comment and question.
2:42:47 PM
MR. WAYNE asked Representative LeDoux whether she could clarify
her question.
2:43:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that the question was whether
the executive branch has the same restrictions on receiving
money as the legislative branch. In addition, she repeated her
understanding that the legislative branch can set up a legal
defense fund, which is not governed by the $250 gift rule.
MR. WAYNE responded that he did not know whether this was
correct. He remarked that it could raise a concern under AS
24.60.080 for a legislator accepting a gift of legal fees;
however, he stated that he did not know if there has been an
exception carved out for that.
2:44:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether anyone could clarify what
the limitations are on the executive branch regarding gifts. He
remarked that during his time on the Ethics Committee, it was
explained to him that the committee's understanding was that an
official charged with a violation could not receive legal help
totaling over $250 in a calendar year. Replying to a follow-up
question from Chair Claman, he clarified that an attorney could
volunteer only $250 worth of his/her time and nothing more,
regardless of whether it was offered as pro bono.
2:45:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Wayne whether he could provide insight
into what the limitations are on the executive branch in terms
of acquiring legal advice from outside counsel. He clarified
that he thinks Representative Eastman's question was very
specific: If the governor has an ethics complaint brought
against him/her, and asks for advice from an attorney regarding
the complaint, the governor is barred from getting advice that
would equate to over $250 pro bono.
2:46:27 PM
MR. WAYNE replied that this would fall under AS 39.52.130(a)(b),
which read as follows:
Sec. 39.52.130. Improper gifts.
(a) A public officer may not solicit, accept, or
receive, directly or indirectly, a gift, whether in
the form of money, service, loan, travel,
entertainment, hospitality, employment, promise, or in
any other form, that is a benefit to the officer's
personal or financial interests, under circumstances
in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift
is intended to influence the performance of official
duties, actions, or judgment. A gift from a person
required to register as a lobbyist under AS 24.45.041
to a public officer or a public officer's immediate
family member is presumed to be intended to influence
the performance of official duties, actions, or
judgment unless the giver is an immediate family
member of the person receiving the gift.
(b) Notice of the receipt by a public officer of
a gift with a value in excess of $150, including the
name of the giver and a description of the gift and
its approximate value, must be provided to the
designated supervisor within 30 days after the date of
its receipt
MR. WAYNE interpreted that if a gift is worth more than $150, it
must be reported, but he was not sure if there is a defined
upper limit to what could be accepted.
2:47:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Wayne whether his view was that an
officer is not prohibited from receiving services greater than
$250, just that the services must be declared after they have
exceeded the $250 amount.
MR. WAYNE answered that he does not see a limitation defined
anywhere in statute, unlike AS 24.60.080, which applies to the
legislature and has a defined yearly limit. He said that it is
possible the attorney general has established a limit based on
statute, but he does not know for sure.
2:49:04 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:49 p.m.
2:49:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 201. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony. He announced that HB 201 would be held
for further review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 201 v. U 2.10.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Sponsor Statement 2.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HJR 15 v. M 1.21.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sponsor Statement 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sectional Analysis v. M 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Supporting Document - NCSL Table 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Presentation 2.5.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Testimony HJUD Received by 2.7.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 v. M Amendment #1 HJUD 2.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 1.29.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 v. M Amendment #1 HJUD (Withdrawn) 2.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HB 133 v. M 2.3.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sponsor Statement 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sectional Analysis v. M 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - One-Sheeter 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Carey Case 4.22.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Areas 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Questions and Answers 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - DJJ Letter 5.13.19.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 PowerPoint Presentation 2.4.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Memo to HJUD 2.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.16.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |