Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
02/01/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB21 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB38 | |
| HB58 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 58-EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS:INTERESTS & ACTIONS 9:46:13 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to a public officer's taking official action regarding a matter in which the public officer has a financial interest; and defining 'official action' under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act and related law." 9:46:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 58 as joint prime sponsor. He said the bill would close the executive branch ethics loophole discovered after the investigation of Alaska's former attorney general. He reviewed that the ethics code exempts unethical conduct if it involves an insignificant interest in a matter. The attorneys who reviewed the attorney general's case said they could not state whether $100,000 interest in a coal company was significant or insignificant. Both the Personnel Board and investigating attorneys recommended that the state define the word "significant." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Governor Sarah Palin has suggested that significant is anything more than $5,000; however, he said after some consideration he decided the longer solution provided in HB 58 is the best answer. He said it is not a violation of the ethics code just to have an interest in a matter that is being discussed. He continued: A separate section of the code that you can't see inside of any of these bills that exist says there are all these series of prohibited conducts. And what they are actions where you intentionally try and benefit yourself. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the issue of proving the person tried to benefit his/her own personal financial interest is already in the ethics code and no one is trying to change that part of the language. The second question is whether or not the person should be exempted from that requirement because "the thing you tried to benefit was so insignificant it doesn't matter." REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated that Governor Palin's bill would set the amount at $5,000. He said the problem with that is that it's not just ownership in a company that matters. He offered the following example: What happens if you're the attorney general, you negotiate a deal involving a coal company that you're sitting on the board of? You probably don't make very much money as a board member, but if you try and benefit that company and you're on the board, that should be prohibited, even though ... you don't own $5,000 of an interest. What happens if ... you have some sort of employment relationship or contractual relationship with that company [and] you ... negotiate a deal that is aimed to benefit the coal company? That should be a problem, even though you don't own $5,000 of an interest in the company. REPRESENTATIVE GARA listed some legislators who have pointed out the aforementioned example. He said HB 58 would label as significant anything that is "more than $5,000 or ownership" or "if you're a board member or employee, have a contractual relationship with the company," and intend to benefit [from] that interest. 9:51:24 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 58 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|