Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
01/22/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB19 | |
| SB20 | |
| SB13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 13-BAN CONSULTING CONTRACTS WITH LEGISLATORS
2:16:55 PM
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH announced SB 13 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Sponsor, described SB 13 as a simple
straightforward bill. It prohibits legislators from providing
consulting services to anyone in the private sector or accepting
consulting fees from anyone in the private sector.
Noting the newspaper accounts of legislators who may have been
consultants and may discredit the Legislature, he said his goal
is to protect the image of an institution that is approaching
th
its 50 year. To accomplish that there must be a bond of trust
with the public.
SENATOR STEVENS related that it has been difficult to establish
a definition for "consultant" and although he was very clear
about what he wanted to accomplish when he began writing the
bill, he was unsure whether he had achieved his goal.
Nonetheless, the conversation is worthwhile and hopefully the
committee will flesh the idea out in either this bill or
another. Now is the time to confront the issue of ethics and get
some meaningful legislation on the books.
SENATOR STEVENS said he took no particular ownership in the bill
and the suggestion for an omnibus bill may or may not work. In
conclusion he said the bill is simply: "An Act prohibiting a
legislator from providing consulting services to a person in the
private sector or agreeing to accept consulting fees from a
person in the private sector." That's all it does, he said.
2:20:21 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted his earlier conversation with the sponsor
regarding a definition for consultant and said two synonyms that
come to mind are "advisor" and "analyst". If this bill were to
pass, he could imagine that APOC filings would begin to reflect
those services. Parenthetically he agreed with the thrust of the
bill because legislators should not trade on their office.
Expertise, special knowledge, or business acumen may be
exercised outside the capitol building, but how would you handle
those synonyms, he questioned.
SENATOR STEVENS responded he worked with the bill drafter to
come up with a definition of what is and isn't included and he
has been unable to find a workable definition in state
regulation. Nonetheless, he asked the committee not to water it
down or create loopholes by saying an analyst or advisor is okay
because that would weaken the bill. The reality is that the
activity is either allowed or it isn't. When a person is
considering whether or not to run for a legislative office, then
they ought to decide whether they want to so one job or the
other.
As long as the state has citizen law makers there will be fewer
people who are available to serve because of the financial
struggle. It's not his goal to change the system, but the rules
about crossing the line to become an advisor must be very clear.
2:23:22 PM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked if he had discussed with
legislative legal the notion of prohibiting any business that
would entail providing services that are outside the person's
specific training or professional expertise. He suggested there
ought to be a way to cast the net broadly and still let people
conduct private business.
2:25:10 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he had no objection to expanding the bill,
but the test question ought to be whether the legislator would
have gotten the job if he or she was not a member of the
Legislature. The problem is how to write that into the law.
SENATOR THERRIAULT responded an economist who is also a
legislator is required to disclose to APOC payments in excess of
$1,000 and the time spent for that remuneration. The public will
be able to determine whether the pay is commensurate with the
profession. It's the terms "consultant" and "advisor" that are
murky. The remuneration for that work can be astronomical and
cause the general public concern.
2:27:07 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he couldn't agree more, but the problem is
in the details. He questioned how you tell when an economist
legislator is hired for his or her professional expertise and
not for their legislative experience.
2:27:25 PM
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked what a legislator's status would
be if he or she was a consultant before becoming a legislator if
SB 13 were to pass.
SENATOR STEVENS replied the individual would need to make a
choice between being a legislator and being a consultant.
SENATOR HUGGINS remarked that the committee would ultimately
need to determine whether or not it's legal to ban someone from
pursuing his or her profession while serving as a legislator.
SENATOR STEVENS replied he, as a retired university professor,
cannot teach for remuneration while he is serving as a
legislator.
SENATOR HUGGINS commented on a conversation he had regarding
professional licensing and business conduct. It's what the
person does with the license and the compensation that makes the
difference.
2:30:26 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI said he can see two issues regarding
consulting services. The first is legislators receiving
exorbitant fees for providing services that they may or may not
be qualified to do. The second is legislators helping others
with the legislative process. He questioned what other states
are doing.
2:31:28 PM
SENATOR STEVENS questioned whether it makes any difference if
the fees received are exorbitant if the activity is wrong. As
far as legislators helping others with the legislative process,
they already do that as part of the job.
2:32:21 PM
SENATOR LESIL McGUIRE advised that California decided to have
professional law makers address these same ethical issues.
Although the tradeoff is huge for some individuals, the decision
is that if you want to be a public servant then other economic
opportunities are on hold.
Two hypothetical examples come to mind, she said. First, suppose
a legislator has a professional license as a real estate agent
and he or she works for a politically active company. Even
though the licensee isn't performing the day to day work as a
realtor, she questioned what might happen or what the perception
might be if a piece of legislation were introduced that would
have a tremendous financial impact on that realty company.
The second example involves a company vice-president, which is a
position that can be a catchall and include many or few
different duties and titles. There certainly could be an
instance where someone is promoted to vice-president of Company
A with full knowledge that he or she will be in Juneau for most
of the year. That might be very acceptable from the company's
standpoint and the business might function very well without the
vice-president doing any day to day work.
She assured members she isn't casting aspersions and she doesn't
disagree with the thrust of the bill, but the deeper question is
whether or not you want citizen law makers. If the answer is yes
then how do you handle the real conflicts that aren't always
apparent.
There's always a tradeoff and the public understands that, but
whatever your title there's always someone who can do the job as
well or better simply because they're at work and doing the job
rather than also serving as a legislator. We have to decide
where to draw the line, but it's bigger than just consulting,
she said.
2:37:09 PM
SENATOR STEVENS agreed that many people consult, advise, and
analyze in their daily job so it's difficult to parse what they
may be doing as part of the job and what they may be doing as a
legislator. Although it seemed simple at the onset, there really
is no simple solution. Adding exceptions creates loopholes and
the law would lose its teeth. But changing to professional law
makers as California has done, wouldn't necessarily guarantee
ethical behavior either.
2:38:14 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked those concerns support the
suggestion that this issue could be dealt with under an
umbrella. The language in SB 20 would address the example of the
real estate agent. If the person really did the work of an
active realtor, then the time spent and the monetary gain would
be disclosed under the language proposed in SB 20.
SENATOR McGUIRE pointed out that she used the example of the
real estate agent because there is an exception for state or
federal professional licenses.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said perhaps that language ought to be added
to the statute.
CHAIR FRENCH advised that the committee would revisit SB 20 on
Wednesday.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that adding to the reporting
requirements is an option and it ought to be very clear what the
requirements are, but something is very wrong if we get caught
up in nit-picking and we miss the big picture.
2:41:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH found no further questions or testimony and closed
public testimony.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that he had an email to distribute to
the committee. It was from Mr. Metcalfe and was related to the
topic of ethics.
2:42:06 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 13 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|