Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

02/03/2017 01:30 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:36:51 PM Start
01:37:34 PM HB44|| HCR1
03:12:29 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
Moved CSSSHB 44(JUD) Out of Committee
Moved HCR 1 Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled 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                                                               
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                                                          
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                                                            
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
CHAIR  CLAMAN responded  "As  to this  pending  motion, yes,  one                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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