Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
05/02/2005 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB187 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 187-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS/MEETINGS
8:49:44 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 187 to be up for consideration.
He directed committee members to Section 10 of the bill. He
proposed Amendment 3.
Section 10, line 10 following the word "complaint", insert
"In any case the opinion is open for inspection by the public on
the twenty first day following notice to the complainant." The
amendment gives the complainant a 20-day period of time to have
a meeting and go over the opinion.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how the amendment would affect the hearing
that may take place after the opinion is released.
8:51:47 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS replied all of that would have to take place
within the 21 days.
SENATOR FRENCH expressed favor for providing information to the
public but expressed opposition to the final sections, which
appear to hold everything confidential.
CHAIR SEEKINS commented if no hearing is requested it is
available 21 days after the notice to the complainant. If the
complainant does request a hearing and there are still
recommendations for directive action it becomes available after
that hearing.
8:54:30 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Joyce Anderson whether she would be able
to follow the instructions discussed in SB 187.
MS. JOYCE ANDERSON, member, Legislative Ethics Committee, said
yes.
CHAIR SEEKINS reiterated the procedures for and the intent of
Section 10.
8:58:17 AM
Section 11 permits the limited release of information.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether the subject of the complaint would
have access to the legal opinions from the committee counsel as
well as any supporting documentation.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the complainant is held to a level of
confidentiality as well. At the point where s/he goes public the
entire record goes public. SB 187 is trying to give the person
the ability to conduct an investigation necessary for a defense
so there has to be a certain amount of limited release.
9:01:02 AM
SENATOR FRENCH stated he is unclear as to the reason for
limitation.
CHAIR SEEKINS remarked documents and other things like that
should not be released in total and the person should not be
able to take copies of the documents.
MS. ANDERSON noted the current process allows the complainant
copies of any documents and decisions. There have only been
three public hearings since the statute has been in place.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the committee has the ability to
pose restrictions.
MS. ANDERSON answered yes.
9:05:15 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked the nature of the changes in Section 13
regarding confidentiality.
CHAIR SEEKINS responded the committee would come back to Section
13. Section 14 allows the candidate to waive suspensions during
a campaign period. Section 15 deals with the confidentiality
process of bringing the person filing the complaint in to the
chain of confidentiality.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Chair Seekins to explain how the
confidentiality of the new subsection compares with the existing
system.
CHAIR SEEKINS explained the system as it exists now says if the
person filing the complaint makes the complaint public the
complaint is dismissed. However, the committee can proceed
forward with the complaint if they want to.
9:10:17 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS voiced support.
CHAIR SEEKINS said if it is serious enough to file a complaint,
it should be investigated.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether the hearings would be open to the
public or confidential.
CHAIR SEEKINS responded they would be confidential up until the
point where probable cause is determined, as set out in Section
12.
9:12:21 AM
SENATOR FRENCH noted that doesn't cover the hearing, it covers
the decision.
CHAIR SEEKINS asserted a hearing would end in a decision.
SENATOR FRENCH disagreed. The hearing ends in a decision of a
violation or not. Probable cause determination happens upstream
of that.
MS. ANDERSON suggested leaving the first sentence of Section 13
in the bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated the intent is all hearings would be
confidential until indication of probable cause. He asked Ms.
Anderson to explain the process of determining probable cause.
MS. ANDERSON walked the committee through the process. The
committee would first take a look at an alleged complaint. If
the allegations, if proved true, would be a violation, the
committee would determine the scope of investigation. The
materials would be reviewed.
SENATOR FRENCH interrupted to clarify the point at which the
committee makes the probable cause determination.
MS. ANDERSON was not familiar with probable cause parameters.
The committee is committed by statute to pursue an investigation
if the allegation is true.
9:16:12 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS disputed Senator French's indication of the point
where the investigation would become public. He stated the
committee's investigation would be indication of prima facie
evidence.
MS. ANDERSON agreed.
9:18:00 AM
MS. ANDERSON said after the investigation is conducted the
committee would then meet again to either garner more
information or to determine whether or not probable cause
exists.
9:19:32 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee to
review AS 24.60.170.
9:20:47 AM
Senator Gretchen Guess joined the committee.
9:23:07 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said AS 24.60.170(k) is the point where the
investigation becomes public.
Chair Seekins announced a brief recess at 9:24:48 AM.
Chair Seekins reconvened the meeting at 9:31:12 AM.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Anderson to help him step through the
process:
First a complaint is file. There is an indication by
the staff as to whether or not there is prima facie
evidence to go forward. If that step of prima facie
evidence is accomplished, an investigation begins. The
investigator comes back to the committee and indicates
a reason for the hearing. You have a hearing at that
point. Following the hearing a decision is made as to
whether or not a violation has occurred. Am I correct?
MS. ANDERSON said yes except it is not referred to as a hearing.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted AS 24.60.170(k) says, "Following the
hearing, the committee shall issue a decision stating whether or
not the subject of the complaint violated this chapter."
MS. ANDERSON said that is at the point where the subject of the
complaint has requested a hearing.
9:33:13 AM
MS. ANDERSON clarified after the determination of probable cause
the committee could formally charge the person. AS 24.60.170(k)
refers to that.
Chair Seekins announced a short recess at 9:34:34 AM.
Chair Seekins reconvened the meeting at 9:47:46 AM.
CHAIR SEEKINS referred the committee to AS 24.60.170(h).
Paragraph (g) is Section 10 of the bill.
9:51:16 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS clarified a charge issued is the trigger for
public disclosure.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed.
9:53:12 AM
Amendment 3 was unanimously adopted.
9:57:03 AM
SENATOR FRENCH moved Amendment 4:
Re-insert the first sentence in Section 13.
Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
10:03:16 AM
SENATOR FRENCH aired citizens have a right to file complaints
and speak out against the government without fear of
penalization. He proposed Amendment 5; beginning on Page 8, line
18 strike the language up to line 24.
10:04:55 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS objected. He said Senator Elton testified in
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee there is evidence of
abuse. He said it is important that confidentiality be
maintained until probable cause is found.
Roll call proved Amendment 5 failed with Senators Huggins,
Therriault, and Chair Seekins dissenting.
10:07:46 AM
MR. MERLE THOMPSON testified against SB 187. There is a need for
open proceedings. SB 187 does not protect public interest. The
history of Title 24 and AS 24.60.170 originally said the class A
misdemeanor specifically addressed the members of the committee,
and the freedom of speech of the general public remained intact.
10:11:07 AM
MR. THOMPSON continued the main problem with SB 187 is the
freedom of speech issue. He asked the committee to read the
(U.S. Constitution) First Amendment. He asserted any government
that doesn't trust the people doesn't deserve the people's
trust. SB 187 protects the interest of people sitting in
Legislature and not the general public.
10:13:41 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Anderson the section that harbors the
provision that allows a complaint to be dropped.
10:14:54 AM
MS. ANDERSON responded Section 13, sub-subparagraph (l). She
said she would feel more comfortable if there was language that
said the subject of the complaint could waive the
confidentiality of a dismissal order being public.
10:16:55 AM
MS. ANDERSON added Section 9 used to be public but the bill
needs to make sure the subject of the complaint could waive
confidentiality. Also when there is a complaint regarding a
candidate during a campaign period they should be able to waive
confidentiality.
10:18:11 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS alleged Page 9; line 5 allows the subject to waive
confidentiality on any document.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Anderson if her concerns would be
addressed if the committee changed the word "subsection" to
"section" on Page 9, line 2.
MS. ANDERSON agreed.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated no objection.
SENATOR FRENCH moved Amendment 6.
Page 9, line 2 strike "subsection" and insert "section." Hearing
no objections, the motion carried.
10:19:50 AM
MS. ANDERSON assessed there was a problem using the term
"hearing" in Section 15. A hearing is different than a meeting.
10:22:51 AM
MS. ANDERSON referred to the history of the Legislative Ethics
Committee. The ethics statute was passed in 1992 where there
were 5 public members and 4 legislators. In 1998 language was
added to allow for an alternate member. The complaint process is
similar to an executive session. During the complaint process it
is appropriate only to have members of the committee present and
not the alternate.
10:26:36 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Anderson whether she sees any problems
with accountability in regards to conflicts of interest.
MS. ANDERSON said the statute is clear regarding conflicts of
interest.
CHAIR SEEKINS said in one particular case there was an ethics
referral.
MS. ANDERSON was not allowed to comment.
10:29:35 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the people who alleged the violation
refused to file a complaint.
10:30:37 AM
MS. BARBARA LEWIS testified in opposition to SB 187. She
expressed concerned that a citizen could be punished for filing
a complaint.
Chair Seekins announced a brief recess at 10:32:17 AM.
Chair Seekins reconvened the meeting at 10:35:43 AM.
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony.
SENATOR HUGGINS moved CSSB 187(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
SENATOR FRENCH objected.
Roll call proved CSSB 187(JUD) passed out of committee with
Senators Guess and French dissenting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|