Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
01/24/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Commissioner, Department of Administration | |
| Lieutenant Governor Designee | |
| Alaska Public Offices Commission (apoc) | |
| HB278 | |
| HB194 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 194-EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS: FINANCIAL INTERESTS 9:22:07 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 194, "An Act prohibiting a public officer from taking official action regarding a matter in which the public officer has a significant financial interest; and defining 'official action' for purposes of the chapter generally referred to as the Executive Branch Ethics Act." 9:22:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, testified as sponsor of HB 194. He reviewed that the bill came about last year because of ethics questions revolving around "the Gregg Renkes affair." He mentioned Mr. Bundy, an independent counsel, and a counsel for the Personnel Board. REPRESENTATIVE GARA reviewed the problem as follows: Even though the law prevents you from acting in a way to benefit your own financial interest, there's always been an exception in the law that says, "Except when that interest is insignificant." And the attorneys said maybe it's not so clear what insignificant is in our law. REPRESENTATIVE GARA reminded the committee of the numerous amendments that were bandied about to decide on an amount that could be called significant, finally deciding on $10,000, which is right in line with what many other states do. He said the public called for a quick fix and "this, I think, is an appropriate way to deal with that issue." 9:24:27 AM CHAIR SEATON noted that a copy of the "Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act" is in the committee packet. 9:25:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a question from Representative Gatto, confirmed that there is a separate ethics code for executive ethics. 9:25:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Representative Gara if he thinks there should be one set of rules for the executive and legislative to follow. 9:25:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he doesn't think so. He said he doesn't think an executive branch member should ever work on an issue that has a bearing on his/her financial situation. Legislators on the House floor declare their conflict, then still have to vote. He said if executive [ethics] rules applied on the House floor, for example, then many House members would not be allowed to vote, even on mundane issues. He suggested that the legislative ethics rules might be strengthened, but should not be the same. 9:26:49 AM CHAIR SEATON said he thinks the general provisions are there, but how they should apply to an elected official versus an administrative official are slightly different. 9:27:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he is an advocate of clean government but wants to know how an amount is decided upon - how the bright line is set. 9:28:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the language of the law says a person cannot use state time, property, equipment, or official action to benefit his/her personal interest. He continued: I think that should be the end of the law; I think you just shouldn't do it if it benefits you. A lot of people had made the point that if ... it's a minor financial interest, then it's not that big of a deal. And so, there's this exception in our law that says if the amount is insignificant, then we're just not going to hassle you about it. I ... don't know that I agree with that exception; I think I might just have the flat rule that if you do something to benefit yourself or your financial position, it's improper. But recognizing that almost no other state goes that far, and recognizing that Mr. Bundy and Mr. Daniel had done a fair amount of research to try and figure out what might be most workable, I decided to go with what seems to fall within the range of what other states have done, and they grant the exception for what is $5,000 or $10,000 worth of a financial interest. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said there is no scientific reason that he chose the amount of $5,000, and he said he thinks the committee's choice of $10,000 is fine. 9:30:53 AM CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to testify, closed public testimony. 9:32:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report HB 194, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 194(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|