Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
04/01/2008 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB198 | |
| HB92 | |
| HB196 | |
| HB351 | |
| SB227 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 227 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 228 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 198-ELECTION VIOLATIONS: STAT OF LIMITATIONS
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 198.
9:04:47 AM
MICHELE SYDEMAN, Staff to Senator Bill Wielechowski, said the
sponsor substitute to SB 198 retains the core provisions of the
original bill, which extends the statute of limitations for the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) from one year to four.
It also repeals a statute governing the Department of Law
prosecutions of campaign finance violations. It will have up to
five years to carry a criminal prosecution. The following
sections of the original bill were deleted based on previous
committee discussions: Section 1, which restricted post-election
fundraising; Section 3, which limited excess campaign funds that
can be given to a political party; and Section 5, which would
have increased the civil penalty for lobbyists. Those sections
were removed to focus on the core mission.
9:06:40 AM
SENATOR BUNDE asked about the five-year limit, because line 9
says four years.
MS. SYDEMAN said Section 1 changes the APOC statute of
limitations to four years, and Section 2 repeals AS15.56.130,
which refers to criminal prosecutions of campaign finance laws.
There have only been a handful of those in several decades. If
the one-year statute is repealed, there is a five-year, more
general, statute of limitations for this type of criminal
violation that already exists in law.
9:07:44 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said there was an amendment from the legislative
ethics committee making the bill consistent with the bill
supported by APOC. "It was [Ms. Joyce Anderson's] belief that we
should make both the ethics statute of limitations and the APOC
statute of limitations consistent."
CHAIR MCGUIRE moved Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS1102\L, Bullard,
as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "extending"
Insert "relating to"
Page 1, line 2, following "campaigns;":
Insert "relating to the statute of limitations for the
filing of complaints with the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics;"
Page 1, lines 5 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 15.13.380(b) is amended to read:
(b) A [MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION'S
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OR A] person who believes a violation of
this chapter or a regulation adopted under this chapter has
occurred or is occurring may file an administrative complaint
with the commission within five years [ONE YEAR] after the
date of the alleged violation. If a member of the commission
has filed the complaint, that member may not participate as a
commissioner in any proceeding of the commission with respect
to the complaint. The commission may consider a complaint on
an expedited basis or a regular basis. The time limitations of
this subsection do not bar proceedings against a person who
intentionally prevents discovery of a violation of this
chapter.
* Sec. 2. AS 24.60.170(a) is amended to read:
(a) The committee shall consider a complaint alleging a
violation of this chapter if the alleged violation occurred
within five [TWO] years before the date that the complaint is
filed with the committee [AND, WHEN THE SUBJECT OF THE
COMPLAINT IS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE COMPLAINT
IS FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE SUBJECT'S DEPARTURE FROM
THE LEGISLATURE]. The committee may not consider a complaint
filed against all members of the legislature, against all
members of one house of the legislature, or against a person
employed by the legislative branch of government after the
person has terminated legislative service. However, the
committee may reinstitute proceedings concerning a complaint
that was closed because a former employee terminated
legislative service [OR BECAUSE A LEGISLATOR LEFT THE
LEGISLATURE] if the former employee [OR LEGISLATOR] resumes
legislative service, whether as an employee or a legislator,
within five [TWO] years after the alleged violation. The time
limitations of this subsection do not bar proceedings against
a person who intentionally prevents discovery of a violation
of this chapter."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) AS 24.60.170(a), as amended by sec. 2 of this Act,
applies to complaints alleging violations of AS 24.60 that
occurred
(1) within two years before the effective date of
sec. 2 of this Act; or
(2) on or after the effective date of sec. 2 this
Act."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "sec. 2"
Insert "sec. 3"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR FRENCH said Amendment 1 deletes lines 5 through 12, and
that is related to APOC. So it restates the APOC provisions and
then it adds the ethics provisions; is that how it works?
9:09:18 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, said Amendment 1 adds the language that the time limits
do not bar proceedings against a person who intentionally
prevents discovery of a violation. "That has been added for APOC
language, and it's also in the ethics statute." It is making it
consistent, not only with the statute of limitations for four
years, but also with the language in both the ethics and the
APOC statutes.
SENATOR FRENCH said Amendment 1 adds to the APOC bill and ethics
provision, which makes the two consistent.
MS. ANDERSON said that is correct.
SENATOR GREEN asked, "Does it mean that there's not a limitation
of four years?"
MS. ANDERSON said yes, if there was an intentional prevention of
discovery. Recent cases included an intentional prevention of
discovery of a violation, which could go beyond the four years.
SENATOR STEVENS asked her to explain it.
MS. ANDERSON said if there was a corruption case where the
offender intentionally prevented discovery of some act, there
would be no statute of limitations. Then both APOC and the
ethics committee could initiate a complaint. For example, APOC
now has a one-year statute of limitations, and was unable to
initiate any kind of investigation regarding [Governor
Murkowski's Chief of Staff] Jim Clark. This would have allowed
the committee to look at that issue.
9:12:15 AM
SENATOR BUNDE asked if intentionally preventing discovery is
like tampering with evidence in a criminal case.
MS. ANDERSON said it would have to be violation under the code
of APOC or ethics, "so it would actually have to be one of the
areas of the conflict of interest, or whatever, in the ethics
code, and as well as the APOC statutes, which cover campaigning
law and financial disclosures."
SENATOR BUNDE asked if the current one-year statute of
limitations gets waived for intentional prevention of discovery.
MS. ANDERSON said no.
SENATOR BUNDE said there are honest mistakes. This is about
falsifying or destroying evidence.
MS. ANDERSON said that could be an example, but it would be at
the discretion of APOC and the ethics committee to look at how
egregious it was.
SENATOR BUNDE asked if the decision of whether there was
intentional prevention of discovery would be made by the ethics
committee.
MS. ANDERSON said yes.
SENATOR BUNDE said he has no question about the present ethics
committee, but he might with later committees. Why are you
asking for this?
MS. ANDERSON said it has been in the ethics statute for years,
and she wants to make things consistent between ethics and APOC.
It was added to the APOC statute in some House committees.
9:15:17 AM
SENATOR BUNDE surmised that it exists in the ethics law, and now
it will be in the APOC arena. Who makes the determination if
there was intentional prevention of discovery?
MS. ANDERSON said APOC will.
SENATOR BUNDE said, "They become judge, jury, and executioner."
CHAIR MCGUIRE said there was no objection to the amendment, but
the committee can continue the debate.
SENATOR GREEN moved to rescind the action on adopting Amendment
1 for the purposes of allowing further debate.
SENATOR FRENCH objected and said the debate can occur on the
bill itself or in the context of the rescinding motion. It did
happen quickly. He withdrew his objection.
Amendment 1 was rescinded.
CHAIR MCGUIRE moved Amendment 1 again.
SENATOR GREEN objected. If she had known it was in the ethics
provision she would have complained. It appears there is no time
limit. How can the state have the right to go back and look at
something after four years?
9:17:47 AM
MS. ANDERSON said because it is in statute.
SENATOR GREEN said it isn't in statute. "If you have a four-year
time limit, how do you … have the ability to go back and look
and determine if something is wrong? To me it is off the table."
SENATOR FRENCH said it is already in the ethics statute but not
APOC. If APOC got a tape from a 1980 election showing a
candidate shredding checks and changing names and amounts after
a campaign event, APOC would say it is beyond the four years and
the offenders would get away with it, but they wouldn't if this
were on the books. If it was just someone making a mistake when
filling out a form, the case is closed after four years. An
honest candidate won't be harassed.
9:20:28 AM
SENATOR BUNDE said APOC has been helpful to him and he has
confidence in the office, but "you do get a group of five people
discussing the possibility of an ethics violation and
intentionally preventing discovery of a violation, and the
ethics area seems … more of a gray area that would require this
group discussion. But now we are going to … some future APOC.
And, who makes that decision, one person?" Could the director of
APOC say something was intentional with no statute of
limitations? Criminal law has very few offenses without one. He
said he is not much of a record keeper. A person that is long-
retired will need to keep all APOC records. The ethics committee
has five members, but APOC is one person. He understands the
goal, but the two organizations are vastly different.
9:23:03 AM
SENATOR GREEN said Section 1 is vastly different than the
sponsor substitute. There has not been enough discussion on
this. There are implications she is not comfortable with.
CHAIR MCGUIRE withdrew Amendment 1. She will give Ms. Anderson
time to discuss this idea with other members. It goes to the
Senate Judiciary Committee next.
SENATOR FRENCH moved to report SB 198 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
SENATOR STEVENS objected to hear what the bill does.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said it is Version L, and it is the basic four-
year statute of limitations on APOC complaints.
9:25:47 AM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI said the bill goes to the finance
committee, not judiciary. It extends the statute of limitations
for APOC from one year to four years, and the criminal statute
of limitations goes to five years. That is all it does.
SENATOR STEVENS said this bill is very similar to Senator
Therriault's bill that already passed out of committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it also extends the criminal statute
of limitations.
9:26:55 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked where it says five years.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said repealing Section 2 makes it five
years.
SENATOR BUNDE said it goes to the default of five years.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said, "We technically had the motion, and it
carried and we passed it out." SSSB 198 was moved out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|