02/22/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109|| HB5|| HB6|| HB10|| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 117 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 2007
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to driver's licenses and permits, commercial
driver's licenses, and other motor vehicle laws; relating to the
driver's license compact; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 117
"An Act relating to proclamations issued by the governor calling
the legislature into special session."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/30/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
STUART THOMPSON
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 109.
HEIDI DRYGAS, General Council
Public Employees Local 71
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 109.
DENNIS MOEN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Local 71 during the
hearing on HB 109.
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 109.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Agencies & Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 109.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained how HB 5 was incorporated into HB
109.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04:46 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 109-DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
[Includes brief mention of HB 5, HB 6, HB 10, and HB 20.]
8:05:25 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to the requirement for
candidates, groups, legislators, public officials, and other
persons to submit reports electronically to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; relating to disclosures by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
legislative directors, public officials, and certain candidates
for public office concerning services performed for compensation
and concerning certain income, gifts, and other financial
matters; requiring legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public
officials, and municipal officers to make certain financial
disclosures when they leave office; relating to insignificant
ownership interest in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to
certain restrictions on employment after leaving state service
for purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR LYNN talked about the importance of ethics in the
legislature. He said the committee started with two other
ethics bills, HB 10 and HB 20, which he said are being morphed
into HB 109 - the governor's bill. He said he would like to see
HB 109 moved to the next committee of referral in a judicious
manner. He thanked the State Affairs ethics subcommittee for
its work.
8:07:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES thanked the staff that worked for the
subcommittee, and he talked about the work that was involved.
He said two bills turned into about twelve bills. The
subcommittee began with approximately 30 amendments, and that
number grew. He paid particular comment to Rynnieva Moss, staff
to Representative Coghill, for her assistance. He expressed
appreciation for the process and predicted that the entire
committee would be happy with the results.
8:09:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed gratitude for the spirit of
bipartisanship that was displayed during the subcommittee's
deliberations.
8:09:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reported that the subcommittee met four
times. He said an agreement was made to include only those
ideas that received unanimous consent; therefore, there remains
a pile of amendments for the committee's consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reviewed some focal points of HB 109. He
said it would: mandate electronic filing of the Alaska Public
Offices Commission's (APOC's) reports; require legislators and
other public officials to make financial disclosures upon
leaving office; require disclosure of a description of services
performed by candidates, legislators, and public officials for
compensation; require disclosure of incomes, gifts, and other
financial matters; establish a presumption that financial
interest of less than $5,000 is insignificant; and establish a
presumption that any gift from a lobbyist to a member of the
executive branch or immediate family of that executive officer
is unethical. He said the bill would tighten up restrictions on
public officials leaving office. He relayed that the bill would
also tighten up timelines. For example, he mentioned a 90-day
period that would be "aligned ... with the end-of-year
reporting."
8:12:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reviewed the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 109, Version LS-GH1059\K, Wayne, 2/21/07. He said
Version K would eliminate the exemption from disclosure for
candidates raising less than $5,000, except for judges that are
going for confirmation, members and delegates of a
constitutional convention, and municipal candidates. He said
this topic had been debated during the hearing on HB 6. He
stated that the subcommittee thought it best to include the
governor and lieutenant governor in mandated electronic filing
while an electronic filing system is "worked out."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL highlighted proposed changes to Title 24
of Alaska Statute, which would: mandate ethics training for all
legislators; disallow legislators from generating news letters
within 30 days of an election; give the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics more authority to address advisory opinions,
meet quorum requirements, and issue due process; prohibit a
spouse or domestic partner of a legislator from lobbying; and
require full disclosure of gifts to legislators and their
immediate family members. Representative Coghill said the bill
also addresses issues related to the Office of Victims' Rights,
standard of conduct laws, and uniform disclosures. He mentioned
Title 30 and indicated that there would be amendments clarifying
that former public officials would have to file a final
disclosure within 90 days of leaving office.
8:15:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that as chair of the subcommittee,
he focused on determining: whether a behavior is ethical,
whether the issue is related to process, and who holds the
authority to "apply these." He said both the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics and APOC are the "referees"; when there is
a violation, those entities have to deal with it. He said he
wants a bright line drawn as to what is ethical.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed concern that [APOC] and the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics are not given authority
beyond what he thinks is necessary. He said one question is
whether or not the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics should
be allowed to tell legislators which charity events they can
participate in ethically. Currently it is the Legislative
Council's position to sanction such events. He said he would
like to see the Legislative Council retain that responsibility,
but he would like it to make those decisions within a certain
time frame.
8:18:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 109, Version 25-GH1059\K, Wayne, 2/21/07, as work
draft.
8:19:03 AM
CHAIR LYNN objected.
8:19:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL brought attention to the various sections
of the bill [as shown in the sectional analysis, included in the
committee packet]. He reviewed Sections 1 and 2 of the
analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1. Eliminates the exemption from
disclosure for candidates raising less than and
spending less than $5,000, but retains exemption for
delegates to a constitutional convention, a judge
seeking electoral confirmations, or a municipal
candidate.
Sec. 2. Requires candidates for governor and
lieutenant governor to file campaign disclosure
reports to APOC electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "The governor had proposed ...
that all elected officers file, and we thought best to start
here."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL turned to Section 3, shown in the
sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 3. Requires the APOC Committee to
administer annually updated ethics courses to teach
lobbyists and employers of lobbyists how to comply
with laws regulating lobbyists.
Sec. 4. When lobbyists register with APOC, they
must sign a sworn affirmation that they have completed
a training course on disclosure laws within the last
12 months.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he thinks the reason [the
subcommittee] feels strongly on this issue is that the laws are
both dynamic and complex. He turned to Sections 5-8, shown in
the sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 5. Prohibits a spouse or domestic partner
of a legislator from lobbying for pay.
Sec. 6. Language clean up to clarify that this
subsection applies to Chapter 60, Standards of
Conduct.
Sec. 7. Adds a prohibition to a legislator
preventing him from sending a newsletter to
constituents within a 30-day window prior to a state
election.
Sec. 8. Replaces it [sic] "written report" with
"disclosure" to make language consistent with other
sections of the statutes.
Allows a quorum of the committee to refrain from
publishing disclosures that would be considered an
invasion of the discloser's privacy. Currently a
person who is a participant of the Violent Crimes
Compensation program would have to disclose and the
committee has determined they don't have the authority
to withhold publication of a name.
8:22:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that in the sectional
analysis, the word "committee" refers to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, which is a bipartisan committee comprised of
a Republican and Democrat from each House, plus five public
members, for a total of 9 members.
8:22:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved on to Section 9, shown in the
sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 9. Eliminates the requirement of a legislator
to file a close economic relationship with a lobbyist.
Section 5 prohibits a spouse or domestic partner of a
legislator from lobbying, eliminating the ability for
a legislator to have close economic relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Section 9 is necessary
because of Section 5, which prohibits a spouse from being a
lobbyist. He continued to Section 10, which is shown in the
sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 10. Special discounts are given to legislators
and their staff to make the stay during session more
affordable. An example is reduced rates at a local
athletic club. This amendment adds the office of
victims' rights to the list of legislative employees
that do not qualify for the discounts.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would have to defer to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics for further explanation of
Section 10. He turned to Sections 11 and 12, which are shown in
the sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 11. Adds gifts of legal services and gifts to
family members because of their relationship with a
legislator to the disclosures that are maintained for
public record and forwarded to APOC.
Sec. 12. Requires a legislator or legislative
employee to disclose to the Ethics Committee gifts
received by family members because of their
relationship with a legislator or legislative
employee. The disclosure is to be maintained for
public record by the Ethics Committee and forwarded to
APOC for online public disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Section 13 is clean up language,
changing "deadlines" to "deadline" in order to conform to the
year-end and 90-day report.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL called Section 14 a "conforming issue on
deadline filing." Section 14 is shown in the sectional analysis
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 14. This amendment requires all disclosures to
be filed within 30 days of the association or
interest. Filing dates for ethics disclosures are
very confusing. Some disclosures are required within
30 days of association at certain times of the year,
some annually, and no disclosures are required during
the timeframe of 30 days prior to the end of the
session.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Section 15 conforms to an advisory
opinion. Section 15 is shown in the sectional analysis as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 15. Under existing law, once a person leaves
service, they no longer are bound by disclosure laws.
This new section would require them to report all
matters subject to disclosure under 24.60 while they
were in public service regardless of the fact they are
no longer in service. The ethics committee issued an
advisory opinion on December 4, 2006 that sets policy
consistent with this change in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL highlighted Sections 16-20, which are
shown in the sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 16. Allows the chair of the committee or a
subcommittee to designate the alternate legislative
member to attend a meeting if the regular member is
unable to attend. Currently the chair can only
appoint the alternate if the regular member has a
conflict with an with an [sic] item on the meeting
agenda.
Sec. 17. Puts current practice into statute by
deleting the requirement that summaries of public
decisions and advisory opinions be published on a
semi-annual basis Public decisions have been
published annually since 1999 and advisory opinions
have been published annually since 1995.
Sec. 18. Makes ethics classes mandatory for
legislators, legislative employees, and public members
of the committee. Legislators, legislative employees,
and public members of the ethics committee would be
required to get the training within 10 days of the
first day of the first regular session. If service
begins after the tenth day, the legislator,
legislative employee, or public member of the ethics
committee would be required to get ethics training
within 30 days of te [sic] first day of service.
8:29:02 AM
Sec. 19. Extends the authority to request an advisory
opinion to the ethics committee and APOC. It also
requires the committee to make deletions to advisory
opinions that prevent the disclosure of the identity
of the person requesting the opinion and any other
persons named in the opinion. Finally, it clarifies
that advisory opinions are confidential unless the
person requesting the opinion waives confidentiality.
Sec. 20. This amendment grants authority to the
committee to approve the change date of a hearing.
Currently, if a complainant exercises his authority to
change the date of a public hearing and requests a
six-month extension, the committee cannot extend the
hearing for more than 90 days. In addition, the
committee may need to extend the hearing beyond the
90-day limit because they lacked a quorum.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would look to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics for further explanation on Section 20. He
moved on to Sections 21-23, which are shown in the sectional
analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 21. Adds to the list of "appointing authority"
the victims' advocate for employees of the office of
victims' rights and the legislature for the victims'
advocate. When the ethics committee determines an
employee has violated standards of conduct, the
committee forwards its findings of fact to the
employee's appointing authority" or supervisor to
determine sanctions for the employee.
Sec. 22 Leaves electronic reporting for all
reporters other than Governor and Lt. Governor as
optional but adds some requirements for APOC to accept
non-electronic disclosures. Candidates for governor
and lieutenant governor will be required to file
electronically.
Sec. 23. Adds language to address who will be
notified if the director of the office of victim's
rights fails to file an annual financial report. It
requires the APOC to notify the Legislative Council if
the director of the office of victim's rights fails to
file a financial disclosure report with APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Section 22 "mirrors what we did in
Title 15."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Section 24 begins the work done on
Title 39. He said, "Now [we're] switching from lobbyists and
legislators to executive branch members, so when you hear
'public official', from time to time it will include the
legislators ...." Sections 24-29 are shown in the sectional
analysis as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 24. This makes it clear that former public
officials have to file a final disclosure statement
after leaving his/her position within 90 days of
terminating service. Subsection (b) clarifies former
public officials and former municipal officers must
comply with disclosure requirements.
Sec. 25. Applies to public officials and candidates.
This section would require more detail in the
financial disclosures reporting of income and
interests exceeding $5,000 in value. The disclosures
must describe the source of the income, the amount
received, the number of hours spent to earn the income
if reimbursed on an hourly basis, and details
regarding the services provided. It also clarifies
that the official or candidate must report the gift if
the cumulative value over the course of a year is more
than $250.
Sec. 26. This section would provide for permissive
electronic filing of candidates' and public officials'
financial disclosures with APOC, but makes it
mandatory to file electronically for candidates filing
for the office of governor or lieutenant governor.
Sec. 27. This section allows action on what is
defined as significant business interests where the
effect of the action is insignificant or conjectural.
It attempts to draw a bright line for a public officer
to know when he or she could be crossing the line in
making decisions that could result in a financial gain
for them or their immediate family.
Sec. 28. This applies to all state employees a
presumption that all gifts from a lobbyist to a public
officer or members of the officer's immediate family
are improper unless the lobbyist is an immediate
family member of the gift's recipient.
Sec. 29. This section would make the post-state
employment limitation more restrictive by precluding
former public officers from working on particular
legislation or regulations, if they personally and
substantially participated in work on the same
legislation or regulations during their state service.
CHAIR COGHILL predicted that Sections 25 and 26 would generate a
lot of discussion and amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Coghill, said the timeline related to Section 29
is two years.
8:35:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL highlighted Sections 30-35, which are
shown in the sectional analysis as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 30. Sec. 30 extends the existing one-year ban on
lobbying to include deputy heads of principal
departments and those holding policy-making positions
in the Office of the Governor. Currently, the one-
year lobbying ban applies only to the governor,
lieutenant governor, and heads of principal
departments.
Sec. 31. Prohibits for one-year after leaving a
position as a former head of a department in the
executive branch from serving on a board or other
entity that was regulated by that department which the
former department head worked.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that Section 32 is missing
from the sectional analysis in the committee packet. He said
Section 32 addresses those who leave service after the effective
date shown in Section 29. He said it also amends Section 30,
which applies to people who leave service as governor or
lieutenant governor after the effective date in Section 30.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concluded by reviewing the purpose of
Sections 33-35, which are shown in the sectional analysis as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 33. Applicability clause provides that new laws
enacted in HB 109 would apply to elected officials and
public officers who leave office after the effective
date of HB 109.
Sec. 34. The sections of HB 109 that change reporting
requirements with APOC have an effective date of July
1, 2007.
Sec. 35. The remainder of the bill becomes effective
immediately.
8:38:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said one amendment that needs
consideration is related to improper campaign contributions,
which he said is a criminal law issue. He indicated that there
are about 26 more amendments for the committee's consideration.
8:39:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated that if the bill were passed out as is, it
would be an improvement over "what we have now." He announced
that the committee would now hear public testimony.
8:41:03 AM
STUART THOMPSON testified on behalf of himself as follows:
State leaders assert that their ethics reform
objective is to recover lost public trust. Fiddling
with public disclosure regulations, post public
employment regulations, and conflict of interest
definitions does serve this purpose. Indeed, I
commend - I underline "commend" - the detailed work
that's gone into the CS for HB 109; but unfortunately,
this effort is superficial. Here's how:
The genesis of our country was a revolt against
corrupt administration of a parliament-supported
monarchy - reference U.S. Declaration of Independence.
Consequently, our formal government was designed from
a comprehensive study of all government successes and
failures before. So was our Alaska Constitution. It
follows that vigorous prosecution by all officials of
the public oath of office, with educated initiatives,
becomes the best overall tool for making government
worthy of trust. Therefore, for our state to have
corruption management problems is evidence of poor
comprehension and application of our constitution,
their devices, and their philosophical foundations.
Consequently, I recommend that at least the following
portions of the Alaska Constitution be investigated
for being ill understood and for weak or perverted
application: Article 1, Section 1 - inherent rights;
Article 1, Section 2 - source of government; Article
1, Section 5 - freedom of speech; Article 2, Section
12 - rules; Article 12, Section 5 - oaths of office;
Article 12, Section 6 - merit system.
Specifics have been sent to each legislator in an e-
mail entitled, "Corruption: Micromanaging with laws,
versus macro managing with constitutions." I assert
that Alaska's visibly applying less than 40 percent of
our form of government's capability is worse
corruption than a bit of vote selling. Since Alaska
has no rule or law to compel a career-long study of
the craft of government by public officials, this
underlying corruption naturally encourages varied
ethics lapses will persist.
MR. THOMPSON wished the committee luck and success in "getting
something to happen in this area."
8:44:14 AM
HEIDI DRYGAS, General Council, Public Employees Local 71, stated
that Alaska has a longstanding nepotism statute and
corresponding regulations that prohibit family members from
working together in a supervisory relationship. She relayed
that in August 2005, the Department of Administration
promulgated a new policy in the Alaska Administrative Manual
(AAM) 100.050. She explained that the policy prohibits
employees from being in an employment relationship with an
immediate family member, including conjugal relationships, up to
the second degree of kindred. She said this provision was
enacted in response to a Department of Law memorandum issued in
March 2005, regarding how the Executive Branch Ethics Act
applies when a supervisor and subordinate are in a conjugal
relationship. The attorney general's opinion was that the
Ethics Act would prevent a supervisor and another employee from
working together if they were family members or living in a
conjugal relationship. She continued:
The Department of Administration, in promulgating this
Alaska Administrative Manual, Section 100.050, has
taken that opinion and dramatically extended its
scope. In defining what an employment relationship
is, the department expanded it to include a vast
number of actions typically completed by
nonsupervisory employees. And as it stands, the
department's new policy, which is based on its
interpretation of the Ethics Act and the March 2005 AG
[attorney general] memorandum, has had [a] devastating
effect on Alaska's public employees, especially those
living and working in rural or Native communities.
This policy is now prohibiting one family member from
being hired, promoted, or transferred if it results in
[an] employment relationship with another family
member. This is true even if neither one is a
supervisor, based solely on the minutest possibility
that one family member may be promoted to a lead or
foreman position, even if only for a day. And as most
of you know, many Alaskan communities are so small
that a lot of individuals are related to each other in
some familiar relationship in some way. The impact on
nonsupervisory employees is substantial, and it's
really unnecessary. It's essentially prohibiting
supervisory and nonsupervisory relationships between
family members.
There's a longstanding state regulation enacted by the
Alaska Labor & Relations Agency defining what a
supervisory employee is, and it is just what we think
of it as: a person who takes action in the form of
employment, discipline, and grievance adjudication.
We're talking: hiring, transfers, layoffs,
suspensions, discharge; things that we think that an
everyday supervisor would do. But the department's
new nepotism policy is prohibiting far more than just
supervisory relationships.
The union would suggest an amendment to add a
[sub]section (d) to the Ethics Act, AS 39.52.910,
which would limit the effect of the Ethics Act to what
the legislature, in my mind, likely intended, which
would "declarify" that Ethics Act issues arise in
supervisory relationships between family members.
MS. DRYGAS said the union essentially believes that the
suggested amendment would clarify the scope of the Ethics Act
and protect working Alaskans, especially those working in the
small communities who are being dramatically effected by "this
policy based on the Ethics Act."
8:48:50 AM
CHAIR LYNN noted that the suggested amendment is attached to Ms.
Drygas' written testimony, which is included in the committee
packet.
8:49:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the subcommittee is aware that Ms.
Drygas, her representatives, the Department of Law, and [Chair
Lynn's] staff have been working hard on this issue. He asked if
an accommodation had yet been reached and an amendment produced
that is acceptable to everyone.
MS. DRYGAS answered that "nothing has happened yet that would
fix this problem." In response to Chair Lynn, she said she has
no current timeline regarding a solution.
CHAIR LYNN encouraged Ms. Drygas to try to expedite the process.
He said this is a subject that needs to be explored, either in
the House State Affairs Standing Committee or in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
8:51:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for a definition of family for the
record.
MS. DRYGAS answered that the definition is the "second degree of
kindred," which she offered her understanding includes
grandparents.
8:52:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that either the House State
Affairs Standing Committee or its subcommittee could assist in
reaching a solution.
8:53:35 AM
DENNIS MOEN, testifying on behalf of Local 71, offered the
following example:
Down in one of our remote camps we had an
[administrative] clerk that was an M&O [maintenance &
operations] clerk, and she had a boyfriend that was a
mechanic on the state equipment fleet side. Well, ...
her boyfriend wanted to transfer from being a mechanic
over to being an equipment operator .... They refused
his transfer ..., because they felt that if the
manager for that area was unavailable, if the foreman
was unavailable, and if the lead man was somehow wiped
out in the process, ... [and] the state troopers
called, she might get the phone call and she might
actually dispatch her boyfriend, showing favoritism.
And that's just one of the examples that we run into
that doesn't make a lot of sense. Consequently he
quit and went to work somewhere else.
8:55:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the committee would hold any further
public testimony for another time and take up review of the
bill.
8:57:32 AM
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, thanked the committee and subcommittee for its work. He
stated that the governor welcomes the opportunity to work with
the committee toward improvements that will achieve the ultimate
goal of confirming Alaskans' faith in their public
representatives. He observed that not everything that was in
the original governor's bill ended up in Version K, and he said
nine amendments have been prepared to that version that would
either restore some of the language in the original bill version
or offer a compromise. He noted that the amendments address the
following topics: electronic filing; the amount of details in
legislative disclosures and disclosures of public officials; and
a definition of "policy making position" - a term used in the
restriction of lobbying.
MR. JONES said it came to the governor's attention that there
were several boards and commissions in state government that one
would expect would be subject to the financial disclosure
requirements under Title 39, Chapter 50, but were not. One of
the governor's amendments, he said, would add to that list of
boards and commissions some of the following: the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority, the Mental Health
Trust Authority; the Alaska Railroad Corporation; the Knik Arm
Bridge and Toll Authority; and the Alaska Labor Relations
Agency.
8:59:55 AM
MR. JONES, regarding Representative Johnson's query about the
meaning of "immediate family member", read the definition in the
Executive Branch Ethics Act as follows:
Immediate family member means the spouse or another
person cohabitating with the person in a conjugal
relationship that is not a legal marriage, a child,
including a stepchild or adoptive child, a parent,
sibling, grandparent, aunt or uncle, and a parent or
sibling of the person's spouse.
9:01:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recommended that the committee address
"the Title 11 issue first," followed by a consideration of the
governor's amendments.
9:01:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that Mr.
Jones, in answering Representative Johnson's question, was
referencing AS 39.52.960(11).
9:02:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG talked about the need for an amendment
to Title 11 - the criminal code - which would add a new section
entitled, "improper campaign contribution and agreement."
9:04:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that that issue is in another
bill.
9:04:35 AM
CHAIR LYNN removed his objection to adopting Version K. There
being no further objection, Version K was before the committee
as a work draft.
9:05:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved] to adopt Amendment 1, labeled,
25-LS8001\A.4, Wayne, 2/9/07, which read as follows [with some
handwritten changes]:
Page _____, line _____:
Insert "relating to state and municipal elected
officials and candidates for state and municipal
elective office; relating to certain campaign
contributions made in exchange for certain
agreements;"
Page _____, line _____:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 11.56 is amended by adding a new
section to article 1 to read:
Sec. 11.56.135. Improper campaign contribution
and agreement. (a) A person commits the crime of
improper campaign contribution and agreement if the
person
(1) explicitly agrees to make a campaign
contribution to a state or municipal elected official
or a candidate for a state or municipal elective
office, and makes that contribution, in exchange for
an agreement by the elected official or candidate to
alter the official's or candidate's position on a
matter or issue related to the official duties of the
statewide or municipal elective office held or sought;
or
(2) as a state or municipal elected
official or a candidate for state or municipal
elective office, accepts a campaign contribution and
explicitly agrees, in exchange for that contribution,
to alter the official's or candidate's position on a
matter or issue related to the official duties of the
statewide or municipal elective office held or sought.
(b) Improper campaign contribution and agreement
is a class B felony."
Page _____, line _____:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. Section 1 of this Act applies to
offenses occurring on or after the effective date of
sec. 1 of this Act."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified for the record that Amendment
1 is intended to cover a person who allows his/her vote to be
changed or maintained for money.
9:08:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 1.
9:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she agrees with the sentiments of
Amendment 1, but she questioned how "explicit" is defined.
9:09:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he vehemently disagrees with
Amendment 1, because it is a criminal code issue, not a civil
code issue. He cited AS 24.60.030(e)(1)-(2), which read as
follows:
(e) A legislator may not directly, or by
authorizing another to act on the legislator's behalf,
(1) agree to, threaten to, or state or imply that
the legislator will take or withhold a legislative,
administrative, or political action, including support
or opposition to a bill, employment, nominations, and
appointments, as a result of a person's decision to
provide or not provide a political contribution,
donate or not donate to a cause favored by the
legislator, or provide or not provide a thing of
value;
(2) state or imply that the legislator will
perform or refrain from performing a lawful
constituent service as a result of a person's decision
to provide or not provide a political contribution,
donate or not donate to a cause favored by the
legislator, or provide or not provide a thing of
value; or
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "I think the ethics issue is
already very well stated on trading your decision for favors."
He recommended taking the criminal issue to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. He said putting criminal code in an ethics
bill that deals with civil code is mixing apples and oranges.
CHAIR LYNN asked, "What about the person that makes the offer?"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, "I don't know that I would
expect everybody who wants to offer a candidate some support to
know all the ethics laws, but it is incumbent upon us to know."
9:16:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he wants the issue discussed in
committee in order to make recommendations to the next committee
of referral.
9:17:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he will fight against putting the
language of Amendment 1 in HB 109.
9:17:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Joyce Anderson and
Representative Gara were present.
9:18:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
part of a recent FBI investigation [in Alaska] had to do with
the issue at hand: [bribing with undue influence through
campaign contributions]. He said the legislature needs to send
the message that it will be as tough on bribery as the federal
government is. He said the federal government does not have the
loophole that the State of Alaska has in its law. He said he
thinks an ethics bill is the place to address that loophole that
makes it okay for someone to bribe someone with a campaign
contribution. He expressed his desire to see the bill move
along quickly.
9:21:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said there is an implication that when
someone accepts a campaign contribution, that money is given by
a group, for example, that believes in what the candidate stands
for. If that candidate changes his/her views in the future,
then they will probably not be getting another campaign
contribution from the group. She said the question is: "When
does that become ..., 'Yes, I absolutely agree that I will do
thus and thus'"? She asked how that would manifest itself, for
example, if it would be in writing.
CHAIR LYNN said he wouldn't expect a contribution from someone
who doesn't share the views of the person to whom he/she is
contributing.
9:22:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reemphasized his objection to putting
this language in the civil code. He said he thinks the sponsor
of the amendment is on the right track regarding criminal
behavior. In response to a question from Chair Lynn, he
clarified that he would support the concept in a separate bill.
9:24:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON echoed Representative Coghill's
statements. He said he would be happy to sign onto
Representative Gara's bill.
9:25:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES echoed that sentiment.
9:25:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that in the past, there have
been environmental laws, for example, that included criminal
provisions.
9:25:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that there have been bills that
mix civil and criminal elements that fit within a single
subject. He said he will not disrupt the committee's
discussion. He said there are differing points of view, and his
purpose was just to let the committee know how he feels about
the issue.
9:26:25 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Legislative Agencies & Offices, highlighted a sentence
from AS 24.60.170(l), which read as follows:
If in the course of an investigation or probable cause
determination the committee finds evidence of probable
criminal activity, the committee shall transmit a
statement and factual findings limited to that
activity to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
MS. ANDERSON concluded that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics does not look at any criminal activity; it looks strictly
at activity within the ethics code itself.
9:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics has a limited ability to sanction. He asked,
"Those recommended sanctions ... are found in AS 24.60.178,
aren't they?"
9:27:59 AM
MS. ANDERSON answered that's correct. In response to a request
by Representative Gruenberg, she reviewed the sanctions allowed
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, which read as
follows in statute:
Sec. 24.60.178. Recommended sanctions.
(a) When the committee finds that a person has
violated this chapter, the committee may recommend
appropriate sanctions, including sanctions set out in
(b) of this section.
(b) The sanctions that the committee may
recommend include
(1) imposition of a civil penalty of not more
than $5,000 for each offense or twice the amount
improperly gained, whichever is greater;
(2) divestiture of specified assets or withdrawal
from specified associations;
(3) additional, detailed disclosure, either as a
public disclosure or as a confidential disclosure to
the committee;
(4) in the case of a legislative employee,
suspension of employment with or without pay for a
stated period of time or until stated conditions are
met, or termination from legislative employment;
(5) restitution of property or reimbursement of
improperly received benefits;
(6) public or private written reprimand;
(7) censure, including, in the case of a
legislator, removal from a leadership position or
committee membership and a determination that the
legislator will not be appointed to serve in a
leadership position or on a committee during the
remainder of that legislature;
(8) placing the person on probationary status;
(9) in the case of a legislator, expulsion from
the house of the legislature;
(10) any other appropriate measure.
(c) In addition to or in place of a sanction
recommended under (b) of this section, the committee
may recommend that the subject of a complaint be
required to pay all or a portion of the costs related
to the investigation and adjudication of a complaint.
MS. ANDERSON said the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
makes a recommendation when it finds probable cause, and the
issue is brought before the full House or the full Senate for
concurrence. In the past, she said the bodies have sometimes
concurred and other times have not.
9:29:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that it is appropriate that the
full body address ethical behavior issues, whereas felonious
behavior, he reiterated, is quite another issue and should not
be included in this legislation.
9:31:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN concurred with Representatives Coghill,
Johnson, and Roses, that Amendment 1 does not belong in the
bill.
9:31:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that ethics provisions in Title
24 don't cover the donor, municipal office holders, or
candidates, and Amendment 1 does. He said, "The Class B felony
is the same as for bribery, under [AS] 11.56.100, or for
receiving a bribe, under [AS] 11.56.110; it's an entirely
appropriate piece of legislation." He said Amendment 1 makes
the bill "a piece of legislation that can be enforced." He
stated, "This may be the only opportunity for this legislation
to pass." He emphasized that as strongly as Representative
Coghill feels about not adopting Amendment 1, he feels just as
strongly that this is the time to add its proposed language to
the bill.
9:34:34 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Doll,
and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Roses,
Coghill, Johansen, and Johnson voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:36:33 AM to 9:39:10 AM.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:39:26 AM to 9:39:39 AM.
9:39:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MARC NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, said
Section 1 of the bill proposes removing [subsection] (g) from AS
15.13.040, which read as follows:
(g) The provisions of (a) and (l) of this section
do not apply if a candidate
(1) indicates, on a form prescribed by the
commission, an intent not to raise and not to expend
more than $5,000 in seeking election to office,
including both the primary and general elections;
(2) accepts contributions totaling not more than
$5,000 in seeking election to office, including both
the primary and general elections; and
(3) makes expenditures totaling not more than
$5,000 in seeking election to office, including both
the primary and general elections.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he originally introduced HB 5, which
would have served that purpose, and which he said was
incorporated into HB 109. He said Section 1 would require the
reporting of all contributions and a reckoning of how those
monies are spent.
9:41:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed, "This exempts the municipal
officer, a constitutional delegate, and a judge that's up for
retention, I think." He asked Representative Neuman if he has
any problem with those exemptions.
9:41:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered that he does not. He said, "I
would just as soon let the local decisions be made at the local
level on how they want to apply their campaign contribution
laws; this is a state-level ... bill that I'm interested in and
that's what I want it to affect."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified:
What this does is it removes the exemption for
reporting except for those three, and that's kind of
what I meant to say.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN confirmed that's correct.
9:43:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 5, following "commission":
Delete "may request"
Insert "shall require"
Page 2, line 6, following "chapter":
Insert ", unless it is information required of a
candidate for election to municipal elective office,"
Page 2, line 6, following "but":
Delete "shall"
Insert "may, when circumstances warrant an exception
or when the information is required of a candidate for
election to municipal elective office,"
Page 2, line 9, following "with the commission.",
through line 15
Delete all material and insert:
"Candidates for election to municipal elective office
must submit information required under this chapter
electronically or in the typed or hand-printed form
described in this subsection. In this subsection,
'municipal elective office' means the office of an
elected borough or city mayor, elected member of a
city or borough planning commission, elected utility
board member, or elected member of a borough assembly,
city council, or school board."
Page 22, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 33. Section 2 of this Act takes effect May 1,
2009."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 19, following "Sections"
Delete "2"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
9:45:25 AM
MR. JONES said Amendment 2 would restore, to some extent, the
electronic filing requirement that was included in the
governor's original bill, which applied to candidates in state-
run elections, for judicial retention, and to municipal office.
Version K applied the electronic filing requirement only to
candidates to the office of governor and lieutenant governor.
He emphasized, "The governor feels very strongly about the need
to bring transparency to the filings that are submitted to ...
APOC, not only for candidates, but for legislators and other
public officials." In most cases, he said, Alaskans have access
to the technology that allows them to file electronically. Both
the original bill and Version K would allow APOC to grant
exceptions to those who do not have that access. Currently,
only lobbyists are required to file electronically with ...
APOC. Anybody else required to file "may" do it electronically.
Without mandatory electronic filing, he said, a member of the
public who is searching for information regarding the finances
of a representative or the amount of campaign contributions that
representative has received has to wait for APOC to manually
enter the information - a time consuming and costly process.
MR. JONES said Amendment 2 would create an exception for
municipal offices, which he said is an attempt [by the governor]
to compromise. Another attempt to compromise was to eliminate
language stipulating that an exception would be granting under
extraordinary circumstances. Amendment 2 would allow the APOC
to grant exceptions when the circumstances justified one. The
third compromise, he related, was to delay the effective date
[as shown in Amendment 2, text provided previously]. He said
that timing would correspond with the start of the 18-month
election campaign cycle for the 2010 general election.
9:49:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested hearing from the director of
APOC.
9:50:21 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), stated her support of the concept of
mandatory electronic filing. She said electronic filing is the
best means by which to provide information to the public. In
response to a question from Chair Lynn, she said she supports a
plan to instigate an electronic filing mandate incrementally.
She explained, "It helps both the filers and the public gain
confidence in that system."
9:51:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he had thought of
incrementally as meaning starting at the top offices and working
down. He asked Ms. Miles what issues may surface for APOC in
the instigation of an electronic filing system for all state
offices.
9:52:04 AM
MS. MILES said APOC's current system does not provide for the
electronic filing by lobbyists; however, the current lobbying
law does contain information that commission may mandate
electronic filing for lobbyists and employers of lobbyists as
the system is available. She said APOC anticipates that the
system that is currently being developed will provide an
electronic filing process for "all four of the laws that the
commission administers," which are : the campaign disclosure
law, the financial disclosure law for legislators, the financial
disclosure law for public officials, and the lobbying law. She
said, "We are anticipating a roll-out and early testing on it
beginning July 1 this year." She said the hope would be that
APOC could recruit some lobbyists to do their "last-part-of-the-
year reports" electronically, and then begin with the mandate on
lobbyist in January.
MS. MILES continued:
We come under a great deal of criticism, actually,
regarding the fact of the nonavailability of financial
disclosure statements on our website. I'm talking
about your annual filings of financial disclosure
statements and those that are filed by people in the
executive branch at the deputy director level and
above: all of the governor's assistants, all of the
lieutenant governor's assistants, and many board and
commission members. There's an interest on behalf of
the public to have easier access to those statements.
The current system ... requires that a person can
either come to our Anchorage or our Juneau office and
review those statements or request a copy be faxed to
them or mailed to them. Now, with the case of
campaign disclosure, as you are all aware, we do have
a voluntary system right now that is about to be
replaced. That system is 10 years old; it is obsolete
.... I would like to say, however, ... in the 2006
elections, all of the candidates for governor and
lieutenant governor did file electronically. It was a
big help to the commission and a way that we were able
to get the information available on our website to the
public before election day. I would also like to say
that more than 50 percent of the legislative
candidates running for office in 2006 filed
electronically.
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Chair Lynn, said
historically there have been more electronic filers from urban
districts than remote districts, although there are people who
file electronically in remote districts. She said they are not
required to use the current electronic filing system (ELFS);
they can file on an Excel spreadsheet, which permits APOC to
simply input that contribution and expenditure activity into its
web site expediently.
9:56:37 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how many filings sent by mail were postmarked
on time, but arrived to APOC late.
MS. MILES said she does not know but could find out.
9:57:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed interest in the changes to
APOC's software, hardware, and human resource capacity. He
offered his understanding that the governor "has got some
increased budgeting." He asked, "So, with all that, do you see
an implementation problem with the dates in this amendment?"
MS. MILES replied that she does not.
[HB 109 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:58:22 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|