Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/08/2007 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB104 | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
4:11:19 PM SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 109(JUD) "An Act relating to bribery, receiving unlawful gratuities, and campaign contributions; denying public employee retirement pension benefits to certain legislators, legislative directors, and public officers who commit certain offenses, and adding to the duties of the Alaska Retirement Management Board and to the list of matters governed by the Administrative Procedure Act concerning that denial; relating to campaign financing and ethics, including disclosures, in state and municipal government, to lobbying, and to employment, service on boards, and disclosures by certain public officers and employees who leave state or municipal service or leave certain positions in state or municipal government; restricting representation of others by legislators; relating to blind trusts approved by the Alaska Public Offices Commission; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. 4:12:03 PM DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified that this ethics bill would place additional restrictions on members of the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and lobbyists. In addition to requiring more detailed reporting from public officials and members of the Executive Branch, it would require electronic filing of campaign, legislative, and public official disclosures. Disclosures would also be required from former members of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. 4:13:14 PM Mr. Jones stated that AS 11.56.130 as amended by Section 1 paragraph (1) page 2 lines 2 through 10 of the Senate Judiciary committee substitute "would change the definition of 'benefit' in the criminal bribery statutes to prohibit agreements to exchange campaign contributions for elected officials or candidates changing their votes or positions on matters." 4:13:33 PM Mr. Jones stated that the term "official action" is also defined in Section 1(1) as follows. …"official action" means advice, participation, or assistance, including, for example, a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction. Mr. Jones stated that this definition is also reflected in AS 39.52.960(14), as amended by Section 70 of the bill, page 41, lines 28 through 31. Section 70 addresses actions taken by a public officer. 4:13:45 PM Mr. Jones noted that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the bill "refer" to language in new subsection (a) of Section 37.10.310. Pension forfeiture to preserve public trust in government., added to AS 37.10 by Section 48, page 28, lines 20 through 28. Section 48(a) would "provide for forfeiture of the State's contributions toward public officials' pensions under certain circumstances." Mr. Jones specified that the new section, Section 14.25.212. Pension forfeiture., added to AS 14.25 by Section 2, page 2 lines 15 through 17, "would apply the pension forfeiture provision [in Section 48] to the defined benefit plan under the Teachers Retirement System (TRS)." Mr. Jones stated that changes to AS 14.25.040(c), as amended by Section 3 page 2 lines 18 through 31, "would deny certain service credit under" TRS under the pension forfeiture provisions of Section 48. 4:14:20 PM Mr. Jones communicated that the new section, Section 14.25.532. Pension forfeiture, added to AS 14.25 by Section 4, page 3 lines 1 through 3, "would apply that pension forfeiture to the defined contribution plan" of the TRS. 4:14:39 PM Mr. Jones advised that Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 pertain to campaign and campaign disclosures. Language in AS 15.13.040(g), as amended by Section 5, page 3 lines 4 through 15, "would eliminate for most campaigns the current disclosure exemption for campaigns raising and spending less than $5,000." 4:14:58 PM Mr. Jones noted that AS 15.13.040(m) is repealed and reenacted under Section 6, page 3 lines 16 through 30. Thereby subsection (m) "would require electronic filing of most campaign disclosures. It would except municipal campaigns and campaigns raising and expending less than $5,000. It would delay application of the electronic filing requirement to Legislative candidates until January 1 of 2009. It would also allow the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) to grant exceptions to the mandatory electronic filing requirement when circumstances warrant." 4:15:31 PM Mr. Jones stated that Section 7 would amend AS 15.13.040(m) as amended by Section 6, to specify that, as of January 1, 2009, "candidates for municipal office" in a municipality with a minimum population of 15,000, would be subject to the electronic filing requirement. 4:15:52 PM Mr. Jones stated that Section 8, page 4 lines 22 through 26, would add a new section to AS 15.13.040 which would require APOC "to scan campaign disclosures", submitted on paper as opposed to being electronically filed, and post them on the internet within two working days. Mr. Jones understood that APOC would be submitting a fiscal note to reflect the cost associated with this provision. 4:16:13 PM Mr. Jones stated that Section 9, page 4 lines 27 through 29, would add a new section to AS 22.25 regarding the pension forfeiture provision specified in Section 48. "It would apply that provision to the judicial retirement system." 4:16:28 PM Mr. Jones explained that Sections 10, 11, and 12 pertain to lobbyists. AS 24.45.031(a) is amended by Section 10, page 4 lines 30 through page 5 line 16, to "require APOC to provide annually updated ethics training courses for lobbyists and their employers." 4:16:50 PM Mr. Jones continued. AS 24.45.041(b) is amended by Section 11, page 5 lines 17 through page 6, line 16. It would "require lobbyists to file annual affirmations that they've attended the ethics training course." 4:16:53 PM Mr. Jones informed that a new subsection is added to AS 24.45.051 by Section 12, page 6 lines 17 through 26. It would require lobbyists to report gifts of food and beverages provided for immediate consumption to Legislators, Legislative employees or members of the Legislator's or Legislative employee's immediate family" ,except when "the food or beverage cost $10 or less or was provided as part of an event that is open to all Legislators and Legislative employees." This language was added to the bill by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In response to a question from Co-Chair Hoffman, Co-Chair Stedman and Mr. Jones communicated that this information is located in Section 12(b) page 6 lines 17 through 26. 4:18:46 PM Senator Elton asked the definition of "open"; specifically whether it meant that "all Legislative employees could be invited" or whether it meant "all Legislative employees who may be able to attend". To that point, he asked whether a luncheon occurring in Juneau to which Legislative employees in Anchorage were invited, would be considered open or closed since people in Anchorage would be unlikely to attend. 4:19:19 PM Mr. Jones guessed it "would be considered open" because the Legislator or the Legislative employee could elect to attend. The cost of traveling to Juneau might be a factor in their decision. Mr. Jones surmised that the provision was intended to distinguish between "something that was open as opposed to invitation-only to a select group of Legislators or Legislative employees." 4:20:00 PM Senator Elton understood the intent. The concern however is that in order to qualify as an open event, Legislative employees, in addition to Legislators, must be invited to the event. Thus, "in Juneau, for example, we're essentially saying you can't have a lunch because there is no place big enough to handle" both Legislators and Legislative employees. This would be problematic. He would discuss this concern with the bill's sponsor. 4:20:39 PM Senator Olson asked for further clarification of the provision; specifically whether it would require a report to be filed if he and his family had dinner at the home of a high school fiend who happened to be a lobbyist. 4:21:08 PM Mr. Jones believed a report would be required. 4:21:18 PM Senator Dyson thought that the provision would only apply to a situation "when that person has active business before the State." Senator Huggins and Co-Chair Hoffman stated that the language did not indicate that. 4:21:34 PM Mr. Jones agreed. 4:21:41 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the bill would require a lobbyist to disclose that status to a Legislator or Legislative employee. This would prevent a Legislator from inadvertently having a meal with a lobbyist. 4:22:04 PM Mr. Jones was unaware of any such provision. He concurred that each lobbyist is required to file with APOC, a Legislator might be unaware of a person's status. 4:22:20 PM Co-Chair Stedman understood therefore that lobbyists are not required to disclose their occupation to a Legislator. 4:22:26 PM Mr. Jones affirmed. 4:22:28 PM Co-Chair Stedman considered this to be a "huge loophole". 4:22:34 PM Senator Huggins asked whether the City of Unalaska would be considered a lobbying organization if it hosted a crab feed in Juneau. 4:23:02 PM Mr. Jones deferred to APOC, but assumed "that the city itself would not be considered a lobbyist." 4:23:23 PM Senator Huggins asked whether that determination would change if the city's lobbyist was in attendance. He also wondered if the provision would curtail legislators' meetings with their local school board or borough assembly members over breakfast to discuss things. He asked that these things be addressed in the discussion. 4:23:46 PM Senator Thomas asked the definition of "immediate consumption" as specified in Section 12(b) page 6, line 19. 4:23:58 PM Mr. Jones expressed that the term "immediate consumption" was included in the provision "to distinguish between gifts of a whole ham, for example," and eating a meal at the time. 4:24:21 PM Senator Thomas concluded therefore that "gifts of food," such as the whole ham that was not immediately consumed, would be exempted. 4:24:32 PM Mr. Jones again deferred to APOC. He surmised that the language was intended to require reporting of gifts of food and beverages for immediate consumption, which are currently excepted under lobbying gift statutes. The language would not prohibit such gifts, but would "tighten regulations a bit by requiring disclosure of those gifts." 4:25:12 PM Co-Chair Stedman, seeking further clarification of the provision, stated that he had recently been invited to the City of Ketchikan's lobbyist's home for brunch and a visit with his family before he caught a plane home. The question was whether the lobbyist would be required to report that meal. 4:25:53 PM Mr. Jones affirmed that, under the provisions of this bill, the meal should be reported if its value exceeded ten dollars. 4:25:55 PM Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the provision distinguished between a lobbyist earning $100,000 a year and an unpaid lobbyist. 4:26:20 PM Mr. Jones specified that the provision did not apply to volunteer lobbyists. They are not required to report to APOC as specified under current Alaska Statute (AS) 24.45.051(a). 4:26:33 PM Co-Chair Hoffman thus asked which lobbyists Section 12(b) would apply to. 4:26:40 PM Mr. Jones responded that Section 12(b) "would apply to those lobbyists that are required to report, which would include the professional lobbyists, employee lobbyists who spend more than ten hours and are paid for their lobbying services … it would also apply to the representational lobbyist." 4:26:59 PM Co-Chair Hoffman deduced that a person who lobbied for ten hours but made no money might be required to report under the terms of this provision. 4:27:14 PM Mr. Jones stated that might be true in the case of a representational lobbyist. He noted that they are only reimbursed for travel expenses. 4:27:22 PM Co-Chair Hoffman asked to the logic in this case. Mr. Jones could not explain the logic. This amendment was developed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the Department of Law. 4:27:38 PM Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the Administration supports the language. 4:27:44 PM Mr. Jones replied that "the Administration has no objection to this provision." 4:27:52 PM Co-Chair Hoffman deduced therefore that the Administration had "no objection to the inclusion or exclusion of it". Mr. Jones replied "correct". 4:28:09 PM Mr. Jones directed attention to Section 13, which would amend AS 24.45.121(a) to "prohibit lobbyist from making or offering gifts that the Executive Ethics Act would bar the recipients from accepting. It would also make conforming changes for changes to the Legislative Gift provisions that appear in Section 25 of the bill." 4:28:33 PM Senator Dyson asked whether subsection (a)(5) of Section 13, page 7 lines 7 through 9, would prohibit a lobbyist from sending a Legislator information from a magazine article or another source unless they had received permission from the original author to do so. 4:29:37 PM Mr. Jones thought that the intent of the language was to prevent a letter being sent in the name of someone else without their permission. He did not believe that attaching something that originated somewhere else would violate the provision. 4:30:09 PM Senator Dyson opined therefore that the provision is "precluding any duplicity about that." 4:30:16 PM Mr. Jones affirmed. 4:30:19 PM Senator Elton asked whether the reference to "a real human" in that same paragraph could include a corporation. 4:30:40 PM Mr. Jones stated that he would have to review the definition language before he could respond. He suspected that the term referred "to a real human being". 4:30:47 PM Mr. Jones informed the Committee that the provisions included in the original bill, as proposed by Governor Sarah Palin, specifically dealt with disclosures by the Legislative and the Judicial Branch. They dealt "substantively on disclosure for the Executive branch". Other provisions have been added during the Legislative hearing process. He apologized that individuals familiar with the Legislative actions were not available to answer Committee questions. Co-Chair Stedman appreciated Mr. Jones' remarks. 4:31:29 PM Mr. Jones stated that new subsection (d), added to AS 24.45.121 by Section 14, page 8 lines 4 through 8, would "prohibit former Executive branch members from lobbying or registering as lobbyist when the Executive Branch Ethics Act bars them from lobbying." This language would provide "APOC the authority to refuse to accept registration from someone that could not, under the Ethics Act, lobby." 4:32:00 PM Mr. Jones remarked that Section 14 also added new subsection (e), page 8 lines 9 through 12, to that same Statute. This language would "bar Legislator's spouses and domestic partners from lobbying." Mr. Jones shared that the new paragraph added to AS 24.45.171 by Section 15, page 8 lines 13 and 14, defined "domestic partner". 4:32:24 PM Senator Elton, directing his question to Section 14, recalled that in past years, legislation had been introduced that attempted to bar spouses and domestic partners from lobbying. It was argued that the State's Constitution prevented that from occurring, as it was "an infringement of some sort". 4:33:05 PM Mr. Jones was familiar with the argument. Concern was raised about the constitutionally of this provision during the bill's hearings in both Legislative bodies. There is awareness that the provision might be subjected "to a constitutional challenge" and the finding might be that it is. Nonetheless, the determination was that having a spouse or a domestic partner lobby "would present such a great practical problem, that despite the possibility of a constitutional challenge, folks were willing to create such logistical problem willing to include it in the bill." 4:34:01 PM Mr. Jones stated that Sections 16, 17, and 18 pertain to Legislative ethics. AS 24.60.020(a) is amended by Section 16 to include "language cleanup regarding provisions that apply to former Legislators and Legislative employees." This language mirrors that of Section 1 in SB 20-LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES legislation which the Committee had previously considered. 4:34:20 PM Mr. Jones stated that AS 24.60.030(a) is amended by Section 17 to include "conforming language for changes to the Legislative Gift Provision that appears in Section 25." 4:34:28 PM Mr. Jones specified that AS 24.60.060(c) as amended by Section 18 would "reduce from 90 to 60 days the length of the pre- election blackout period for use of State funds for Legislative communications with constituents. The reason for that change is to account for recent experience with numerous special sessions that might bump up against the 90 day pre-election blackout." 4:34:53 PM Mr. Jones advised that AS 24.60.030(f) as amended by "Section 19 would require Legislators and Legislative employees to disclose all board memberships. Currently it's required only that they disclose those memberships of boards that have substantial interest in legislative activities." 4:35:10 PM Mr. Jones noted that AS 24.60.040(a) as amended by "Section 20 would require publication of Legislators and Legislative employees' disclosures of interest to State contracts and leases." 4:35:19 PM Mr. Jones cited that AS 24.60.050(c) as amended by "Section 21 would address the timing of the publication of Legislators and Legislative employees' disclosure of participation in State programs and loans, and also would provide procedures for exemption from the disclosure requirement." 4:35:39 PM Mr. Jones explained that AS 24.60.070(a) as amended by Section 22 "would eliminate the existing exception for reporting Legislators and Legislative employees' close economic associations with municipal offices." 4:35:53 PM Mr. Jones expressed that AS 24.60.070(c) as amended by "Section 23 includes conforming language for the bar on lobbying by Legislator's spouses and domestic partners, which occurs in Section 14." 4:36:02 PM Mr. Jones stated that a new section, Section 24.60.075. Compassionate gift exemptions. is added to AS 24.60 by Section 24. "It would allow an exception to the gift restrictions for gifts to Legislators and Legislative employees of up to $250 in cases of medical or other emergencies, but disclosure would be required and written approval from the chair of the Legislative Council and the chair or vice-chair of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics." 4:36:33 PM Mr. Jones remarked that AS 24.60.080(a) is amended by Section 25 to "include further restrictions on gifts to Legislators and Legislative employees." 4:36:44 PM Mr. Jones commented that AS 24.60.080(c) is amended by Section 26 to include "conforming language for those restrictions on gifts. It also defines immediate family. You'll notice that this is very broad definition of immediate family. It's important to bear in mind that that very broad definition applies only to determining who may make gifts to Legislators and Legislative employees, without violating the Legislative Ethics restrictions." Mr. Jones stated that Section 26 "would also bar the Office of Victim Rights from receiving Session discounts and would allow Legislators and Legislative employees to give each other rides in their own planes, boats, and other vehicles." Mr. Jones, understanding that there was some concern about this provision, deferred to Joyce Anderson with the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. 4:37:36 PM Co-Chair Stedman affirmed there were questions about this provision; specifically in regards to how it would affect Legislators traveling from one point to another, by boat or air, in the road-less regions of Western and Southeast Alaska. 4:38:05 PM JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, testified via teleconference from Anchorage and informed the Committee that Legislators are currently allowed to provide transportation to another Legislator without having to disclose it. Section 26 would simply include Legislative employees in "the exemption as well" because it is not uncommon for a Legislative employee to travel with a Legislator in rural areas. "Otherwise the Legislative employee would have to file" that travel arrangement "as a gift for a legislative purpose …even though there is no reason to do that" due to the limited travel options in Rural Alaska. 4:39:00 PM Co-Chair Stedman, who represents "an island-bound Legislative district", stated that he often travels the district by boat in the summer. To that point, he asked what would be required of him or a Senate Finance Committee employee who works on the Capital budget were that employee to travel with him on his boat to look at harbors and roads in the district. 4:39:44 PM Ms. Anderson stated that no disclosure would be required under this bill because the travel would involve a Legislator and a Legislative employee. 4:40:04 PM Senator Olson thought that language in paragraph (4) of Section 26 would negate the Legislator to Legislator or Legislative employee travel exemption scenario exampled by Co-Chair Stedman because it specifically excludes travel conducted "for the purpose of obtaining information on matters of legislative concern." 4:41:01 PM Ms. Anderson assured the Committee that such travel would be exempt from the disclosure requirement. While the majority of the bill's sections pertain to things that would require disclosure, Section 26 depicts things that would not require disclosure. 4:41:25 PM Senator Olson appreciated the clarification. 4:41:29 PM Senator Elton inquired to the definition of travel. For example, he wondered if it be considered travel if he got on an airplane, flew over the Taku River, and then landed back at the same airport. 4:41:52 PM Ms. Anderson responded that it would depend on such things as whether the travel involved a commercial airline, whether there was a cost involved, or whether someone other than a Legislator or Legislative employee was flying the plane. If it involved the latter case, disclosure would be required. Senator Elton understood therefore that disclosure would be required even in the instance of traveling from "point 'a' to point 'a'." Ms. Anderson affirmed. 4:42:14 PM Senator Huggins asked whether it would be permissible under the Legislator to Legislator or Legislative employee travel exemption specified in Section 26(c)(9), page 18 lines 5 through 9, for him to fly one of his Legislative staffers out to a moose-hunting camp and drop him off. 4:42:44 PM Ms. Anderson stated that because the travel was not related to a legislative purpose, it would not be prohibited under the Legislative Ethics Code. 4:42:58 PM Senator Huggins understood therefore that taking that individual fishing would also be permissible under the Legislative Ethics Code. Ms. Anderson affirmed. 4:43:06 PM Co-Chair Stedman, noting that several Committee members were pilots and had private aircraft, asked the type of disclosure that would be required if he visited them on official Senate business and they flew him around their district to look at remote communities. Ms. Anderson stated that no disclosure would be required in this instance under the language in Section 26. 4:43:32 PM Senator Olson recalled that legislation had been introduced several years prior that specifically addressed the scenario exampled by Co-Chair Stedman. 4:43:53 PM Ms. Anderson thought Senator Olson was referring to legislation approved several years prior that allowed legislators to provide transportation to other legislators. She was unsure why Legislative employees had not been included in that legislation. 4:44:17 PM Mr. Jones stated that AS 24.60.080(d) as amended by "Section 27 would require disclosure of gifts of legal services to Legislators and Legislative employees" and gifts to their immediate family members that might be "received because of their connections to the Legislators and Legislative employees." The language would also require that gifts valued at $250 or more that are unrelated to a Legislator or Legislative employee's status must be reported within 30 days of receipt. [NOTE: Mr. Jones inadvertently omitted identifying Section 28, which amends AS 24.60.080(i), as the Section pertaining to the reporting of gifts to immediate family members. ] 4:44:50 PM Co-Chair Hoffman, observing that the term "immediate family" has different definitions depending on the bill section, asked the definition of this term as it relates to this provision. 4:45:04 PM Mr. Jones affirmed that Co-Chair Hoffman was correct. He deferred to Ms. Anderson to provide the definition of the term immediate family member in this instance. 4:45:32 PM Ms. Anderson defined an immediate family member relating to Section 28 as "only the spouse, a domestic partner, or dependent children." 4:45:46 PM Mr. Jones stated that the new subsection added to AS 24.60.085 by "Section 29 would bar Legislators from accepting outside compensation for work associated with legislative, administrative, or political action." 4:46:08 PM Mr. Jones explained that AS 24.60.105(a) as amended by "Section 30 would require filing of Legislative disclosures within 30 days after commencement of the matters or the interests disclosed." 4:46:15 PM Co-Chair Hoffman directed attention back to Section 29. He asked whether the compensation prohibition would pertain to gifts presented to a retiring Legislator. 4:46:57 PM Mr. Jones clarified that Section 29 pertained to compensation as opposed to gifts. The prohibition of compensation would apply only during the term in which the Legislator was elected or appointed. 4:47:25 PM Senator Elton asked for a response to Co-Chair Hoffman's question as it relates to Section 27. He assumed that giving a seated but retiring Legislator a retirement gift exceeding a specified amount would be prohibited under this bill. 4:47:56 PM Mr. Jones deferred to Ms. Anderson. 4:48:08 PM Ms. Anderson stated that a seated Legislator is "prohibited from receiving a gift because of your Legislative status that's over $250 which would be cumulative from the same person within a calendar year." A Legislator is "allowed to receive gifts unrelated to Legislative status over the $250 limit." Ms. Anderson stated that a retirement gift could be viewed two ways. It could be viewed as a gift relating to legislative status or it could be considered a gift "not because of their Legislative status" but because of friendship. She thought that the Legislative Ethics Committee might consider a retirement gift to be one resulting from friendship. In that case, the gift's value could exceed $250. 4:49:13s PM Mr. Jones returned to Section 30. It "would require filing of disclosures within 30 days after the matter or interest arises." 4:49:23 PM Mr. Jones remarked that the new subsection added to AS 24.60.105 by "Section 31 would also require annual disclosures." 4:49:29 PM Mr. Jones noted that the new section added to article 2 of AS 24.60 by "Section 32 would require a final Legislative disclosure within 90 days of leaving service." 4:49:44 PM Mr. Jones stated that AS 24.60.130(n) as amended by "Section 33 would establish procedures for using alternates when regular Legislative members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics are unavailable." 4:49:56 PM Mr. Jones cited that AS 24.60.130(o) as amended by "Section 34 would define majority organizational caucus for purposes of the provisions dealing with the select committee." 4:50:06 PM Mr. Jones stated that the new subsection added to AS 24.60.130 by "Section 35 would establish procedures for disqualification of Legislative members of the Select Committee and for appointment of alternatives." 4:50:19 PM Mr. Jones remarked that AS 24.60.150(a) as amended by "Section 36 would require the Select Committee to publish legislative ethics materials and administer introductory and refresher courses on Legislative ethics so that experienced legislators and legislative employees would not have to take the same course as brand new folks." 4:50:33 PM Mr. Jones announced that the new section added to AS 24.60 by "Section 37 would require Legislators, Legislative employees and public members of the Select Committee to take the Legislative ethics course, usually within ten days of the first day of the first regular session of each Legislature." 4:50:52 PM Mr. Jones advised that AS 24.60.160 as amended by "Section 38 would authorize the Select Committee and the APOC to request opinions from the Select Committee. Currently they are unable to do that." Mr. Jones continued. Section 38 would require publication of the Select Committee's opinions with deletions to protect identities and would make the Select Committee's discussions and deliberations on opinions confidential unless waived by requestors and make final votes public." 4:51:22 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked whether a person could simply take the course specified in Section 37 or whether they must take it and pass a test. 4:51:34 PM Mr. Jones understood that an individual would just be required to take the course. He was uncertain whether a testing measurement was required. 4:51:43 PM Co-Chair Stedman was curious about this because, as part of his professional training in the security business, he is required to take ethics training annually. That training includes both assignments and testing. 4:52:08 PM Ms. Anderson replied that, while examinations have not been required, the issue could be presented to the full Ethics Committee for consideration. Suggestions on this matter would be welcome. 4:52:48 PM Co-Chair Stedman expressed that a combination of ethics classes and computer examinations of the issues would be more effective than the manner in which Legislative ethics classes were conducted at the beginning of this Session. 4:53:35 PM Ms. Anderson stated that the suggestion "would be taken into consideration." 4:53:41 PM Mr. Jones continued with the bill overview. AS 24.60.070(j) as amended by Section 39, "would address the procedures for hearing formal charges before the Select Committee." 4:53:53 PM Mr. Jones specified that AS 24.60.176(b) as amended by "Section 40 would identify the appointing authority for the Office of Victims Rights for purposes of administering the remedies for violations of the Legislative Ethics provisions." 4:54:05 PM Mr. Jones communicated that AS 24.60.200 as amended by Section 41 "would require many more details about income and deferred income in Legislative financial disclosures." 4:54:19 PM Mr. Jones specified that AS 24.60.210(a) as amended by "Section 42 would require final Legislative financial disclosures within 90 days of leaving service and for public members of the Select Committee, Legislative directors, and Legislators appointed to fill vacant seats, would require financial disclosures within 30 days of their appointment." 4:54:46 PM Mr. Jones noted that the new subsection added to AS 24.60.210 by Section 43 "would require electronic filing of Legislative financial disclosures." 4:54:56 PM Mr. Jones pointed out that provisions in Section 75 would specify that the electronic filing required in Section 43 would not be required until January 1, 2009. 4:55:06 PM Mr. Jones remarked that AS 24.60.250(c) as amended by "Section 44 would require the APOC to notify the Legislative Council if the Victims Advocate failed to file a timely financial disclosure." 4:55:24 PM Mr. Jones commented that AS 24.60.990(a)(2) as amended by "Section 45 would include conforming language for changes to the Legislative gift provision in Section 25." 4:55:26 PM Mr. Jones remarked that AS 24.60.990(a)(7) as amended by Section 46 would change the "definition of 'income' in the Legislative Ethics statutes to clarify the fact that it includes 'deferred income'." 4:55:39 PM Mr. Jones stated that Sections 47 through 51 pertain to the pension forfeiture provision discussed earlier. The new paragraph added to AS 37.10.220(a) by Section 47 would provide the Alaska Retirement Management Board (ARM Board) "the authority to administer the pension forfeiture provision in Section 48." 4:55:57 PM Mr. Jones reminded the Committee that Section 48, as explained earlier, is the provision pertaining to pension forfeitures. It provides for "forfeiture, upon conviction, of the State's retirement contributions made on behalf of a public officer, a Legislator, or Legislative director, after commission of one of the listed felonies such as bribery" and perjury "if that felony is committed in connection with official duties." 4:56:31 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the pension forfeiture provision would also include a revocation of any health care benefits "the individual may be entitled to." Mr. Jones replied no. Language in Section 48(c) page 29, lines 1 through 4 specifies that the pension forfeiture would not include health benefits. 4:56:58 PM Mr. Jones continued. Section 48 also specifies that the ARM Board "may award some or all of the forfeited amounts to a spouse, dependent, or former spouse of the convicted person based on the factors" listed in Section 48(d)(1) and (2), page 29, lines 13 through 17. 4:57:21 PM Mr. Jones noted that AS 39.35.300(a) as amended by "Section 49 applies the pension forfeiture provision" specified in Section 48, "to deny certain service credit under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)." 4:57:32 PM Mr. Jones communicated that the new sections added to AS 39.35 by Sections 50 and 51 would apply the pension forfeiture provision to the PERS defined benefit and defined contribution plans. 4:57:46 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the bill contained "a retroactive clause". 4:57:52 PM Mr. Jones clarified that the pension forfeiture provision would only apply to "offenses committed after the effective date" of the bill. 4:58:04 PM Mr. Jones expressed that Sections 52 through 55 would "apply to public officials under Title 39 Chapter 50." 4:58:16 PM Mr. Jones stated that AS 39.50.020 as amended by "Section 52 would require final financial disclosures from public officials within 90 days of leaving service." This would "include high ranking executive branch officials, municipal officers, and judicial officers." 4:58:33 PM Mr. Jones stated that AS 39.50.060(b) as amended by "Section 53 would require more detail in public officials' financial disclosures." 4:58:46 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked for further information about the meaning of "more detail". 4:58:55 PM Mr. Jones stated that this provision would require individuals "to identify the source of any gift" received by them or their immediate family members that exceeds $250 in value in a calendar year or the source of any income exceeding $1,000. In addition, "a brief statement describing, in respect to income, whether it was earned by commission, by the job, by the hour," or by another method would be required to provide "some hint about whether the payment is proportional to the work being done." The report should also include "the approximate hours worked to earn the income and a description of what was done to earn the income unless by law that information is required to be kept confidential." Mr. Jones stated that this section "would reduce from $5,000 to $1,000 the reporting threshold for various financial interests". Mr. Jones reiterated that this section pertained to public officials and not to the Legislative branch. 5:00:19 PM Co-Chair Stedman spoke to the requirement that a public official list the sources of income exceeding $1,000 and a description of what was done to earn that income. He asked how this would be managed in the case where the individual had several hundred clients. 5:00:39 PM Mr. Jones deferred to APOC. While people such as doctors, lawyers, or dentists could have numerous clients, he believed that existing confidentiality provisions would exempt reporting the details associated with the services provided to those clients. 5:01:04 PM BROOK MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from an offnet location and affirmed a client list would be required if the service cost $1,000 or more. 5:01:34 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked for further information about the income description requirement. It could be quite burdensome for a public official who was also a charter boat operator with more than 300 clients if he was required to provide detailed information on the services provided to each client. 5:01:54 PM Ms. Miles contended that "the majority of people … who are filing statements under AS 39.50 have very serious fulltime State jobs. And, for the most part, I don't believe" that in addition to those jobs, they would undertake doing such things as being a charter boat operator. Furthermore, as State employees, it might be impossible for them to receive approval to do such things. Ms. Miles advised, however, that there were people on numerous State boards and commissions who would be subject to filing this disclosure statement on an annual basis. "Those would be the individuals that may find the clients' list burdensome." Ms. Miles qualified that because filing such information had not previously been required by law, "the Commission has not yet considered the amount of detail" that would be required nor "what kind of guidance regulations" might be "promulgated". Ms. Miles stated that since APOC board members would be subject to this provision, its three attorneys "would be very sensitive to applying the law in a practical way that's not overly burdensome." 5:03:43 PM In response to a question from Co-Chair Stedman, Ms. Miles clarified that the provision would apply to "Executive Branch officials, not Legislators." 5:03:50 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked who would be subject to the provision depicted in Section 53(b)(1) page 31 lines 3 through 19. 5:04:02 PM Ms. Miles stated that it would apply to the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor. 5:04:11 PM Senator Dyson asserted that elected officials are also required to "jump through same hoops. For instance, he is required to report all the names of individuals that charter his boat. He is also required to inform clients that their name would appear in the public record. A few prospective clients have opted not to charter with him for that reason. "It's a hassle." 5:04:52 PM Co-Chair Stedman understood that in addition to logging client's names, Senator Dyson is required to report the amount of time spent on the boat and the activities that took place. 5:05:08 PM Ms. Miles could not "imagine the Commission going into that kind of detail." Detailing the mechanics of a fishing trip would not be necessary. The required information would simply be a list of those clients who paid more than $5,000. There is no confusion about the activities that a charter boat captain provides to his clients. "It's not broad term like analyst or consultant." 5:05:43 PM Co-Chair Stedman understood that Legislators would be required to report compensations of $1,000 or more not the $5,000 threshold amount stated by Ms. Miles. 5:05:53 PM Ms. Miles acknowledged that the current threshold for Legislators is $1,000. Section 53(b) would make Executive Branch officials subject to a $1,000 threshold. 5:06:06 PM Co-Chair Stedman revisited the ethics training proposed in this bill. He has observed through his private business experience that sometimes when an individual thinks they have complied with regulations, they find out "after the fact" that they had not "because the interpretation was different." He asked how elected officials could "avoid that scenario". 5:06:45 PM Ms. Miles stated that "elected officials could best assist that [disclosure law] process by writing very clear legislation." The language should clearly identify what must be reported and when. While APOC manages the disclosure law process, the Department of Law and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics address "areas of behavior with respect to ethics issues" in addition to disclosure requirements. 5:07:36 PM Co-Chair Stedman, using Senator Dyson's charter business as an example, asked the process that would be undertaken if another charter operator made a formal complaint because" Senator Dyson had not provided the depth of detail required by the provision under another's APOC commissioner's interpretation. 5:08:13 PM Ms. Miles stated that in that hypothetical situation "the complainant would have to convince the Commission that they had misinterpreted the law and a much narrower definition is required." 5:08:32 PM Senator Dyson furthered Co-Chair Stedman's point, by stating that, when preparing to file his recent closed financial interest statement, he had sought information from his financial brokers. He was advised that due to the nature of his investments and how frequently their values' fluctuate, it was difficult to provide accurate information. Senator Dyson submitted a letter to that affect with his APOC filing and requested they notify him as to whether his effort "was adequate" or, if not, what he would be required to do. Two months have passed and he still has not received a reply. This "illustrates" Co-Chair Stedman's point, as Senator Dyson had made "a good faith effort" to provide what was required, but now months later was still uncertain as to whether it was satisfactory. 5:10:15 PM Senator Elton asked for further clarification regarding the requirement that gifts with a cumulative value of $250 from a single source must be declared, as specified in Section 53(b)(1) page 31 lines 5 through 7. He was specifically interested in whether another State Statute addressed the process regarding a single gift valued at, for instance, $500. 5:11:07 PM Mr. Jones thought that such a gift would meet the qualifying criteria in Section 53(b)(1). Senator Elton cited the plurality of the word "gifts" to have prompted his question. 5:11:38 PM Mr. Jones expressed that the intent of the language was to disclose any gifting from a single source that exceeds a value of $250 in a calendar year, regardless of whether it was a single gift or the cumulative value of several. 5:12:17 PM Ms. Miles agreed with Mr. Jones' interpretation of the provision. 5:12:26 PM Mr. Jones resumed his overview of the bill. AS 39.50.030(h) as amended by Section 54 contained "clean-up language to cover limited liability companies (LLC) because they are relatively new origin." Mr. Jones noted that AS 39.50.040 as amended by Section 55 "would expand the requirements for blind trusts that public official may choose to use to avoid conflicts of interest." Mr. Jones communicated that the new subsections added to AS 39.50.040 by "Section 56 also applies to blind trusts." A Department of Law attorney with expertise in this field, "assisted the House Judiciary Committee" with the drafting of this language. Mr. Jones pointed out that "using a blind trust is voluntary for public officials." The use of such a vehicle must be approved by the APOC "before it would be considered an effective trust under this provision." AT EASE 5:13:37 PM /5:13:56 PM 5:14:02 PM Co-Chair Stedman asked that the discussion on the remainder of the bill be abbreviated in consideration of the Committee's agenda. Mr. Jones advised that AS 39.50.050(a) as amended by "Section 57 would require electronic filing of public officials' financial disclosures" effective July 1 of this year." Mr. Jones expressed that AS 39.50.050(a) as amended by Section 57 would be amended by Section 58 "to extend that electronic filing requirement to municipal officers in large municipalities as of January 1, 2009." Mr. Jones noted that AS 39.50.200(a)(10) as amended by "Section 59 includes clean-up language, again, to cover limited liability companies." 5:14:30 PM Mr. Jones explained that the new paragraphs added to AS 39.50.200(b) by "Section 60 would add to the list of Executive branch boards whose members must file financial disclosures." Mr. Jones qualified that Sections 61 through 70 pertain to the Executive Branch Ethics Act. The new subsection added to AS 39.52.110 by Section 61 defines "insignificant financial interests in a business" under the Act. As 39.52.120(b) as amended by Section 62 and the new subsection added to AS 39.52.120 by Section 63 "address the use of State aircraft for partisan political purposes and would essentially prohibit that use except for a limit of ten percent of the total use of the aircraft on a single trip." Mr. Jones continued. AS 39.52.130(a) as amended by Section 64, would bar "most gifts from lobbyists to Executive Branch members and their immediate family members. AS 39.52.180(a) as amended by Section 65 "would eliminate the current exception for work on legislation and regulations under the existing restrictions that apply to former Executive Branch members' employment. Those last for two years after leaving State service." 5:15:38 PM Mr. Jones stated that AS 39.52.180(d) as amended by "Section 66 would extend the current lobbying ban, which applies for one year after leaving State service" to such people as deputy commissioners, division directors, legislative liaisons and others in addition to the current prohibition on the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and heads of departments. Mr. Jones advised that the new subsection added to AS 39.52.180 by Section 67 "would bar for one year after leaving State service, former heads of principle departments and former Governor's Office employees in policy making positions from serving on boards of organizations that they either regulated or worked with during their State service." 5:16:19 PM Mr. Jones noted that the new section added to AS 39.52 by "Section 68 would require the Governor to disclose any personal or financial interest before granting executive clemency and require the attorney general to issue a public determination on whether granting clemency would violate the Ethics Act." 5:16:36 PM Mr. Jones specified that the new subsection added to AS 39.52.910 by "Section 69 would clarify the Executive Branch Ethics Act to address employment of immediate family members within the same administrative unit or agency." 5:16:51 PM Mr. Jones noted that AS 39.52.960(14) as amended by "Section 70 changes the definition of 'official action' under the Executive Branch Ethics Act." 5:17:05 PM Mr. Jones communicated that the final sections of the bill, Sections 71 through 77 reflect the bill's applicability and effective date provisions. AT EASE 5:17:11 PM / 5:17:54 PM Senator Olson asked regarding the decision to specify a minimum population of 15,000 as the line of demarcation for the provision that would require municipal and borough officials to file information with APOC electronically, as specified in Section 7(m)(1)(B), page 4, lines 10 through 12 and Section 58(a) page 37 lines 14 and 15. 5:18:15 PM Mr. Jones stated that that determination was made by the House Judiciary Committee. He did not possess any information on that decision. 5:18:29 PM Senator Olson asked the number of boroughs that would be subject to the electronic reporting requirement. Mr. Jones understood that it would apply to the Matanuska- Susitna Borough (Mat-Su), the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the City & Borough of Juneau, and the Municipality of Anchorage. 5:18:53 PM Senator Thomas asked whether the pension forfeiture provision specified in Section 48(a) page 28 lines 21 through 31 contemplated a situation in which a person charged with one of the specified offenses might return to work. 5:19:33 PM Mr. Jones did not believe that it "contemplates someone returning to work, although that's theoretically possible." Mr. Jones surmised that the provision was "designed to deal with the fact that you may not discover the offense until later and then it takes a while for the conviction to occur. The forfeiture applies to contributions made by the State after the offense is committed and then, of course, is dependent on the later conviction." 5:20:16 PM Conceptual Amendment #1: This amendment inserts a new section on page 1 following line 12 as follows. Section 1. AS 11.56 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 11.56.124. Failure to report bribery or receiving a bribe. (a) A public servant commits the crime of failure to report bribery or receiving a bribe if the public servant (1) witnesses what the public servant knows or reasonable should know is (A) bribery of a public servant by another person; or (B) receiving a bribe by another public servant; and (2) does not as soon as reasonably practicable report that crime to a peace officer or law enforcement agency. (b) Failure to report bribery or receiving a bribe is a class A misdemeanor. In addition to conforming changes resulting from the addition of new Section 1, the amendment deletes the entirety of subsection (a) of Section 65, page 38 lines 26 through 27, and replaces it with the following. (a) AS 11.56.124, added by sec. 1 of this Act, and the amendment of AS 11.56.130(1) made by sec. 2 of this Act apply to offenses occurring on or after the effective date of secs. 1 and 2 of this Act. [Note: Amendment #1 was drafted to CS HB 109(JUD) am, Version 25-GH1059\N.A.Therefore, conforming changes must be made.] Senator Dyson moved Amendment #1 and objected for purposes of explanation. Senator Dyson pointed out that the amendment was drafted to the previous version of the bill, CS HB 109(JUD)am, and thus the amendment must be conformed to the version of the bill before the Committee. Senator Dyson noted that the amendment was offered by request of a [unspecified] House member and had been reviewed and "wholehearted supported" by the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Dyson stated that the amendment would add the crimes of failure to report bribery or receiving a bribe to the bill. While the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee fully supported the amendment, he had communicated that some might take exception to it. 5:21:34 PM Co-Chair Stedman repeated the action proposed by the amendment. 5:21:46 PM Senator Dyson noted that the reporting requirement would also apply to a person witnessing either of these events. 5:22:29 PM Co-Chair Hoffman asked the reason the amendment was specific to public servants as opposed to the general public. 5:22:42 PM Neither Senator Dyson nor Mr. Jones could provide any additional information. 5:22:51 PM Senator Dyson expressed however, that, over the past few years, the State has "stepped gently into" the issue of failure to report crimes. This is just another step in that direction. The drafter and perhaps the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee might consider imposing this duty on a public official to be appropriate as doing so "is part of their oath and part of their public trust responsibilities." Thus, he is comfortable with imposing this requirement on public officials. The discussion on the general public is a separate issue. 5:23:56 PM Senator Elton asked Mr. Jones to provide the definition of a public servant and whether that definition would uniformly apply to individuals in the Legislative, Judicial, or Executive Branch. 5:24:16 PM Mr. Jones could not provide the requested information as his expertise was not in the criminal law area. The terms his Division utilizes under Title 39 are public officer and public official. He was unsure of how those would relate to a public servant. 5:24:39 PM Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the reporting duty would apply to assembly members. 5:24:46 PM Senator Dyson stated that a response could be provided by the following day. Co-Chair Hoffman asked therefore whether action on the amendment would be delayed. 5:25:02 PM Co-Chair Stedman declared that this significant issue might be better addressed as "a standalone bill; much broader than just the public officials." 5:25:14 PM Senator Dyson deemed that a "worthy consideration". The reporting obligation should be required of public officials, members of the Executive Branch and other entities identified in the bill, elected officials on the State level, people working for the State, and perhaps municipal officials. Senator Dyson removed his objection. 5:26:02 PM Senator Elton did not take issue with the intent of the amendment; however, he was uncomfortable voting on the amendment without knowing the definition of public servant. 5:26:32 PM Co-Chair Stedman suggested that Senator Dyson withdraw his amendment in order to clarify issues raised during the discussion. 5:26:45 PM Without objection, Senator Dyson WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment #1. 5:26:51 PM Amendment #2: This amendment inserts a new subparagraph following "commission" on page 6, line 15 of AS 24.45.041(b) as amended by Section 11, as follows. ; (9) A sworn affirmation by the lobbyist that the lobbyist has not been previously convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude; in this paragraph "felony involving moral turpitude" has the meaning given in AS 15.60.010, and includes convictions for a violation of the law of this state or a violation of the law of another jurisdiction with similar elements to a felony involving moral turpitude in this state. The amendment also inserts a new bill section on page 6, following line 16, as follows. Section 12. AS 24.45.041 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (i) A person may not register if the person has been previously convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude in violation of a law of this state or the law of another jurisdiction with elements similar to a felony involving moral turpitude in this state. (j) In this section, (1) "felony involving moral turpitude" has the meaning given in AS 15.60.010; (2) "previously convicted" means the defendant entered a plea of guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere, or has been found guilty by a court or jury; "previously convicted" does not include a conviction that has been set aside under AS 12.55.085 or a similar procedure in another jurisdiction, or that has been reversed or vacated by a court. Co-Chair Stedman moved Amendment #2 and objected for purposes of discussion. Co-Chair Stedman stated that this amendment would bar people convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude from lobbying. 5:27:42 PM MILES BAKER, Staff to Co-Chair Stedman, stated that the first part of the amendment would add a new requirement to the registration process lobbyists must undergo each year. That being that the lobbyist must submit a sworn affirmation that they had not previously been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude. The definition of moral turpitude already exists in AS 15.60.010. 5:29:55 PM Mr. Baker read the second part of the amendment and added that under AS 12.55.085, a person whose sentence was suspended, vacated, or reversed by court would not be precluded from registering as a lobbyist. 5:30:18 PM Co-Chair Stedman stated that a felony involving moral turpitude pertains to "crimes that are immoral or wrong". This would include such crimes as "murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a minor, robbery, extortion, coercion, kidnapping, incest, arson, burglary, thief," and forgery. People guilty of such crimes are "not exactly the folks that are in the highest esteem of society." 5:31:21 PM Senator Elton hypothesized a situation in which the sentence given to a 16-year minor found guilty of selling marijuana at a school, specified that if he or she stayed out of trouble until they turned 18, the conviction would be removed from their record. His interpretation of the language in the amendment was that this person would be able to register as a lobbyist later on in life. 5:32:17 PM Mr. Baker responded that he was not qualified to answer the question. 5:32:27 PM Senator Olson concluded that the adoption of this amendment would prohibit a person convicted of a felony from lobbying. Co-Chair Stedman affirmed. Senator Olson objected to the amendment and spoke to his objection. Senator Olson, who had a law background, professed that people go to prison "to pay their debt to society." Once that retribution has been made, they should be able to go on with their lives. Co-Chair Stedman removed his objection to the amendment. Senator Olson maintained his objection, but clarified that he was "not condoning" misconduct. He believes "in law and order, but also believes "there are felons out there that have paid their debt to society…" 5:34:05 PM Senator Elton viewed this in a different light. An adult should know better where the line is drawn and therefore, it would not bother him if they were precluded from lobbying. However, a young person is different. It would bother him if a mistake made by a young person was held against them indefinitely. To that point, he requested that the amendment be held until he could clarify how the amendment would affect a young person. 5:35:06 PM Co-Chair Stedman communicated that there are long-term consequences for committing a felon. For instance, convicted felons are prevented from holding a variety of licenses and jobs. Co-Chair Stedman pointed out that another consideration is that lobbyists work on issues that involve the public's money. This is not the environment in which to have lobbyists working who have been convicted of moral turpitude. Co-Chair Stedman agreed to hold the amendment in order to allow Senator Elton's concern to be addressed. Senator Elton wondered whether a convicted felon could run for a public office. Discussion ensued amongst Committee Members. 5:36:33 PM Co-Chair Hoffman noted it being unlikely that the military would enlist a felon. 5:36:51 PM Senator Huggins expressed that, while lobbyists might be "a small group of people", they are very involved in working with those "setting public policy, spending people's money…." The recommendation would be to err on the side of caution; particularly as "whether rightly or wrongly" the public has strong feelings about lobbyists. 5:37:42 PM Senator Thomas thought APOC might be able to address whether a person convicted of a felon could run for office. 5:37:52 PM Ms. Miles could not address the issue as that "is not a rule" under APOC's purview. It might be addressed in the State's Constitution or a law administered by the Division of Elections. Co-Chair Stedman stated that he would seek a definitive answer on the issue. Without objection, Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW Amendment #2. 5:38:37 PM Mr. Baker advised that the definition of a felony involving moral turpitude is from Division of Elections statutes. 5:39:04 PM Senator Olson announced he would not be offering Amendment #3. Amendment #4: This amendment changes language in new subsection (b) paragraph (1), page 6 line 24, added to AS 24.45.051 by Section 12 to read as follows. (1) cost $50 or less; or Co-Chair Stedman moved Amendment #4 and objected for purposes of explanation. This amendment would increase the reporting requirement threshold for food or beverages provided to a legislator, legislative employee, or immediate family member by a lobbyist for immediate consumption from ten dollars to $50. 5:40:01 PM Senator Olson asked how the reporting requirement would apply to food served in a group setting. Mr. Jones expressed that language in Section 12(b) page 6 line 22, specified a per person cost. 5:40:23 PM Co-Chair Stedman stated that $50 would allow for a "reasonable meal" to be provided. Co-Chair Stedman removed his objection. 5:40:54 PM Senator Elton objected. While he was unsure of the appropriate level, $50 was too high. He thought that one intent of specifying ten dollars as the reporting threshold was an effort to control costs. 5:41:45 PM Senator Olson opined that few meals cost below ten dollars. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator Olson, Senator Thomas, Senator Huggins, Co- Chair Hoffman, and Co-Chair Stedman OPPOSED: Senator Elton ABSENT: Senator Dyson The motion PASSED (5-1-1) Amendment #4 was ADOPTED Co-Chair Stedman ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|