Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
01/31/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR12 | |
| HB291 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 291 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HCR 12-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING 8:06:18 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the first order of business was HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 12, Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to abstention from voting. 8:06:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, presented HCR 12 as prime sponsor. He explained the process by which a legislator declares a conflict of interest and often follows that with a request to abstain from voting, but, through another member's objection, must vote the interest regardless. Furthermore, although a representative could choose to leave the room, if the issue is big enough, a call to the House can be made, which would require that legislator to return to the floor. He said this process is confusing to the public, and the proposed legislation would offer an alternative. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that [the current method of declaring conflicts and voting] has affected him personally in the last couple years because of his employment with ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. He said he has declared a conflict of interest. He said he modeled the proposed solution, using the method of the Anchorage Assembly, on which he served in the past. He explained that a person on the assembly would declare a conflict of interest, whereby a fellow assembly member would make a motion to vote on whether or not the person who declared the conflict of interest had a substantial financial interest in the matter before the assembly. 8:09:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that method works better on local issues, because it is easier to see when a person has a substantial financial interest on a local level. He continued: But here, if you're dealing with oil taxes, for example, I don't have a ... substantial financial interest in ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. And certainly, ... my employment that I get from them is not impacted by the action that I take. So, in that case, I would not have a conflict of interest. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that a potential problem with HCR 12 is that the decision of whether or not to excuse someone could become more politically motivated than rationally based. He explained, for example, that if he were to declare a conflict of interest, one representative may vote that he does not have a conflict of interest, thinking that his interests side with his/her own, while another may vote that he has a conflict of interest for the opposite reason. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that HCR 12 is not necessarily the right solution to the issue. He noted that included in the committee packet is a handout that shows how other states deal with abstention from voting, and one common denominator is the use of "substantial financial interest into the equation." He stated, "I can guarantee that that's a hard thing to ascertain or determine, because what may be a substantial fine interest to you, may not be to me, and vice versa." He noted, as it read in the aforementioned handout, that in Colorado, a legislator shall consider [among other things]: "(b) The effect of his participation on public confidence in the integrity of the general assembly". Representative Meyer emphasized the importance of maintaining the public's trust. Of equal importance, he said, is [not to] disenfranchise voters by disallowing their representative or senator to vote. He quoted legislation of the State of Kentucky, which read: "The right of legislators to represent their constituencies, however, is of such major importance that legislators should be barred from voting on matters of direct personal interest only in clear cases and if the matter is particularly personal." He added, "Even our own constitution ... speaks of the right to equal opportunity under the law, and clearly states that all government originates with the people and is founded upon the will of the people." He said allowing an Alaska legislator to abstain from voting would be denying Alaskans from that particular district the right to representation. 8:13:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that he thinks it is important not to make it so easy for a person not to vote that he/she is tempted to "duck a vote." He said he thinks it is possible that the system currently in use is the best one. He noted that there are other bills on the issue and he expressed his hope that the House State Affairs Standing Committee would consider all the bills and create the best legislation from them all. He surmised that the reason the legislature has not dealt with this issue since the early '80s is because it is so difficult and complex. Notwithstanding that, he opined that it is time to consider the issue once more. 8:15:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL thanked Representative Meyer for addressing the issue. She revealed that she had considered introducing similar legislation, but was warned of the complexity of it. She remarked that the proposed resolution is "a strong ethics issue." She mentioned an excerpt from the aforementioned handout, regarding Colorado, that says a senator is considered to have personal or private interests in measures if he/she "accepts a gift, loan, service or other economic opportunity from someone who would be affected by or has interest in an enterprise that would be affected by the legislation." Representative Doll mentioned the reforms that have been considered regarding campaigns. She stated, "We do accept contributions to campaign, and that ... does, I think, add some influence when it comes to looking at [legislation] - not that it would change our vote one way or the other - but certainly there is an influence ... just in the political process by itself." 8:17:05 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES, regarding Representative Doll's tying the issue of ethics into her reference to Colorado's legislation, cited another portion of that state's revised statutes, which read: (4) If a member of the general assembly elects to disclose the interest, he shall do so as provided in the rules of the house of representatives or the senate, but in no case shall failure to disclose constitute a breach of the public trust of legislative office. VICE CHAIR ROSES said it would appear that the State of Colorado does not consider that failure to disclose would be an ethics violation that would "raise the hackles of many folks." He cautioned against using examples of what other states have done without considering all they have done. 8:18:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated his understanding that it is everyone's right to bring an ethics charge if a legislator does not make a disclosure that that person thinks he/she should have made. VICE CHAIR ROSES replied that that is also his understanding. 8:18:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked the sponsor if he has considered other ways to address the issue without actually referencing statute. 8:19:53 AM MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff, Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska State Legislature, suggested, "If you're referencing specifically just the conflict of interest, you're perhaps closing the door on what could be broader and real reasons for abstaining from a vote, and we didn't want to do that. But I personally agree with you that ... it should not be the statute, it should be perhaps the title of the chapter." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "That actually works both ways: One is it could give you a lot of reasons to abstain. Also, it could create a lot of debate on why somebody would accuse somebody from not abstaining. So, it creates an interpretation issue that [could challenge] our legal department ...." He said that is why it is important to know what the Uniform Rules say, because "that's what we agree between bodies to do." Representative Coghill offered his understanding that currently it is presumed that a legislator must vote until a unanimous vote dictates that he/she should not. He asked if the sponsor has given thought to existing statute and how, as a matter of protocol, the rule as it stands now could be applied to actually accomplish the intent of the bill. 8:22:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that he has given the matter some thought. He characterized himself as a legislator who probably tends to declare potential conflicts of interest, because he wants to remain transparent as a legislator. However, he said he always knows that he will vote anyway after declaring a conflict of interest and requesting abstention, because another legislator will always object. Many times, he said, it is the minority leader who offers that objection, because he/she wants the votes on the record. He said he thinks people would think more carefully about standing up to disclose a conflict and asking to be excused from voting if they knew that they may actually be excused. He indicated that the best method may be to stand up to declare a conflict and then vote anyway as a representative of the constituents. 8:24:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that because Alaska has a citizen legislature, open disclosure can result in conflicts simply because of someone's profession. He offered some examples. He said the extreme is that no legislator would be able vote on the issue of the permanent fund dividend (PFD) because each one is eligible to receive one. He said the consideration is whether to presume a legislator must abstain from voting unless permitted to vote, as compared to the current system where the legislator must vote unless he/she can compel the body unanimously that he/she should not vote. He said he likes to err on the side of the current system. The Ethics Law imposed on the resolution, he indicated, would make the language so broad that interpretation of it would become very political and have unintentional consequences. He stated, "I think when people vote for us to be down here, they presume that we're going to engage in every issue before us, ... unless there is a real compelling personal reason for you to be out...." 8:28:21 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES said there is an assumption being made that the individual who declares a conflict of interest and is made to vote will always vote on the side that benefits himself/herself, and he stated that that is not necessarily the case. He noted that the intent of the committee chair is to consider the other similar bills together, perhaps in a subcommittee. 8:30:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE MEYER recollected that Vice Chair Roses had been representing the teacher's union in the past when he came before the Anchorage Assembly in support of the school district's budget. He said there were two members of the assembly who had to declare a conflict because their own incomes would be affected. He said that was a body of eleven that had to address the issue, and there are 40 representatives and 20 senators being asked to state their conflicts. With that many people, there will be a lot of conflicts on various issues, he said. Representative Meyer talked about the financial disclosure that is made open to the public annually. He said he tends to agree with Representative Coghill that publicly disclosing [conflicts of interest] are already disclosed before a vote may be enough. 8:32:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she thinks the public pays attention to where legislators get their campaign contributions. She noted that this year there would be an initiative coming regarding clean elections. She said if the initiative were to pass, it could change the way the legislature looks at the entire issue. VICE CHAIR ROSES said he does not want to discuss another bill, but he surmised that passage of that initiative may "make it worse." 8:33:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he thinks the committee needs to discuss the distinction between a conflict that should just be noted and one that is too egregious to allow voting. 8:33:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed concern after having heard the belief that a campaign contribution can affect the way a legislator votes. He clarified that he tells everyone who wants to contribute to his campaign that he hopes they are doing so because they like his philosophy, not because they want to influence his vote. 8:35:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Representative Meyer when [his occupation with the oil industry] began to be a an issue. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said it was never an issue when he served on the Anchorage Assembly. It has been only in the last year or two that there have been tough issues before the legislature related to oil taxes that he has been asked by his constituents how he handles conflicts of interest. He said it has been during his explanation of the process that his constituents get a confused look on their faces. He stated that he has always made it clear where he works and the majority of his constituents have voted to keep him in the legislature. He reiterated his concern that the legislature not make abstention too easy, which could disenfranchise constituents. 8:38:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN looked forward to the possibility of more rules, more exceptions, and politicizing. He stated that he may be a "simple guy from Ketchikan," but he faces his voters in person. He said he thinks if someone gets a feeling that something needs to be disclosed, then he/she should stand up and do it. Ultimately, he said, a legislator faces the people who put him in office. 8:40:42 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES asked if there was any one wishing to testify on HCR 12. [No one responded, but Vice Chair Roses did not close public testimony.] VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that HCR 12 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|