Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/20/2018 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SCR1 | |
| HB87 | |
| HB44 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SCR 1-UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
3:32:23 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 1 (SCR 1).
3:32:47 PM
SENATOR BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SCR 1, noted that the committee heard the resolution
last year.
3:33:19 PM
At ease.
3:33:37 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order. He confirmed
that SCR 1 was heard in committee on March 7, 2017.
3:34:20 PM
NATHANIEL GRABMAN, Staff, Senator Gardner, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided an overview of SCR 1 as
follows:
SCR 1 is about transparency. As you know, when a
legislator declares a conflict of interest, Uniform
Rule 34(b) requires unanimous consent in order for the
requestor to be excused from voting, a single
objection is sufficient to overrule the conflict of
interest statement.
According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures, Alaska is the only state which requires
unanimous consent in order to abstain from voting in
those instances. Under Uniform Rule 34(b) a legislator
may not abstain from voting unless they declare a
conflict of interest and the entire body agrees; while
this may theoretically occur, Legislative Research
could not find a single instance of unanimous consent
being given with respect to a conflict of interest
recusal.
This resolution does not change the current process,
rather it increases transparency by recording
information often hidden from the public; while this
information may be recorded on occasion, this is not
always the case. This resolution aims to standardize
the process by insuring that this information be
recorded.
If adopted, SCR 1 would require the following three
things to be recorded in the journal: the legislator
declaring a conflict, the nature of that conflict, and
the name of any legislators who would object to the
conflict.
By increasing transparency this proposal aims to
accomplish two ends: first, to better inform the
public; and second, to protect legislators by avoiding
the appearance of impropriety when there is none.
3:36:17 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that legislators must answer why they
introduced legislation and what brought the legislation forward.
She asked why SCR 1 was introduced.
SENATOR GARDNER explained that people have said legislators vote
when they have a conflict of interest or they do not declare a
conflict of interest. She said she is not aware of a legislator
ever voting when they had a conflict of interest. She emphasized
that she is not accusing anybody but asserted that legislators
worry about being perceived as failing to disclose that results
in people declaring a "perceived" conflict of interest to avoid
someone saying, "You didn't ever declare a conflict of
interest." SCR 1 puts on the record a person that declares a
conflict of interest as well as a person that objects.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if she was implying that legislators with
a conflict are still voting and specified as follows:
I'm just not quite sure what we are fixing here,
whether the person stands up or not in our laws in
this state, which is a very small population and a
very large piece of geography, all votes count. The
statement was made in the introduction that
information was being concealed. I am still not quite
sure what the problem is.
3:38:36 PM
SENATOR GARDNER replied that she has no intention of implying
that people are voting when they shouldn't vote and specified as
follows:
What I'm saying is that all of us should understand
that there may very well be a time when somebody
should not vote on an issue and we can conceive how
that could easily happen; every other state has a
variety of ways of dealing with that and we do not.
She said her office explored ways to address a conflict of
interest but conceded that there is not a perfect way to address
the issue. She asserted that if she ever had a conflict of
interest, nobody could ever make her vote because voting with a
conflict of interest is unethical. She explained that she would
"sit there" and try not to be confrontational or defiant;
however, she said she would not vote if she had a conflict of
interest and suspected that many people would feel the same way.
She reiterated that she is not aware of anybody voting with a
conflict of interest; however, she noted that there is a
perception that legislators vote anyway when they have conflicts
of interest. She emphasized that there should be a way for
legislators to gracefully put on the record when they should not
vote and when somebody does have a conflict of interest, they
should not be able to not vote. She set forth that putting a
conflict of interest on the record and the ability not to vote
is important for the state.
She summarized that SCR 1 simply places someone's conflict of
interest on the record as well as places the next person that
objects on the record too. She reiterated that there is no
perfect way to address the conflict of interest procedure. She
suggested that a unanimous agreement between the Senate
president, minority leader and majority leader could be
considered for a person not having to vote; however, she
reiterated that she would not vote if she believed that she had
a conflict.
3:41:08 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if her intent with SCR 1 is to get somebody on
record who objected.
SENATOR GARDNER answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER asked if she envisioned identifying who should
object.
SENATOR GARDNER replied that her intention is not to say who
should object but to place whoever does object on the record.
She opined that caucuses could independently determine that the
majority leader or the caucus leader will object. She specified
that what she wants is for somebody who does have a conflict of
interest to announce versus an announcement like an Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) disclosure where an unnecessary
disclosure is better than failing to disclose, a process in the
Legislature that leads to unnecessary disclosures.
3:43:00 PM
SENATOR COGHILL noted his previous experience with objecting on
the Senate floor when a legislator gets up to make a declaration
but will not ask to be excused from voting. He agreed with
Senator Gardner that he does not recall hearing a legislator's
conflict reach a level to be excused from voting. He opined that
putting the person who objects on the record might make the
procedure a political tool rather than a beneficial tool. He
remarked that he does not mind having a conflict on the record
but opined that placing an objection on the record could become
more of a political "lightening rod" rather than an actual
declaration.
3:45:47 PM
SENATOR GARDNER agreed and noted a situation where she saw an
individual make a conflict of interest declaration and then walk
out of the room where no one called the individual back.
SENATOR COGHILL concurred with Senator Gardner's recollection.
SENATOR GARDNER detailed that the person was determined not to
vote and not a single person said, "I object." She opined that
leaving the room was a graceful way not to vote. She pointed out
that someone from a district is elected because of their
expertise in an area. When the legislator's expertise is deemed
a conflict related to an issue and the person is not allowed to
vote, it could be a thorny problem. She opined that sooner or
later somebody will have a genuine conflict and should not vote
on an issue and there should be a way that not voting can
happen.
3:47:30 PM
CHAIR MEYER remarked that Senator Gardner brought up a good
point where he could see an instance occurring. He continued as
follows:
But, whenever somebody who works for a union votes on
an issue that affects that union, or somebody works
for an industry that impacts that industry, they as
individuals are not benefitting anymore than anyone
else in that union or industry, that's where it gets a
little thorny. So, it seems like you've come up with
the answer that if someone truly feels like they have
a conflict that they could just walk off the floor.
SENATOR GARDNER concurred, but pointed out that the legislator
with the declared conflict of interest would have to trust that
one of their colleagues does not disagree and object. She said
the legislator still could leave but somebody could put a "call
of the house." She asked how a legislator can be forced to vote,
a situation that she does not think anybody wants to happen. She
believes that the public wants to know that if a person has a
conflict, that they have a way not to vote.
CHAIR MEYER commented that in his history in the Legislature he
did not recall an issue where someone truly had a conflict of
interest and should not have voted. He concurred that
legislators have walked off the floor.
3:49:26 PM
SENATOR COGHILL stated that the issue Senator Gardner is
addressing is a subject that the Legislature has talked about
for a long time. He said he was glad Senator Gardner brought the
issue up and contended that the Senate floor has "gotten sloppy"
through the years on protocol. He pointed out that the rules say
a legislator should standup and give a reason and ask to be
given the permission to abstain from a vote, a procedure that
rarely happens because the conflict is perceived and not a real
conflict. He said SCR 1 will make the Legislature have to stand
up and take notice. He reiterated that he struggles with the
person objecting only because just one person can object and
there might be more than one person that objects. He opined that
having one person that objects on the record can result in the
individual being targeted rather than the issue for the
objection being addressed on the record. He summarized that he
has been around the process long enough to know that there are
the real issues and there are the political issues.
SENATOR WILSON agreed with Senator Coghill about putting the
reason for the objection on the record. He added that he feared
constantly having the name of either the majority leader or
minority leader on the record.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that Senator Wilson might be saying that
nobody would want to be the majority or minority leaders. He
asked Senator Gardner to address what would happen after a
conflict of interest is stated and somebody objects. He inquired
if the legislative body votes.
3:51:41 PM
SENATOR GARDNER replied that her office considered having the
body vote, but she would not want to vote even if 19 or 21
people voted that she should vote. She asserted that people say
legislators vote all the time with a conflict of interest and
countered as follows:
No, people declare a conflict of interest that may or
may not be a real conflict of interest, but there
should be a way out, there just should be a way out
and I don't know what the answer is, let's see if
somebody else has a great answer.
CHAIR MEYER stated that he was puzzled with SCR 1 because the
resolution does not give somebody a way out and states that the
act will be the Legislature's process.
SENATOR GARDNER specified that SCR 1 does the following:
What it does do is put on the record that somebody who
might be accused of having a conflict of interest in
voting can say, "I declared a conflict of interest, I
described what it was and under the uniform rules
because so-and-so objected, I had to vote, I was
required to vote under our rules." So, it doesn't
change that, you are correct, but it does give the
person a defense and the person who objected can
defend their own objection.
CHAIR MEYER replied that he may be coming around to agreeing
with Senator Giessel on the necessity of SCR 1. He pointed out
that legislators currently stand up and declare a conflict of
interest and when someone objects that results in the individual
having to vote. He asked Senator Gardner to verify that SCR 1 is
trying to pinpoint the one person who objects.
SENATOR GARDNER answered no. She explained that her intent is
not to change the statute but to say that when a person states
that they voted with a conflict, the person can say they tried
not to vote by asking to be excused. She continued as follows:
In reality if this passed and there's a record, I
think people won't be doing the perceived conflict of
interest, they may stand up as Senator Coghill said
and describe their position but not ask not to vote
and sit down; but, each individual has to draw their
own line in knowing their own lives and their own
investments and decide for themselves how they want to
proceed, that's what we do all of the time.
3:54:40 PM
SENATOR COGHILL opined that the real value of SCR 1 would force
the conflict of interest declaration to be put in a motion
because the act would be recorded with a result that encourages
better protocol and behavior.
SENATOR GIESSEL stated that she was not sure what Senator
Coghill meant by "sloppy in protocol." She asked if it is true
that standing up and wishing to be excused from voting is
recorded in the minutes of the floor session.
SENATOR COGHILL answered that as far as he knew that was true.
CHAIR MEYER concurred that if somebody really feels awkward
about voting and does not want to vote they should have that
option; however, people are elected with known backgrounds where
everything is disclosed and in some cases constituents like a
legislator's experience and knowledge.
3:56:37 PM
CHAIR MEYER [held SCR 1 in committee.]