02/27/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109|| SB13 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2007
8:02 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. 38
"An Act relating to legislators and candidates for the
legislature and to certain campaign contributions made in
exchange for certain agreements."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to
issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
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
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and reviewed the changes
made in Version K during the hearing on HB 109.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Agencies & Offices
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
NORMAN COHEN, Staff
to Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding amendment
language during the hearing on HB 109.
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 11 during the hearing
on HB 109.
JOHN FARLEIGH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 109.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02:59 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 109-DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
[Contains discussion of SB 13.]
8:03:50 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."
[Before the committee was the committee substitute (CS) for HB
109, Version 25-GH1059\K, Wayne, 2/21/07.]
8:06:59 AM
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, reviewed that Section 2 of Version K would require
electronic filing only of candidates for governor and lieutenant
governor. He said there is an amendment from Governor Sarah
Palin which, if adopted, would restore electronic filing for all
campaign reports, with the exception of reports concerning
municipal offices. The amendment would also change the
governor's original proposal by eliminating the qualifier that
circumstances be extraordinary to justify an exception. The
third change would be to delay the effective date of electronic
filing for campaign reports to May 1, 2009. The purpose of that
date change, he explained, is to "encompass the full 18 month
campaign period that precedes the 2010 general election." He
said the governor, in response to feedback from her original
bill, is now proposing a staggered implementation approach to
setting mandatory electronic financial disclosure filing dates,
as follows: July 1, 2007, for judicial and executive branch
officials; July 1, 2008, for the legislative branch; and May 1,
2009, for campaign disclosures.
8:10:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks that would be a substantial
improvement over what [was proposed] previously.
8:10:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, as
follows:
On page 2, line 7, following "effect":
Delete "May 1, 2009"
Insert "July 1, 2007"
8:11:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He talked about areas of the
state that may not be computer literate, and he said he thinks
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 would be a hardship for the "small
candidate." He mentioned an amendment that he would be offering
if Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 fails to be adopted.
8:13:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks the state as a whole is computer
literate.
8:13:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
He indicated that he would like to allow time to for the
governor's graduated timing to work.
8:14:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would be offering an amendment
upcoming that would require instant reporting.
8:15:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. Representatives Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Roses voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 1-6.
8:16:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Amendment
2, labeled 25-GH1059\K.42, Wayne, 2/26/07, which read as follows
[with a handwritten change]:
Page 2, lines 4 - 15:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.040(m) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(m) Information required under this chapter
shall be submitted to the commission electronically,
except that the following information may be submitted
in clear and legible black typeface or hand-printed in
dark ink on paper in a format approved by the
commission or on forms provided by the commission:
(1) information submitted by a candidate
for municipal office; in this paragraph, "municipal
office" means the office of an elected borough or city
(A) mayor;
(B) planning commissioner;
(C) utility board member; or
(D) assembly, council, or school board
member;
(2) any information if the commission
determines that extraordinary circumstances warrant an
exception to the electronic submission requirement;
(3) information submitted before May 1,
2007, by an individual, group, nongroup entity, or
municipality relating to a contribution, expenditure,
or communication made for the purpose of influencing
the outcome of a ballot proposition; in this
paragraph, "proposition," in addition to its meaning
in AS 15.60.010, includes
(A) a matter described in the definition of
"proposition" under AS 15.13.010(d); and
(B) an issue described in the definition of
"proposition" under AS 15.13.065(c);
(4) information submitted before May 1,
2009, by a candidate for governor or lieutenant
governor."
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "Sections 2, 22, and 26"
Insert "Sections 22 and 26"
8:16:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
8:16:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out the handwritten change was
to delete the word "extraordinary" on line 14 [as numbered on
the amendment], because he said that was a typographical error.
He said the amendment will retain the governor's amendment, but
also "moves up to the current election cycle ballot
propositions." He said large statewide races are currently
capable of reporting electronically. He stated, "There's a high
public interest and a real public good for immediate electronic
reporting of ballot propositions."
8:17:21 AM
MR. JONES said that although he has not had an opportunity to
review Amendment 2 to Amendment 2 to ensure that "it does what
we hope it does," he supports it in theory.
8:17:46 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), in response to a question from Representative
Coghill, said the May 1 date will work for APOC, because even if
the news system is not operating on that date, the commission
would set up the ballot groups with its Excel spreadsheet
methodology, which works with the current database, and will
work with the new database, as well.
8:18:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 to Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:19:39 AM
COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 2, [as amended].
There being no further objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was
adopted.
8:19:48 AM
CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that Amendment 4 [not yet offered]
addresses mandated reporting, and he indicated the possibility
that "the amendment to the amendment needs to be conformed in
this one as well."
The committee took an at-ease from 8:20:43 AM to 8:22:44 AM.
8:22:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES described the complicated nature of the
bill and the numbering of amendments.
8:24:00 AM
MR. JONES said:
The purpose of this amendment is to make electronic
filing mandatory for legislative financial disclosure
- those that are filed each year with ... APOC.
Similar to the changes that we proposed to the
previous electronic filing provision, we've delayed
the effective date until July 1 of 2008. This is the
middle step of the three-step, staggered
implementation approach. We've also dropped the
requirement that circumstances be extraordinary to
warrant an exception to the electronic filing
requirement. So, in many ways, this amendment is
similar to the one the committee just addressed, in
that it would make electronic filing mandatory.
Exceptions would be permitted when circumstances
warranted - not extraordinary circumstances, but
circumstances - and the effective date would be
delayed. Rather than July 1, 2007, mandatory
electronic filing would come about on July 1 of 2008
for the legislative financial disclosure.
8:25:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested that the committee should adopt Amendment 3
for discussion purposes.
8:25:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he had just wanted to draw the
amendment to the committee's attention, because if a policy call
is made in one area, it should be consistent throughout the
bill. Having said that, he suggested perhaps the committee
should address the amendments in order.
8:26:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as
follows:
Page 16, line 10, following "Commission":
Delete "may request"
Insert "shall require"
Page 16, line 11, following "but":
Delete "shall"
Insert "may, when circumstances warrant an exception,"
Page 22, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 33. Section 22 of this Act takes effect July
1, 2008."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 19, following "Sections 2,"
Delete "22"
8:26:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
8:26:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 16, lines 9-
14, of Version K, which would "amend Section 22." He turned to
line 16, as numbered on Amendment 3, which would provide that
"this section takes effect July 1, 2008." He said Amendment 2
would take affect for legislative candidates on July 1, 2009.
He stated his belief that it was necessary to amend Amendment 3
so that it read 2009, in order to conform to Amendment 2. He
asked Mr. Jones for confirmation.
8:27:56 AM
MR. JONES said he does not believe that is correct. He stated,
"I believe that what we're referring to here are the annual
financial disclosures required of legislators and legislative
directors, and public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, as opposed to candidates for legislative
office or other office."
8:28:18 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 3, to change the
effective date to July 1, 2007.
8:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 1 to Amendment 3. Representatives Johansen,
Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, Roses, and Coghill voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 1-6.
8:30:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection to Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
8:30:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment [4], which
read as follows:
Page 19, line 16, following "commission":
Delete "may request"
Insert "shall require"
Page 19, line 17, following "chapter":
Insert ", unless it is information required of a
municipal officer,"
Page 19, line 17, following "but":
Delete "shall"
Insert "may, when circumstances warrant an
exception,"
Page 19, following line 20:
Insert "Municipal officers must submit information
required under this chapter electronically or in the
typed or hand-printed form described in this
subsection."
Page 19, lines 21 - 27:
Delete all material.
8:31:41 AM
MR. JONES reviewed that Amendment 4 proposes an electronic
filing requirement that would apply to the annual financial
disclosures that are filed with APOC by members of the executive
branch in high-level positions, by judicial officers, and by
certain municipal officers. The amendment would return to an
effective date of July 1, 2007.
8:33:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Amendment 4 would expand the
language of the bill to include "the other high-level
executives," which he said is an amendment not considered by the
subcommittee. He said he hopes the committee will support the
amendment.
8:33:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any objection to Amendment 4.
There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:34:03 AM to 8:34:55 AM.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON directed attention to Amendment 5,
labeled, "25-GH1059\K.6, Wayne, 2/21/07," which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 15:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 15.13.078(c) is amended to read:
(c) On and after the date determined under
AS 15.13.110 as the last day of the period ending
three days before the due date of the report required
to be filed under AS 15.13.110(a)(1) for expenditures
and until the date of the election for which the
report is filed, a candidate may not give or loan to
the candidate's campaign the candidate's money or
other thing of value of the candidate in an amount
that exceeds $5,000.
* Sec. 4. AS 15.13.110(a) is amended to read:
(a) Each candidate, group, and nongroup entity
shall make a full report of expenditures in accordance
with AS 15.13.040 for the period ending three days
before the due date of the report and beginning on the
last day covered by the most recent previous report.
If the report is a first report, it must cover the
period from the beginning of the campaign to the date
three days before the due date of the report. If the
report is a report due February 15, it must cover the
period beginning on the last day covered by the most
recent previous report or on the day that the campaign
started, whichever is later, and ending on February 1
of that year. The report shall be filed
(1) 30 days before the election; however,
this report is not required if the deadline for filing
a nominating petition or declaration of candidacy is
within 30 days of the election;
(2) one week before the election;
(3) 105 days after a special election; and
(4) February 15 for expenditures made [AND
CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED] that were not reported
previously, including, if applicable, all amounts
expended from a public office expense term account
established under AS 15.13.116(a)(8) and all amounts
expended from a municipal office account under
AS 15.13.116(a)(9), or when expenditures were not made
[OR CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT RECEIVED] during the
previous year.
* Sec. 5. AS 15.13.110(b) is amended to read:
(b) Each contribution [THAT EXCEEDS $250 AND]
that is made within nine days of the election shall be
reported to the commission by date, amount, and
contributor within 24 hours of receipt by the
candidate, group, campaign treasurer, or deputy
campaign treasurer. Each contribution to a nongroup
entity for the purpose of influencing the outcome of
an election [THAT EXCEEDS $250 AND] that is made
within nine days of the election shall be reported to
the commission by date, amount, and contributor within
24 hours of receipt by the nongroup entity.
* Sec. 6. AS 15.13.110(e) is amended to read:
(e) A group formed to sponsor an initiative, a
referendum or a recall shall report 30 days after its
first filing with the lieutenant governor. Thereafter
each group shall report all contributions received
within 72 hours after receipt and shall report within
10 days after the end of each calendar quarter on the
[CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED AND] expenditures made during
the preceding calendar quarter until reports are due
under (a) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "29"
Insert "33"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "29"
Insert "33"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "30"
Insert "34"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "30"
Insert "34"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "31"
Insert "35"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "31"
Insert "35"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "26, and 30"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "33"
Insert "37"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated, "This is the attempt to have
total transparency in government." He said it eliminates the
need for "that last-minute rush" related to reporting.
8:36:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to Chair Lynn, said the
amendment provides for reporting within 72 hours of receiving
money, which would take care of weekends and holidays. He added
that he is not "locked into the 72 hours."
8:37:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected to Amendment 5.
8:37:57 AM
MS. MILES said APOC has not had a chance to review Amendment 5.
She continued:
I could say that in discussions regarding electronic
filing, the commission has always thought that
probably once instrumented and being used by almost
all of the filers, a result would be more frequent
campaign disclosure reporting, because it wouldn't
make as much sense for the 18 months during which
candidates are permitted to campaign to stick with the
30-day, 7-day, year-end. Other than that, this is the
kind of policy issue that's most appropriate before
your committee.
8:38:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "If I had a lack of confidence
that we could put it together under the staggered approach, this
makes it even worse." He said he agrees with the concept, but
indicated that he would like a more gradual approach, giving
time for "the bugs" to be worked out before asking APOC to take
this on. He said this is a fundamental shift, one which he
proposed several year ago before coming to the realization that
"the world doesn't travel as fast as our ideas." He said he
would vote against Amendment 5.
8:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES concurred with Representative Coghill. He
said if APOC cannot get the software in place for the electronic
voting in time, then everyone who must file will be out of
compliance without having any intention of being so.
8:40:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that he is proposing a system
that would not require APOC to do anything; it is a system used
currently in other states. He said it is a web-based system
that a person can log onto, enter information, and then transmit
that information to APOC.
8:41:37 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how much the system would cost and whether the
state would be locked into using one software provider.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied that there are several companies
available. He said, "When Los Angeles was trying to develop
their own software, they were looking at ... about $123,000 ...
development [only] cost, and the total package on this was under
$100,000." He said the system he is proposing is less expensive
and could result in a positive fiscal note.
8:42:45 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative
Coghill, said APOC belongs to the Council on Governmental Ethics
Laws, which she said is the national, professional organization
for entities like APOC that exist in all 50 states. She said
the subject of electronic filing is always a big issue at
conferences. She said she had not been familiar with the filing
system to which Representative Johnson referred, but his staff
provided information to her. From what she has read, she
relayed, the system is excellent for Federal Election Commission
(FEC) reporting. She noted that "the charge is to each
candidate or each group" rather than to the state. She said
that during the 2006 election, the governor and lieutenant
governor worked with outside groups that did their electronic
filing, and those groups sent the data to APOC. She reported,
"It worked seamlessly with our database; it was great."
8:44:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked what it would cost him in his next campaign.
8:44:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that is something that could be
discussed. He explained that his vision was not that the
candidate would pay for that cost, but that it would be paid for
by the state. The savings, he said, would come from not needing
as many people to work as clerks and data entry workers.
8:44:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would like to discuss
a portion of Amendment 5, and he asked Ms. Miles if she had a
copy of the amendment.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:45:09 AM to 8:46:18 AM.
8:46:18 AM
CHAIR LYNN said Amendment 5 proposes an interesting concept,
which could be considered in the future.
8:46:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew Amendment 5, but stated that he
thinks the concept of the amendment is "a thing whose time is
coming." He said an important first step in having transparency
in elections is to account for every penny as quickly as
possible. He said he will refine his amendment and take it to
the next committee of referral. He added that he may even
introduce the idea as separate legislation.
8:47:28 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:47:56 AM to 8:48:20 AM.
8:49:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 6, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 24.45.121(a) is amended to read:
(a) A lobbyist may not
(1) engage in any activity as a lobbyist before
registering under AS 24.45.041;
(2) do anything with the intent of placing a
public official under personal obligation to the
lobbyist or to the lobbyist's employer;
(3) intentionally deceive or attempt to deceive
any public official with regard to any material fact
pertinent to pending or proposed legislative or
administrative action;
(4) cause or influence the introduction of a
legislative measure solely for the purpose of
thereafter being employed to secure its passage or its
defeat;
(5) cause a communication to be sent to a public
official in the name of any fictitious person or in
the name of any real person, except with the consent
of that person;
(6) accept or agree to accept any payment in any
way contingent upon the defeat, enactment, or outcome
of any proposed legislative or administrative action;
(7) serve as a member of a state board or
commission, if the lobbyist's employer may receive
direct economic benefit from a decision of that board
or commission;
(8) serve as a campaign manager or director,
serve as a campaign treasurer or deputy campaign
treasurer on a finance or fund-raising committee, host
a fund-raising event, directly or indirectly collect
contributions for, or deliver contributions to, a
candidate, or otherwise engage in the fund-raising
activity of a legislative campaign or campaign for
governor or lieutenant governor if the lobbyist has
registered, or is required to register, as a lobbyist
under this chapter, during the calendar year; this
paragraph does not apply to a representational
lobbyist as defined in the regulations of the Alaska
Public Offices Commission, and does not prohibit a
lobbyist from making personal contributions to a
candidate as authorized by AS 15.13 or personally
advocating on behalf of a candidate;
(9) offer, solicit, initiate, facilitate, or
provide to or on behalf of a person covered by AS
24.60, during a legislative session, a gift, other
than food or beverage for immediate consumption;
however, this paragraph does not prohibit a lobbyist
from providing, during a legislative session or at any
other time of the year, tickets to a charity event
described in AS 24.60.080(c)(10), or a contribution to
a charity event under AS 24.60.080(c)(11);
(10) make or offer a gift or a campaign
contribution whose acceptance by the person to whom it
is offered would violate AS 24.60 or AS 39.52."
"* Sec. 6. AS 24.45.121 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) An individual may not engage in any
activity as a lobbyist at any time that AS 39.52
prohibits that individual from engaging in activity as
a lobbyist. This subsection does not prohibit service
as a volunteer lobbyist described in
AS 24.45.161(a)(1) or a representational lobbyist as
defined under regulations of the Alaska Public Offices
Commission."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
8:50:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
8:50:14 AM
MR. JONES said Amendment 6 is a clean-up provision that would
give APOC reciprocal enforcement authority to enforce provisions
that exist within the bill. For example, he said there is a
provision in Section 28 of the bill that "makes it presumptively
illegal for an executive branch officer to accept a gift from a
lobbyist. Amendment 6 would make it illegal for a lobbyist to
"offer or make a gift that would violate that provision." The
second part of Amendment 6, he noted, would permit APOC to
refuse registration from a lobbyist who is not permitted by law
to serve as a lobbyist. That provision relates to Section 30 of
Version K, he indicated.
8:52:12 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a request from Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that [Amendment 6] is agreeable to APOC.
8:52:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 6, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4 Line 4
delete: spouse or domestic partner
replace with immediate family members
Page 4 Line 5
delete: spouse or domestic partner
replace with immediate family members
8:53:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG as a point of order, suggested that
Chair Lynn withdraw his amendment and offer it as a separate
amendment, because he said, "It doesn't have anything to do with
proposed Amendment 6."
MR. JONES, in response to Chair Lynn, said he has not been able
to locate those phrases [in Amendment 1 to Amendment 6] within
Amendment 6.
8:53:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified the purpose of Representative
Gruenberg's point of order as follows:
In the bill, on page 4, Section 5, the first sentence
deals with spouse or domestic partner. So, this
amendment certainly deals with that section, but it
doesn't deal with the language that's in the actual
bill.
8:54:17 AM
CHAIR LYNN withdrew Amendment 1 to Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection to Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 6.
[There being no further objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.]
8:55:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 7 [text provided previously
as Amendment 1 to Amendment 6].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
8:56:07 AM
MR. JONES, in response to a request from Representative Coghill,
cited AS 24.45.171(6), which read as follows:
(6) "immediate family" means the spouse and
dependent children of an individual;
CHAIR LYNN said, "What I was looking for, Mr. Jones, was Title
24.60.990."
8:56:41 AM
MR. JONES offered his understanding that [Amendment 7] would
amend AS 24.45.121. He stated his concern that the definition
section in [AS] 24.45.171 would "supersede in the general
provisions in [AS] 24.60.990." He continued:
Because .171 controls for chapter 45, perhaps this
amendment wouldn't reach the result that you intended,
because there's already a definition of immediate
family in .171 - it says, "spouse and dependent
children". And were you to amend .990 to define
immediate family, that wouldn't necessarily apply to
the provisions within chapter 45.
CHAIR LYNN observed Ms. Miles "nodding her head in the
affirmative."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that [AS] 24.45.171(6) fulfills
the "spirit" of Chair Lynn's amendment, if not going to "the
exact depths."
8:58:01 AM
CHAIR LYNN withdrew Amendment 7, with the intent to consider it
again in another committee of referral. He indicated that the
amendment was produced in response to a concern expressed by one
of his constituents.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:59:11 AM to 9:02:23 AM.
24.60.030
9:02:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted Section 6 of the bill cleans up
language in order to comply with Chapter 60 - standard of
conduct. He offered his understanding that the subcommittee
recommends the language of Section 6.
9:02:59 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no objection to
Section 6 of Version K, reviewed Section 7, which is outlined in
the sectional analysis [included in the committee packet] as
follows:
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.
9:03:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has a problem with Section 7,
and he referenced page 6 of Version K.
9:03:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled 25-
GH1059\K.14, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07, which read as follows:
Page 6, line 11:
Delete "Alaska Legislative Council"
Insert "committee [ALASKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL];
Page 10, line 1:
Delete "Alaska Legislative Council"
Insert "committee [ALASKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL]"
9:04:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
9:04:47 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Legislative Agencies & Offices, said Amendment 8 was
recommended by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. She
reviewed that the Alaska Legislative Council approves charity
events put on by those registered as 501(c)(3) [nonprofit]
entities, and in doing so makes it allowable for a legislator or
a legislative employee to receive a ticket from a lobbyist [to
that charity event]. Prior to that practice, she said, a
legislator or legislative employee was only allowed to receive
food or beverage from a lobbyist during a legislative session.
In response to Chair Lynn, she said some examples of a charity
event might be the American Red Cross Ball, the Thanksgiving in
March event, or other similar events. The proceeds of those
events go to charity. She explained that the reason for the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' support of Amendment 8
as follows:
There have been a couple times where the information
[regarding] when a charity event is approved has not
been transmitted either to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics or APOC. ... Both of our agencies
receive a lot of calls from legislators, and APOC from
lobbyists, wondering if they can give tickets to
legislators or legislators wondering if they can
receive tickets from lobbyists. And so, the committee
felt that to have the information in one central
location, the approval by the Select Committee, and
then the dissemination of information by the Select
Committee would make it easier and make it quicker.
There have been a couple times where the Select
Committee was not aware that a charity event was
approved for up to three weeks. ... That information
was given incorrectly to legislators and ... to
lobbyists. In my discussion with Representative
Coghill, we talked about possibly ... not changing
legislation - that's up to the [House State Affairs
Standing] Committee, of course. ... Another
alternative would be ... to develop an internal policy
within [the Alaska] Legislative Council to make sure
that the two proper agencies - APOC and the Select
Committee - are notified immediately when this occurs,
so that information could be disseminated correctly.
9:07:39 AM
CHAIR LYNN observed that the fact that so many legislators and
lobbyists call [either APOC or the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] shows that people have a positive intent to
be honest.
9:07:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL listed three issues about which he feels
strongly. First, he said he thinks legislators should be the
ones deciding what kind of charity event is taking place, thus
the Alaska Legislative Council is "the right place." He
concurred that there is a communication problem, and he
supported the council's having a policy whereby it gets
pertinent information to the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics in a timely manner. He said he is "nervous about giving
more authority to the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his objection to Amendment 8.
9:09:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested removing Amendment 8 and
instead sending a letter of intent requesting that the Alaska
Legislative Council adopt a policy of immediate communication
with the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and APOC. He
asked Ms. Anderson if that would allay her concerns.
9:10:09 AM
MS. ANDERSON said she believes it would. She pointed out that
the Alaska Legislative Council's policy also includes that the
chair of the council is allowed to authorize a charity event
prior to a full council meeting. She illustrated how that
scenario could play out.
9:11:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to the idea of the letter of
recommendation. He said he sits on the Alaska Legislative
Council and will personally make it his business to bring up the
issue.
9:11:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 8. He said he and
his staff would speak with Representative Coghill, Ms. Anderson,
and Ms. Miles to "see what we can do," and then he said he would
report back to the committee. In response to a suggestion by
Chair Lynn, he agreed that the matter could be brought before
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:13:36 AM to 9:17:54 AM.
9:17:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 9, labeled 25-
GH1059\K.41, Wayne, 2/22/07, which read as follows:
Page 7, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 24.60.030(f) is amended to read:
(f) A legislative employee may not serve in a
position that requires confirmation by the
legislature. A legislator or legislative employee who
serves [MAY SERVE] on a board of an organization,
including a governmental entity, shall disclose [THAT
REGULARLY HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE LEGISLATOR OR EMPLOYEE
IF THE LEGISLATOR OR EMPLOYEE DISCLOSES] the board
membership to the committee. A person [A LEGISLATOR OR
LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE WHO IS] required to make a
disclosure under this subsection shall file the
disclosure with the committee by the deadline
[DEADLINES] set out in AS 24.60.105 stating the name
of each organization on whose board the person serves.
The committee shall maintain a public record of the
disclosure and forward the disclosure to the
appropriate house for inclusion in the journal. This
subsection does not require a legislator or
legislative employee who is appointed to a board by
the presiding officer to make a disclosure of the
appointment to the committee if the appointment has
been published in the appropriate legislative journal
during the calendar year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
9:18:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
9:19:56 AM
MS. ANDERSON stated that currently, when legislators file their
financial disclosure with APOC, they are required to list all
boards and commissions upon which they serve, whereas the ethics
code simply requires disclosure of those boards and commissions
that may "have an interest in legislation." The difference[s]
in standards, she said, make it confusing for those trying to
report correctly. Amendment 9 was a suggestion made by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to make the standard of
disclosure to both entities the same - to match APOC's
disclosure requirement.
9:20:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to [Amendment 9]. He referred
to page 1, line 7 [as numbered on the amendment, which is the
beginning of language to be deleted, which read as follows]:
[THAT REGULARLY HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE LEGISLATOR OR EMPLOYEE
IF THE LEGISLATOR OR EMPLOYEE DISCLOSES]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated:
Currently, the only boards and commissions you have to
disclose are those that have a substantial interest in
legislative activities. There's no reason a person
should have to disclose if they're on a church board
or some kind of a little society that has nothing at
all to do with the legislature.
9:21:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Anderson if she knows the
reason for the deleted language in Amendment 9.
9:21:52 AM
MS. ANDERSON said that is language that was taken out by
Legislative Legal and Research Services. In response to
Representative Coghill, she said she would have no objection to
that language being restored.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Representative Gruenberg if he
would have any objection to Amendment 9 if that language were
restored.
[REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG shook his head.]
9:23:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 9 to
retain the deleted language [text provided previously].
9:24:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES questioned if the intent was to remove the
preceding words, "shall disclose".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "That would be a separate
subject."
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any objection to [Amendment 1 to
Amendment 9]. There being none, it was so ordered.
9:25:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 9,
[as amended]. There being no further objection, Amendment 9, as
amended, was adopted.
9:25:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reiterated his concern regarding having
left the words "shall disclose" in Amendment 9, as amended. He
read aloud to the committee how the language sounds with those
words still intact.
9:25:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed that leaving those words in
makes no grammatical sense. He initiated a suggestion to move
the words "shall disclose" after the reinstated language;
however, after reading it, he requested that Representative
Coghill withdraw Amendment 9 [as amended] in order that this
portion of the amendment can be redrafted to be grammatically
correct.
9:27:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the language needs to be worked out,
and said, "So, I would suggest we withdraw it."
9:27:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated his original request as
follows: "I would ask that we table this amendment until the
first order of business the next time we meet, and by then we'll
have a new draft."
CHAIR LYNN announced that without objection, [Amendment 9, as
amended, was tabled].
9:27:44 AM
CHAIR LYNN ascertained that the committee had no amendments to
offer pertaining to Sections 8 through 11 of Version K, which
are outlined in the sectional analysis as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 8. Replaces it "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.
Adds language requiring gift disclosures to be
published in the journal along with other with other
disclosures.
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.
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.
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.
9:32:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to an amendment
labeled 25-GH1059\K.15, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07, which read as
follows:
Page 10, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 12. AS 24.60.080(e) is amended to read:
(e) A political contribution is not a gift under
this section if it is reported under AS 15.13.040 [OR
IS EXEMPT FROM THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT UNDER
AS 15.13.040(g)]. The use of a bulk mailing permit
owned by a legislator's campaign committee or used in
a legislator's election campaign is not a gift to that
legislator under this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the amendment would add a new
Section 12 to the bill.
9:32:48 AM
NORMAN COHEN, Staff to Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, offered his understanding that the amendment
addresses the intent to take out the $5,000 exceptions under
[AS] 15.30.040(g) and cover both legislators and municipal
officers. He said, "It may have to be conforming to an action
you took last week." In response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, he said he is not certain the
amendment is correctly drafted in terms of the amendments that
have already been adopted related to Title 15.
9:34:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not offer the amendment
labeled 25-GH1059\K.15, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07, at this time.
9:34:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "I think there [are] other
amendments along the way that are going to fix this."
9:34:42 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked the committee if there were any amendments for
Section 12, which is summarized in the sectional analysis as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
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 remarked that the amendment in the
committee packet labeled 25-GH1059\K.16, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07
would not be offered.
CHAIR LYNN mentioned an amendment labeled 25-GH1059\K.17,
Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recollected, "He had asked me to not
offer this one."
CHAIR LYNN ascertained that there were no amendments to be
offered for Sections 13 through 15. He stated the purpose of
each section as shown in the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 13. Cleanup language
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 disclosure [sic] are required
during the timeframe of 30 days prior to the end of
the session.
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.
CHAIR LYNN reviewed the purpose of Section 16, as shown on the
sectional analysis, which read 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.
9:39:15 AM
MS. ANDERSON said the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
recommended Section 16 after receiving an opinion from
Legislative Legal and Research Services. She stated that
Section 16 would help the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
hold meetings and put forth more information in a timely manner.
9:40:03 AM
CHAIR LYNN indicated that in response to Ms. Anderson's
concerns, Amendment 10, labeled 25-GH1059\K.40, Wayne, 2/23/07,
was drafted, which read as follows:
Page 13, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 24.60.130 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(p) Notwithstanding (h) and (n) of this section,
if a complaint before the committee alleges a
violation of this chapter by a group of legislators
that includes a legislative member of the committee
and that member's alternate, the member and alternate
member are disqualified from serving on the committee
with regard to the complaint. If the two disqualified
members of the committee are part of the majority
caucus, the presiding officer of the house in which
the two disqualified members serve shall appoint from
that house an alternate to serve with regard to the
complaint. If one of the two disqualified legislative
members of the committee is not part of the majority
caucus, the leader of the minority caucus with the
greatest number of members shall appoint from that
house an alternate to serve with regard to the
complaint. If a complaint alleges a violation of this
chapter that includes all legislative members of the
majority caucus of one house, the presiding officer of
that house shall appoint from the other house an
alternate to serve with regard to the complaint. If
the complaint alleges a violation of this chapter that
includes all legislative members of a minority caucus
of one house, the leader of that minority caucus shall
appoint from the other house an alternate to serve
with regard to the complaint. In this paragraph,
"caucus" has the meaning given in AS 24.60.037."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
9:40:40 AM
MS. ANDERSON spoke to Amendment 10. She explained that
Amendment 10 would allow either the Speaker of the House or the
Senate President to appoint someone from the other body of
either the Majority or Minority to sit in on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics so that there would be
representation by the Majority.
9:41:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 10 [text provided
previously].
9:41:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He asked, "It is true that the
Speaker [of the House] gets to appoint; but if the speaker then
is under that same ethics cloud of accusation, what would be
anticipated at this point?" He added, "Because that's the
actual scenario we were under."
9:42:20 AM
MS. ANDERSON said that is a good point. She stated her
assumption, based on the language [of Amendment 10], that even
though the Speaker of the House may be included in the
complaint, he/she would still have the authority to appoint a
Majority member of the other body. She said she supposes that
is a policy decision that has to be made by legislators. She
indicated that the bottom line for the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics is that there remain representation from both
bodies of the legislature.
9:42:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he hopes this scenario never
reoccurs. He removed his objection to Amendment 10.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:43:44 AM to 9:44:18 AM.
9:44:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that [there being no further objection],
Amendment 10 was adopted.
9:45:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 11, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 9, after the word "Sec.2."
Insert:
AS 24.60.085 is amended by adding a new subsection to
read:
(c) During the term for which elected or appointed
and for one year thereafter, a legislator may not,
directly or by authorizing another to act on the
legislator's behalf, accept or agree to accept
compensation, except from the State of Alaska, for
work associated with legislative action or
administrative action, as those terms are defined in
AS 24.45.171, or political action as defined in AS
24.60.990.
9:45:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
9:45:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, having
brought Amendment 11 for the committee's review, said the idea
behind the amendment is that legislators paid by the state
should do legislative work and should not enter into an
agreement with any other party to be paid for legislative work.
She offered examples.
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Gardner to confirm that such a
provision does not already exist.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that it does
not.
CHAIR LYNN pondered whether this issue may not already be
covered someplace else under current legislation or elsewhere
under HB 109.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with the concept that
legislators should not be paid [by outside sources] to do state
work.
9:47:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to a question from
Representative Coghill, relayed that [Amendment 11] suggests a
prohibition on certain types of paid compensation during a
legislator's term in office. It would also extend that
prohibition to one year after leaving office. She pointed out
that legislators are currently prohibited from lobbying on a
state level for one year after leaving office. She commented
that there has been legitimate debate surrounding the topic of
which definitions to use to define political and legislative
action. Those actions are currently defined in different areas
of existing state code.
CHAIR LYNN asked if "waiving a sign at the corner" would be
included.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded, "I think it would be if you
were paid for it."
9:48:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he struggles with the definition
section.
9:49:17 AM
MS. ANDERSON said the definitions that are referred to in
Amendment 11 are found in AS 24.45.171, which is not the ethics
code. The definitions used by APOC, she said, are a little
clearer, and those are the definitions that the Senate Judiciary
Committee was considering. She said, "But I just wanted to
point out it's a different definition than you and I have talked
about with legislative and administrative in the ethics code."
9:50:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she is not personally committed to
any particular definition, but rather she wants clarification
about what is acceptable behavior.
9:50:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES recalled that the subcommittee had set
aside Amendment 11 because it was trying to debate whether or
not it preferred the language under [HB 109] or the language
that came out of SB 13, offered by Senator Gary Stevens. He
said "this particular language" goes further by prohibiting the
providing of consulting services.
9:51:14 AM
MS. ANDERSON told Representative Roses that the Senate Judiciary
Committee changed the language yesterday. In response to a
question from Representative Roses, she said, "They were working
on ... the two definitions that are now in this amendment." In
response to a follow-up question, she said she does not have a
copy of the Senate's work at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "That's way too much on the fly
for me." He said he is uncomfortable adopting something that
the committee doesn't quite understand. He maintained his
objection to Amendment 11.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Gardner what
action she would like to see the committee take.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER emphasized the importance of the issue
and said she wants to see it in HB 109 before the bill is moved
out of committee.
9:52:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks both Representative Coghill and
Representative Gruenberg agree with him that the intent of
Amendment 11 is good, and he and they serve on the House
Judiciary Standing Committee; therefore, he recommended
addressing the issue in that next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred, while cautioning against
moving too many issues along to the next committee of referral.
9:55:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to table Amendment 11. [There
being no objection, Amendment 11 was tabled.]
9:56:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN referred to amendments addressing AS 39.50.030(b) and
AS 24.60.200.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the weight of the matter
in those amendments would need more time to discuss than the
remaining meeting time would allow.
9:57:36 AM
MR. JONES said the two amendments relating to AS 24.60.200 and
AS 39.52.030 were originally labeled "Governor's Amendments 3
and 5," respectively.
9:57:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that Governor's Amendment 5 would be called
Amendment 12, and Governor's Amendment 3 would be called
Amendment 13.
9:58:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I don't see any mention of [AS]
39.50.030(b) in that; it's just $5,000 to $1,000."
CHAIR LYNN curtailed further discussion in order to hear from a
witness waiting to testify.
9:58:45 AM
JOHN FARLEIGH, testifying on behalf of himself, said he is a
fourth-generation Alaskan, and he is thrilled that the
legislature is addressing [the issue of ethics]. He referred to
Amendment 7 and said he supports the change from "spouse or
domestic partner" to "immediate family member". He suggested
that the definition of "immediate family member" should include
children, siblings, and parents, as well as spouse or domestic
partners. He stated, "I think we have instances in front of us
where immediate family members have taken what could be
construed by some members of the public as bribes, and I think
it's just incredibly important that there's no appearance of
impropriety. Immediate family members should not engage in
lobbying, just plain and simple."
MR. FARLEIGH said he sees no language in the bill addressing the
penalties for violation of "these chapters." He said, "I would
argue that this is an exercise in futility if indeed there isn't
significant enough penalties to make a difference." He offered
an example given by his son.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he does not want names of individual
elected officials past or present used in examples. He invited
Mr. Farleigh to be present for the next hearing on HB 109.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN announced that the committee would take up
Amendments 12 and 13 at its next hearing.
10:02:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed his discomfort with the rush to
get through this bill hearing. He noted that four of the seven
committee members do not sit on the House Judiciary Standing
Committee. He said the issue of ethics is an important one, and
he is prepared to meet as often and long as possible so that the
committee does not "rush to judgment."
10:03:22 AM
[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
10:03:31 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|