Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
01/17/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB281 | |
| HB260 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 281-CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS 8:06:45 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 281, "An Act extending the statute of limitations for the filing of complaints with the Alaska Public Offices Commission involving state election campaigns." 8:07:33 AM MIKE SICA, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 281 on behalf of Representative Lynn, sponsor. He said the proposed bill will extend the statute of limitations on campaign finance complaints from one year to five years. Mr. Sica explained that the extended time limit on the statute of limitations will benefit lawmakers, candidates, the state, and the public. Furthermore, it will make the investigation more credible, give people confidence in the process, and will be fairer to everyone. MR. SICA said the words "complaints," "investigations," and "violations" have negative connotations, but the actions leading to them are often unintentional. The cases in which someone has intentionally committed a violation are, he said, thankfully few and far between. Mr. Sica noted that since the statute of limitations was lowered from four years to one, certain events have happened that show the need to increase the statute of limitations to at least four years, which is the amount of time that has been recommended by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). MR. SICA said a four-year statute of limitations was chosen originally because "that is considered the norm on civil violations that are tied to the election cycle of the longest term of our state lawmakers." He told the committee that he has spoken with representatives of APOC and those in the former administration for an explanation of why the time was decreased in 2003, and the answers he received varied from a desire to streamline the process and save money to a wish to incorporate APOC into the Office of the Attorney General, where the agency would have more "teeth" for enforcement. But the end result, he explained, was a one-year statute of limitation under the auspices of an APOC with limited funding. He said, "What happens is it looks like ... people are running out the clock when that's in fact not what's happening." He continued: The reason why we decided to go with five years was: If we're going to fix it ..., rather than have four years, why not have five years? If your maximum term is four years and you can campaign as far out as 18 months before you're seated, that really is five and a half years. So, ... if we're going to cover the period, let's legitimately cover it. And I think most of the people I've seen here in the last two sessions are honest, hardworking people who are happy to be held accountable. And I think it will just reflect well on all of us. 8:11:40 AM MR. SICA spoke of an expedited adjudication process. He said from the time that APOC decides to investigate a violation to the time that investigation is completed, 60 days have passed, and that is not going to change. He added, "So, you still have that speedy process, which, again, serves lawmakers, as well as the public." Mr. Sica referred to a handout in the committee packet showing statistics in other states. He said the statute of limitations in other states ranges from none to a five-year statute of limitations. He offered examples. He said some states with shorter statute of limitations don't begin counting the time until the discovery of a violation, as opposed to counting from the time the violation was committed. MR. SICA said that after speaking with the administrator of the Select Committee on Ethics, he found out that some states have both a longer statute of limitation, plus a clause similar to AS 24.60.170. He cited the last sentence of AS 24.60.170(a), which read as follows: The time limitations of this subsection do not bar proceedings against a person who intentionally prevents discovery of a violation of this chapter. MR. SICA explained, "That is not in this bill right now; it's just ... an interesting point we came across after filing it, and it's something you may want to consider." Regarding the $156,000 fiscal note, Mr. Sica stated that the bill sponsor believes, "If we're going to ... rightly give them enough time to conduct a credible investigation, we should also give them the resources to conduct that." 8:14:05 AM MR. SICA said the legislature is learning that it needs to loosen some ethics laws, while tightening others. He offered examples. He said [the statute of limitations] is an area that needs tightening. 8:15:13 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that Brook Miles would be retiring in March and he thanked her for her long and dedicated service to the state. 8:15:43 AM BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), testified in support of HB 281. She said it has become apparent that a one-year statute of limitations does not provide APOC with sufficient tools to respond to the public's concerns regarding violations of the laws that the commission administers. She confirmed Mr. Sica's statement that APOC made the request for the expansion of the statute of limitations from one year to four years. Furthermore, she assured the committee that the commission would have no problem if that increase were to be to five years, because such a period would "encapsulate the first reporting required of a candidate who ... could begin her campaign 18 months before the date of the election." MS. MILES reported that APOC worked with the Department of Law (DOL) after determining that it was interested in requesting an expansion of the statute of limitations, and that discussion resulted in a couple suggestions. First, she asked that each applicable law administered by APOC be codified - not only the campaign disclosure law, AS 15.13, but also the regulation of lobbying law, AS 24.45, the financial disclosure for legislators law, AS 24.60.200-260, and the financial disclosure law for executive branch and municipal officials and candidates, found in AS 39.50. She said APOC is requesting a five-year statute of limitations under each one of those laws. Additionally, APOC would request that the statutory requirement for retention of records both by APOC and by the filer be expanded to cover the statute of limitations plus one year, which would equal a six- year retention of records. 8:19:10 AM MS. MILES said APOC has placed a fiscal note on the request, because in addition to the tools for responding to the public's concerns regarding violations of Alaska's disclosure laws, the commission would need the resources to ensure that it could expeditiously and competently conduct and conclude the investigations within the required time. The cost of the fiscal note, she said, would cover an investigator position and paralegal that would be dedicated to the area of enforcement related to the disclosure laws. 8:19:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if APOC has an "increment in the operating budget." 8:20:12 AM MS. MILES confirmed that since it was difficult for APOC to predict where funding would be needed, it did ask for an increment for contractual services relating to fiscal year 2009 (FY 09). In response to a follow-up question from Representative Johansen, she said APOC saw an increase in its budget over the prior year. She said the increase in last year's operating budget was to restore the single investigator position that APOC has currently. 8:21:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated that he thinks it is important to keep track of all the increments in the fiscal notes and the operating budget. 8:21:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that HB 281 would be heard by the House Finance Committee. He asked if there is enough work to keep the aforementioned paralegal and investigator continuously working on legislative violations. MS. MILES pointed out that the people in those positions would be working on other documentation and filing. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Coghill, she said one goal in moving toward electronic filing is to make the work less labor intensive. She stated, "It has always been our consideration that once that system is up and running, ... this agency itself will look at the funding, the reallocations of staff resources, and, in all hope, be able to identify efficiencies that may well result in future budget reductions." 8:24:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL expressed appreciation of the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to Ms. Miles' previous reference to other statutory language, and he said he would be agreeable to considering those other statutes along with the bill. CHAIR LYNN remarked that he had not considered doing that. 8:25:58 AM MR. SICA agreed that those areas in statute could be included in the discussion. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Chair Lynn, said perhaps the committee would need to expand the title, but that is a point that could be weighed upon by the bill drafter. He said if the committee is going to deal with the statute of limitations, it would be good to consider all the areas in statute at once, to avoid "unintended consequences." 8:28:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Ms. Miles if consideration of additional factors related to the statute of limitations would necessitate a higher fiscal note. MS. MILES answered no. She explained that APOC would receive complaints filed under the other laws, whether or not it expands the statute of limitations under each of them. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON queried, "If you can double your work for the same money, why can't you do the same work for the same money now?" MS. MILES said currently, with one investigator, it is not always possible to meet the 60-day deadline. Furthermore, she pointed out that with an extended period for the statute of limitations, it would require more effort to find evidence and interview witnesses. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Johnson, she stated, "If you don't expand statute of limitations and you don't give us any funding, things will stay the way they are." REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarify: "If you can take this fiscal note and double the work with it, could we cut it in half and have you do the same work that you're doing, including just the legislative and the elected officials?" MS. MILES answered, "Probably not effectively." REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the math doesn't compute for him, but he will address the issue later. 8:33:35 AM MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative Roses, offered her understanding that the proposed legislation, if passed, would not reopen cases that were filed and facts that were alleged beyond the statute of limitations. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, in response to a comment made earlier by Ms. Miles, asked who is reviewing the complaints currently, and if the new investigator and paralegal would be working on them in any spare time. MS. MILES explained that currently, complaints are receiving the most cursory review; they are not being addressed in a manner to which the public expects. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said it appears there is more work to do on the bill, and he recommended that the committee set it aside to allow time for other considerations. 8:35:27 AM CHAIR LYNN concurred, but said he would like to continue the discussion at this time. 8:35:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN emphasized that he would like to see technology make jobs easier, rather than seeing more jobs added to each employee's check list because of the added technology. He remarked that three half jobs are being done rather than one job done well. 8:39:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she hopes there are employees paid a lower wage for data entry rather than paying the investigator and paralegal to do that work. She stated that it is clear that analysts are needed. 8:40:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he disagrees with Ms. Miles' previous statement regarding the public's expectations. He said he does not think, for example, that the public expects details regarding how many tenants he has in his apartments, although that information is required in disclosure. What the public expects, he stated, is that elected officials are representing the best interests of everyone in the state - not just a particular group, company, or individual with whom that elected official may have some financial connection. He said a prudent legislator is going to err on the side of caution and report much more than he/she has to. 8:41:56 AM CHAIR LYNN remarked that recent ethics training confirms Representative Roses' comment that it is better to err on the side of being overcautious. 8:43:53 AM MS. MILES, in response to Representative Coghill, said it has been almost over a decade since there has been a staff initiated complaint. Ms. Miles reported that election cycles are usually when APOC receives the most complaint activity. She noted that in 2007, almost all the complaints filed with APOC were related to the financial disclosure laws. Most complaints are usually filed regarding the campaign disclosure law, although APOC also receives complaints filed under the lobbying law. She said it would be difficult to give the average of the number of complaints. She recollected that APOC received 27 complaints during the 2002 election cycle, approximately 12 complaints during the 2004 cycle, and about 8 complaints during the 2006 cycle. MS. MILES, regarding APOC's auditing process, said the document would have to show an obvious and clear violation of law for APOC to go forward with a staff-initiated complaint at that point. The first contact, she said, would be to the filer, to identify missing or inconsistent information and ask for clarification from the filer. Since the agency is complaint- driven with respect to its investigations, once a formal investigation is commenced, she explained, the agency needs to make clear to the respondent what is being alleged and offer that respondent his/her full right of due process of law. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it has been his experience that when he left information off a disclosure form, APOC has contacted him, and he expressed his appreciation for that. Regarding the statute of limitations, he said the committee could conjecture whether or not the work load will increase for APOC; however, he added, "Based on the complaint load, I just don't know that it would." He indicated satisfaction with APOC's treatment of staff-directed complaints as described by Ms. Miles. 8:48:10 AM STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG), testified in support of HB 281. He said AKPIRG has been in Alaska for over 30 years and has approximately 1,500 members across the state. The agency works to protect consumers and ensure that government is "responsive to citizens at all levels." He said AKPIRG has long advocated for stronger tools for and enforcement by APOC, and it sees HB 281 as one tool to use in restoring the public's trust in its elected officials. He related a story about statute of limitations running out. He said in such an instance, it is easy to think that maybe the person regarding whom the complaint was filed may have been hiding something, when it could just as easily be that that person did nothing wrong. The proposed bill, he said, would allow APOC to investigate cases that they didn't get to investigate. CHAIR LYNN expressed appreciation for Mr. Cleary's having shown both sides of an issue. 8:51:55 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 281 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|