Legislature(2023 - 2024)ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
01/09/2024 08:30 AM House SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
JANUARY 9, 2024
8:30 AM
FULL COMMITTEE
8:32:33 AM
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
CHAIR SKIP COOK called together the full committee meeting
on January 9, 2024, at 8:34 a.m. He directed MS. MADDOX to
conduct roll call.
Roll Call
Senator David Wilson
Senator Löki Tobin
Representative Sara Hannan
Chair Skip Cook
Deb Fancher
Conner Thomas
Jerry McBeath
Quorum present.
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
CHAIR COOK entertained a motion to approve the agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN so moved.
CHAIR COOK entertained objections. Hearing none, the agenda was
approved.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
CHAIR COOK opened public comment. There was no public
comment.
3. ELECTION OF HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE VICE CHAIR 2024-2025
a. Article 3 Ethics Committee Election Procedure
CHAIR COOK announced the need to elect a house committee
vice chair for 2024/2025. He read, "Under AS 24.60.130,
members of each subcommittee shall elect a chair and a
vice-chair, who will serve a two-year term. The statute
also stipules that the chair and vice-chair must be public
members, and an officer may not serve more than two
consecutive terms."
CHAIR COOK explained that currently the house subcommittee
is without a vice chair. The chairs change next week when
the legislature is in the session. DEB FANCHER will be the
full committee chair at that time.
MR. THOMAS added the committee only needed to fill House
subcommittee vice chair position. The only member without a
position is MR. McBEATH, so he is the obvious choice to
fill the position.
CHAIR COOK asked MR. THOMAS if he was nominating MR.
McBEATH for the position.
MR. THOMAS affirmed that it was a nomination.
CHAIR COOK entertained other nominations. Hearing none and
hearing no objection, MR. McBEATH was selected to fill the
House Subcommittee vice-chair position.
4. CHAIR/STAFF REPORTS (+)
CHAIR COOK directed MS. MADDOX to address the chair/staff
report.
a. Public Committee Appointment Update
MS. MADDOX announced two of the public members expressed
interest in reappointment when their terms expire. Supreme
Court Chief Justice Peter Maassen appoints the public
members and he is aware that the members would like
reappointment. There is also a vacant alternate position,
and the Chief Justice is considering applications for that
position. Chief Justice Maassen is expected to make a
decision by the beginning of the legislative session. He
will send a letter with his selections to the Senate
President and Speaker of the House. The House and Senate
will vote on the appointments. With two-thirds vote of each
body, the appointments will be ratified.
MR. THOMAS asked how many people applied to assume the
alternate public member position.
MS. MADDOX replied there was one applicant when she had
contact with the Chief Justice. The applicant is from
Southeast Alaska. MS. MADDOX mentioned there was also
possibly a former legislator interested.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted the deadline for the
ratification of the members needs to be done prior to the
March meeting, adding that sometimes the need to be
ratified might mean sometime in the future and she thinks
it would behoove the committee to make sure the explicit
timeline for the work product is delineated to the people
along the way, not just the Chief Justice but the presiding
officers of each body.
CHAIR COOK thanked REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN for her suggestion
and asked for clarification of the process involved.
MS. ANDERSON replied that the nominees usually appear
before the State Affairs committee of each body, at which
time there is a hearing and the committees either move the
names forward or not.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN added there are a number of new house
members chairing committees and scheduling the meetings can
be complicated, and they may not be aware of the timeframe
in which the ratifications must happen.
CHAIR COOK directed MS. MADDOX to ensure that happens.
b. Staff Report Informal Advice
MS. MADDOX addressed the staff reports, the first being a
standard report and the second, which circles back to
informal advice that was provided at the November 29, 2023,
meeting. She added the dates on the first report would be
amended to November 29, 2023, to December 31, 2023. She
entertained questions about the first report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON joined the meeting.
MR. McBEATH addressed the question of whether a legislator
may send a newsletter to constituents via Every Door Direct
Mail (EDDM), a U.S.P.S program with reduced mailing fees,
if the newsletter would also reach individuals outside of
the legislator's district. The answer said that it was
permissible to send a limited number of newsletters to
people outside the legislative district. It was estimated
about 8,000 constituents living in the legislative district
would receive the newsletter as well as about 1,000 people
living outside of the district, which to MR. McBEATH seemed
to be more than a limited number.
MS. MADDOX asked MS. ANDERSON to respond to the question
posed by MR. McBEATH.
MS. ANDERSON replied that Advisory Opinion AO 13-03
addresses EDDM. The committee did not define a limited
number in the opinion because it would be situation
specific. In this case, about 9,000 mailers would be sent.
Looking at that as a percentage seemed to be a limited
number. EDDM reduces the cost of mailing. She asked the
committee for their feedback.
SENATOR TOBIN said EDDM is based on zip code, and it is not
possible to mail only people in the district. Her district
includes people in two zip code areas and she would not be
able to use the more affordable option if she was limited
to mailing within her district.
MR. THOMAS recalled a similar question involving
reapportionment. The answer at that time was no because
some of the recipients would be in the new district.
MS. ANDERSON responded this situation does not involve
redistricting. That, she remembers, is why the committee
decided not to define a limited number and keep it fact
specific. During redistricting, 1,000 may be seen as
considerable because the legislator could be campaigning in
the area.
MR. THOMAS offered the answer should include the exception
[during redistricting]. MS. ANDERSON agreed.
CHAIR COOK recalled discussion of how the legislative
districts did not match up to zip code areas and there was
something about it in the advisory opinion.
MS. ANDERSON agreed to check the advisory opinion to see if
it refers to redistricting.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said delivery routes also have
impact. Prior to redistricting, she had fewer than 100
people on a delivery route that intersected her district,
so de minimis use. After redistricting, she has to mail
first class to almost half of her district, thereby, almost
doubling her cost to mail newsletters.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON [muted]? said the hardest part about
mailing is when it accidently goes outside the boundaries
of her district. There has to be a bit of leeway,
otherwise, communication is hobbled.
MS. ANDERSON said she believes that is the reason the
committee did not define "limited it really is fact
specific. In the case under discussion, she felt the number
of newsletters was limited.
MS. MADDOX asked if there were other questions about the
informal advice. Hearing none, she addressed the amended
advice from the meeting on November 29, 2023. She asked MS.
ANDERSON if she wanted to speak to the advice.
MS. ANDERSON replied that a question from REPRESENTATIVE
HANNAN prompted the reconsideration. In response to the
question, MS. ANDERSON contacted Representative Andy
Josephson's office, the legislative office that posed the
original question. She was told the office receives
multiple emails daily from the same person. In a 12-week
period, the office received about 750 emails from the
person under three different email addresses. They asked
whether directing an email address to the junk folder is
considered blocking a user. Emails are still accessible.
They are not deleted. The sender still has unencumbered
access. LAA IT verified they recommend the use of the junk
folder in a case such as this.
SENATOR WILSON referred to the last sentence on page 1,
saying that legislative emails are not available by FOIA
requests.
MS. ANDERSON thanked SENATOR WILSON for the information.
MS. MADDOX said she had spoken to Tim Banaszak, who also
said legislative emails are not covered under FOIA. In
addition, legislators have immunity. Their emails may
become subject to FOIA if a legislator sends an email to a
person subject to FOIA. She added there is no LAA IT policy
restricting legislative offices from blocking emails. The
emails are not deleted and the public still has multiple
options for contacting their legislators.
DEB FANCHER asked if there are any limitations to using the
junk folder as a solution to the problem of receiving
unwanted emails.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that putting an email into
the junk folder is taking action. The spam filter requires
similar effort to allow emails to go into the inbox.
DEB FANCHER asked for confirmation that when an email
address is directed to the junk folder, it stays that way.
MS. MADDOX responded that it is possible to allow "unjunk"
emails after the fact.
DEB FANCHER pointed out that even legitimate emails from
those addressed automatically directed to the junk folder
would go to the junk folder.
SENATOR TOBIN stated that legislators are in elected
positions. Constituents can choose not to vote for a
legislator who does not respond to their requests for
information. She recounted there were 187 recipients in the
scenario under discussion. She asked at what point does an
email become part of a listserv. Recipients then have the
ability to unsubscribe or block the email address because
they did not sign up for it. She believes Alaska is a
double opt-in state, which means you have to request to be
part of a listserv, and you should have the ability to
unsubscribe yourself.
MS. ANDERSON said she is not familiar with listservs. She
reported staff in Representative Andy Josephson's office
periodically go through the junk mail. They also go through
the list of emails caught by the filter
CHAIR COOK asked if Representative Andy Josephson's office
needs to respond to the emails if the person sending them
is not one of his constituents.
MS. ANDERSON said neither Representative Andy Josephson nor
his staff know whether the sender is one of his
constituents.
CHAIR COOK questioned whether a legislator has an
obligation to respond to a non-constituent in the same way
they would a constituent.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she brought forward her concern
about the advice because she had received advice not to
block emails. Some people think of a constituent as a
person residing in a particular district but legally,
anyone in Alaska is a constituent in that the legislature
makes laws for everyone present in the state. She was
concerned about the possibility of the advice leading to
problems for the legislator. On the other hand, legislators
have no legal obligation to look at their email. Some have
staff look at them. Representative Andy Josephson asks his
staff to look at every email every day. She directs her
staff to delete irrelevant emails. The amended advice to
sequester irrelevant emails in a junk folder better
addresses her concern that the advice may have set a
legislator up for a legal challenge.
MS. ANDERSON agreed the word "constituent" has multiple
meanings and provided some history. She worked with a
former legislator on legislation that would define the word
but ultimately decided to abandon the effort because it was
too complicated. The Ethics Committee considered the
question and decided it was fact specific.
CHAIR COOK directed MS. MADDOX to address the next agenda
item.
c. Ethics Disclosures
MS. MADDOX addressed the report of disclosures filed in
2023 and the report showing a comparison of disclosures
filed from 2020-2023.
DEB FANCHER wondered about the decrease in the number of
close economic association disclosures from 2022 to 2023.
SENATOR WILSON said in 2023 there were a number of new
legislators and opined they may not have had many
associations to report.
MS. ANDERSON responded if you look down at the gifts of
travel and hospitality, you can definitely see the
difference between the beginning of COVID, which was in
2020, where there were only 24 gifts of travel, and then
there were 39 in 2021. And then in 2022, it increased and
then increased again in 2023.
6. PUBLICATIONS
CHAIR COOK said Jacqui updated the 2023 Public Decisions
booklet, the 2023 Advisory Opinions booklet, and the 2024
Standards of Conduct book. She will either update each
member's committee binder or give them to the member to put
into their own binder. He asked if there were any questions
about those materials. Hearing none, he moved to the next
agenda item.
7. ETHICS TRAINING
CHAIR COOK directed MS. MADDOX to talk about plans for
ethics training.
MS. MADDOX said she would deliver an in person training in
Juneau to new employees on January 12. Information about
the training was distributed. Training will include an
overview of the Ethics Act, Sexual and other workplace
harassment, and workplace civility. There will also be an
Anchorage training on January 22 in the LIO. The PowerPoint
is complete and available to view by any interested
committee member.
CHAIR COOK entertained questions about ethics training.
There were no questions.
8. RULES OF PROCEDURE
a. Section 15 Complaints Investigations: (c)
Investigative Interviews
MS. MADDOX stated the proposed change to Section 15
Complaints is an update allowing for remote interviews with
interviewees, with the stipulation the interviewee shall
verify for the record that no one other than a person
representing the interviewee else is present in the room or
on a conference call line.
There was no discussion.
b. Section 17 Complaints Decisions: (g) Waiver of
Confidentiality
MS. MADDOX explained the change to Section 17 Complaints
Decisions only fixes an incorrect reference in (g) from
Section 14(d) to Section 14(e).
CHAIR COOK asked if there were questions about the proposed
correction. There were none. CHAIR COOK entertained a
motion to adopt the changes.
MR. McBEATH so moved.
CHAIR COOK entertained objections. There were none.
9. GIFT DISCLOSURES FOR TRAVEL
MS. MADDOX explained the committee, on December 17, 2021,
had voted to require legislators and legislative employees
who are receiving gifts of travel and hospitality to
provide agendas for those events to show the legislative
purpose for the travel. Filers have begun to submit
screenshots of the agendas because event planners are now
putting their agendas in an app instead of in the form of a
document. The result is a bunch of screenshots being
submitted that are inadequate for verifying legislative
purpose. They are usually hard to read and understand and
even to determine whether it is a complete agenda. Staff
has to print it off and piece it together and try to make
one document. It's not a good use of time and it's not
effective, it's not efficient. Staff recommends prohibiting
the use of [individual] screenshots and instead requesting
that legislators and legislative employees submit a regular
single document agenda.
MS. FANCHER reported she was in the Ethics Office and had
seen the situation firsthand and understood why it was an
issue.
MR. THOMAS noted in the packet he read that increasingly
conference attendees are reporting the printed agendas or
links to a download are not available. He asked how to
overcome that? What's the alternative?
MS. MADDOX suggested requiring filers to reach out to event
planners before attending the event and letting them know
that our Ethics [Committee] requires a printed copy of the
agenda. If there's truly not an agenda they can access that
way, then they can combine the individual screenshots
themselves. The preference is, though to just have a
regular agenda.
MR. THOMAS asked if there was anything else in terms of
submitting the information other than a screenshot or an
agenda?
MS. MADDOX replied not to her knowledge. She suggested that
filers could combine all of the screenshots into a single
PDF document, correctly ordered, and submit it along with
disclosures.
MR. THOMAS responded that makes sense to him and that
suggestion was different than prohibiting screenshots.
CHAIR COOK clarified the PDF is what is important.
MS. MADDOX: Correct. The singular PDF formats, yes.
SENATOR WILSON said he apologizes because it may have been
his staff who had done that. He said they app-based agendas
on their phones at the conference and they can't be
printed. He reported it is hard to get the event planners
to provide the itemized cost of these events, and they have
to hound them and hound them. If it's a normal trade
association like NCSL, CSG, they know the routine for
legislators, others don't. He recommended changing the
requirement to a summary of the agenda. It is hard to show
those agenda items sometimes because they are not in hard
copies or books and pamphlets anymore, it's all app-based,
and it's hard to provide a copy of an app-based agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said the dilemma and the stress for
the elected is always, oh, I'm day 58 and I need to submit
this. And then you're trying to put together what happened
two months ago. She suggests adding to ethics training the
advice to make sure to understand what is needed before you
decide to take the gift of travel. Something on the agenda
has piqued your interest but by the time you go to the
event, the agenda is now electronic. Personally, she is
electronically impaired and does not know how to make a
PDF. So, there is this double panic of it being day 58 or
59 with a 60- day reporting deadline and yet having to
comply with the agenda requirement.
SENATOR WILSON explained there is only one license
subscription for Adobe Acrobat per office, which is another
complication.
CHAIR COOK suggested the Ethics Office could provide
written instruction to the legislative staff about creating
PDFs.
MS. MADDOX said the instructions could be included in the
newsletter.
SENATOR WILSON said he grew up with desktop publishing and
things of that nature, but he knows legislators who don't
even have a computer in their office. After the conference
is over, a lot of these sites just immediately take down
their conference materials. and that's it. Instructions
would be helpful but something may need to be worked out
with IT or Legislative Council because not every office has
multiple versions of Adobe Acrobat in their offices. Help
us help you.
MR. McBEATH added he was sure the Ethics Office would be
able to have one-on-one with staff to learn how to create a
PDF. ,
MS. FANCHER said she thinks staff are young enough, they
are computer savvy enough. It's an accountability piece
that we determined two years ago was necessary. And to have
Jacqui read through stuff like this is not okay.
SENATOR WILSON said it is easy to convert JPEGs to PDFs and
could easily do that. Is that sufficient?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said her understanding is that
legislators can receive gifts of travel as long as it's not
for the purpose of elections and learning about elections.
Is the agenda requirement to try to catch people doing
something not allowed? Is it enough to sign a statement the
travel was not election-related?
MS. FANCHER replied to Representative Johnson that the
committee doesn't want to be the curriculum police. She
reported she had shared this very statement with Jacqui and
with Tamara. On the other hand, she continued, we want our
representatives, our senators, going to the legitimate
stuff. What we don't want is the administrative assistant
bogged down with pages that look like that screenshot.
MR. THOMAS said the concern was not only about campaigning.
The focus of the travel should be a matter of legislative
concern. The purpose for requiring the agenda is to be able
to show, if asked, whether the gift of travel was for a
matter of legislative concern.
CHAIR COOK added the requirement is like the disclosure
requirement. It's documentation. It's there if anybody
wants to question what actually happened.
MR. THOMAS offered there may be other ways to provide the
documentation besides the agenda. But the purpose isn't
limited to campaigning issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered an example of an event that
was not a conference. The Miner's Association of Alaska
offered field trips to visit their mines. The trips
originated in Fairbanks. There was no gift of travel to get
to Fairbanks; that cost had to come out of the office
account. It was an all-day trip to Usibelli Mine and a trip
to Fort Knox the next day. There was no published agenda,
it was a learning opportunity. They did provide an
itinerary but there wasn't an agenda in the traditional
sense. She thinks legislators need to think about the
agenda requirement before making the decision of to go to
an event and how they will prove they're not on a junket
that they weren't going to Palm Springs to learn about
Usibelli Coal Mine.
MR. McBEATH said he is a member of the Alaska Mining
Association and he's at the other end of this issue. The
objective [of the travel] was to educate legislators about
the mining industry, which is what any good special
interest group would want to do, so legislators are aware
in advance of what is going on and when matters come before
the legislature, they will have additional knowledge they
previously wouldn't have had in mining, and to harden the
attitudes of those who pro-mining and soften the attitudes
of those who are anti-mining.
SENATOR TOBIN offered an alternative. She reported that
staff goes through annual training, particularly at the
start of a legislative cycle, at which time they meet with
different senior legislative aides, learn more about the
building, learn more about their service to their
legislator, learn about confidentiality. Newer employees
could partner with senior legislative aides and learn how
to make PDFs and how to ensure that they have collected all
the materials before and after an event.
10. INTERNS UPDATED FORMS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND WEBSITE
MS. MADDOX said the Ethics Office had updated the
internship forms. This effort originated in August 2023,
when there was confusion as to who had the final approval
on internship programs. The internship requests were
discussed in the September 29, 2023, meeting, and the
committee asked staff to revise the forms and instructions
to better explain the entire internship process. The office
worked with the house speaker, the senate president's
office staff, and LAA Executive Director Jessica Geary, to
update the Ethics Committee's internship forms and
instructions to simplify and clarify the process. In the
September 2023 full committee meeting, the committee agreed
to update the rules of procedures section 2, which is the
administration procedure subsection 4. The committee wanted
to include in the notification process to legislators a
statement to contact the appropriate leadership of the
legislative body to further proceed with the internship.
And a copy of that notification is also provided to
leadership. The forms are updated. From 2007 to 2014, there
were 18 internship programs. In 2021, there was one
internship program, and that was an out-of-state approved
internship program. And then in 2023, there was one
internship program. The forms are available for future
internship programs. The office also updated the hiring
process and the internship responsibility sections as well.
She asked if there were comments or questions.
MR. McBEATH commented the results were much clearer but he
was curious about [unintelligible].
MS. MADDOX replied that she would have to look further into
exactly where it would be, but that yes, the internships
that are listed are the internships that are available.
MR. McBEATH offered maybe because it was about United
Nations or something.
MS. MADDOX said it may be that [unintelligible]. She will
clarify that.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she had questions about the
University of Alaska interim-only programs listed on page
3, meaning they are not available during session and
they're not listed as being available during the session.
She is curious because the largest internship program is
the Ted Stevens UA fellows' program, and those interns are
there for the full session. The way the list is structured
it looks like those are not during session that those are
interim only.
MS. ANDERSON asked CHAIR COOK if she could respond.
CHAIR COOK: Yes.
MS. ANDERSON responded to Representative Hannan that the
Ethics committee is not involved with the Senator Ted
Stevens Legislative internship program, it is handled
through the university, and those are session-only
internships. The University of Alaska internships listed
are interim only. The Ethics Committee approves all
internships other than those through Ted Stevens. The
programs on the list include only those the committee has
approved. The non-University of Alaska internship programs
are under committee purview.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN thanked Ms. Anderson.
CHAIR COOK asked if there should be note to that effect in
case others have that question.
MS. ANDERSON said she would leave that up to Tamara and
asked MS. MADDOX if she cared to comment.
MS. MADDOX declined.
MS. ANDERSON continued that she agreed adding a statement
that the Senator Ted Stevens Legislative internship program
is not under the jurisdiction the committee would be a good
clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said her caution is saying those
internship programs are not under the jurisdiction of
Ethics almost sounds like there's no Ethics [training
requirement]. All interns through the Ted Stevens programs
go through ethics training as if they were staff. They're
treated as staff. So, they're under the jurisdiction of the
Ethics Act. The programs are not authorized under the
Ethics Act; the Ted Stevens program being authorized by
statute. Others have to be authorized by the Ethics
committee. But everybody's under the jurisdiction of the
Ethics Act.
MS. ANDERSON replied that the office will work on that.
[Unintelligible].
CHAIR COOK suggested saying authorized and administered
because it's administered outside department. He asked if
there any objections to the documents as provided. Hearing
none, the documents were approved.
CHAIR COOK continued saying that concludes the open full
meeting and the committee would move on to discussion of
matters in executive session.
CHAIR COOK entertained a motion to go into executive
session to discuss matters which by law must remain
confidential under AS 24.60.160, Uniform Rule 22(b)
regarding executive sessions, and Rules of Procedure
Section 5: Executive Sessions and discussion of matters,
the immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the
finances of a governmental unit, and discussion of subjects
that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of a
person.
MS. FANCHER so moved.
CHAIR COOK asked if there was an objection. There were no
objections. He addressed the question of staff attendance
in executive session.
MS. FANCHER said she had concerns because the committee
would be talking about staff issues and she suggested
closing executive session to staff.
CHAIR COOK asked if there were other thoughts.
SENATOR WILSON asked if it would be possible to bring staff
back in if there are questions for them.
CHAIR COOK responded they could go into executive session
with just committee members and then call staff in if they
are needed. He asked if that sounds reasonable.
MR. THOMAS and MS. FANCHER replied, yes.
CHAIR COOK directed the room be set up for executive
session.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION
12. PUBLIC SESSION
CHAIR COOK announced the committee had two matters
discussed in executive session that need to be addressed.
He entertained a motion regarding Jacqui Yeagle's position.
MR. THOMAS moved to increase Jacqui's work hours to 30
hours per week effective immediately.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN seconded the motion.
CHAIR COOK asked if there were objections to the motion to
increase Jacqui's work week to 30 hours per week to start
immediately. He asked MS. MADDOX to conduct a roll call
vote.
Roll call vote
Senator David Wilson
Senator Löki Tobin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative DeLena Johnson
Chair Skip Cook
Deb Fancher
Conner Thomas
Jerry McBeath
The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.
CHAIR COOK reported the committee had one other
housekeeping item. During the transition, the committee
authorized Jacqui be paid for extra hours over the 22.5 for
30 days after Tamara was hired. That time period has
expired, and she has been paid that to-date. He said the
committee needs to authorize those extra hours until the 30
hour week goes into effect.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to remove the conditional
transitional language [for the approval of Jacqui's extra
hours beyond the original 30-day limit].
CHAIR COOK asked MS. MADDOX the date she started working.
MS. MADDOX replied it was October 30th.
CHAIR COOK explained the motion would approve Jacqui's
compensation for hours over 22.5 per week beginning
November 30. He directed MS. MADDOX to conduct a roll call
vote on the question.
Roll call vote
Senator David Wilson
Senator Löki Tobin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative DeLena Johnson
Chair Skip Cook
Deb Fancher
Conner Thomas
Jerry McBeath
The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.
13. BUDGET
CHAIR COOK addressed the budget. He noted the committee has
the budget summaries and entertained discussion. There was
no discussion
14. CONTRACT REPORT
CHAIR COOK directed MS. MADDOX to address the contract
reports.
MS. MADDOX said the current contract with Attorney Brent
Cole started on June 10, 2022, and it runs through June 30,
2024. The contract amount was $15,000 and there is a little
over $5,000 remaining and available through the end of his
contract. Investigator Monique Rapuzzi's contract began
July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024. Her contract amount
was $10,000, $3,900 remaining. Ms. Anderson is on contract
as well through the end of February [2024]. The question
for the committee is whether to continue the contracts.
CHAIR COOK said there was time left on all the contracts
and there's funds, so no action is needed.
MS. MADDOX said there was also a letter of interest from
Mr. Andy Klamser, an investigator who lives in Homer. He
was referred to the committee by Ms. Rapuzzi because she
has a lot of cases on her books right now, and she
expressed that the committee may want to look into having
someone who can assist with investigations when she is not
available. Andy Klamser submitted his cover letter
references.
MR. THOMAS said back when he was practicing law regularly,
he had occasion to use him as an investigator regularly and
with good results.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied she would be concerned if a
new investigator worked on something already under
investigation.
CHAIR COOK responded the committee was only talking about a
backup at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN acknowledged CHAIR COOK's response,
then said it may be premature to evaluate the need to
contract with a second investigator, may be on a case by
case basis, but she would also want more information,
including his rate of pay, to make that decision.
CHAIR COOK directed MS. MADDOX to check Andy Klamser's
references.
MS. FANCHER noted Monique Rapuzzi's contract still had
almost $4,000 in it so there was no need to act yet.
MS. ANDERSON mentioned Andy Klamser had worked with the
committee on the Representative Dick complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she would like to see a report
on contracts that are out, that need to be paid, and
anticipated future expenses to see how the budget is
squaring up.
MS. ANDERSON said she conducted quite a few less
complicated investigations when she was administrator. She
reported she spoke to MS. MADDOX about the National
Certified Investigator Training, NCIT, and Tamara is
interested in the training. The cost to attend the training
is between $400 or $500 plus travel expenses. There are two
types of training. The first one goes into how to conduct
an investigation and the second one is more advanced
training. Having the administrator do some investigations
would save money.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recommended putting the investigator
training into the FY 25 budget.
MS. ANDERSON said the meeting packet contains the proposed
FY 25 budget and it is similar to FY 24 except for personal
services. And MS. MADDOX may have suggestions for
consideration. The committee has not asked for an increase
in years. She confirmed with REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON the
proposals should be submitted to the House Finance
Subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated MS. ANDERSON was correct.
CHAIR COOK asked if there was more discussion about
contracts or the budget.
MS. ANDERSON asked if it would it be appropriate for Tamara
to let Andy Klamser know the committee does not need
another investigator but would like to keep him in mind for
the future. He was told the committee would get back to him
after the committee meeting.
CHAIR COOK agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if an additional investigator
were to be hired, would it require an RFP. Did Mr. Klamser
reach out to the committee, did he respond to an inquiry,
or did he hear it through the grapevine. She wondered if
procurement procedures require three soliciting
[proposals].
CHAIR COOK said he did not think the committee has gone
through the RFP process.
MS. ANDERSON responded the committee has never hired a
contractor with an RFP. If a contractor was needed, they
found one. MS. MADDOX said Monique is the one that
recommended him and that is how his name was obtained.
MS. FANCHER asked how much more is Andy Klamser per hour
than Monique Rapuzzi.
MS. ANDERSON replied $65 an hour more - $185 per hour
MS. MADDOX added that Andy Klamser also charges for travel
and other expenses.
MS. FANCHER said that was a bit and the committee might
want to consider that.
CHAIR COOK said no commitment but to keep him in mind.
15. COGEL CONFERENCE RECAP
CHAIR COOK directed the committee to a discussion of the
COGEL conference. He invited Deb Fancher to start.
DEB FANCHER noted Alaska was admirably represented at the
COGEL Conference in Kansas City. She said she was most
impressed - most horrified by AI, artificial
intelligence. The conference was very professional, the
presenters were well versed in what they do. It was worth
attending.
MR. THOMAS mentioned he had been to a number of COGEL
conferences and they are all good. At this one, he tried to
focus on something other than substantive ethics matters
and to take a look at how offices operate, specifically
what they use for software. There is a lot [of software]
out there that are more than a small office like the
committee would need, but it is something worth thinking
about. One thing in particular that occurred to him is to
make advisory opinions and other information a little more
accessible.
MS. FANCHER noted a number of groups reported they visit
community organizations to educate the public about what
their ethics committee does. She suggested once a month
members of the committee could join our administrator or
our administrative assistant and visit community councils
and let them know there is an Ethics Committee, this is
what we do, and this is what your tax dollars, state
dollars, PFD dollars, what they are doing for you. She
thinks that that would be helpful in getting the word out.
She and Joyce presented to a senior citizens group and they
had no idea of the committee's existence, and she would bet
that most people do not know that an Ethics Committee
exists.
MS. ANDERSON added that one year, an off-election year, she
visited the LIOs in Kenai, Wasilla, and Fairbanks and gave
a little presentation. She found it beneficial. It is
similar to what Deb is talking about. Some questions were
amazing. We have LIOs throughout the state. Some of them
are not open during the summer months, they are only open
during sessions. That is another example.
MS. MADDOX said it was awesome to have the opportunity to
attend [the conference] so early in her tenure.
Piggybacking off what Deb said, the greatest takeaway, even
though our jurisdictions are vastly different than other
states, is educating people and keeping them informed as to
what the committee does and why the Ethics Committee is
here is the greatest deterrence from people violating
Ethics Act. She found that to be the key takeaway, stay
engaged with people, keep reaching out to people, let them
know that the committee is here, welcome them in, welcome
them to talk to you. She also made great connections. She
looks forward to watching other jurisdictions and seeing
how they handle this election year and other interesting
cases that come across as well.
MR. McBEATH reported it was his first time at a COGEL
Conference. He said COGEL has collected an enormous data
set and other resources to draw on to improve the committee
to the extent interested in improving capacity. Second,
COGEL careerists, people who had been associated with COGEL
for up to almost 50 years, go back every year. They helped
put him in touch with people with shared interests. Third,
he was surprised at the consortium of consultants at the
COGEL Conference, consultants to commissions throughout the
United States. These are private consultants making money
providing these services to commissioners.
CHAIR COOK said he thought the other committee members had
described the experience well. He thinks it is beneficial
to attend.
16. OTHER BUSINESS
CHAIR COOK moved to other business. He asked legislators if
the committee should expect any bills related to Ethics or
that may impact the committee this year.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that the question as posed was
impossible to answer. She is not introducing any legislation
nor has she seen any pre-filed bills affecting the Ethics
statutes, but there are 59 other legislators who could see
the world in a completely different way than myself.
SENATOR WILSON said he thinks that with the increased
number of complaints over the past year and a half, that
legislators may have amendments to current statutes, but
has only seen the first batch of pre-filed bills. He
assumes there will be legislation to fix issues that have
come out this past year and a half.
CHAIR COOK said the other thing to keep in mind is the
Ethics Committee can initiate legislation. If the committee
sees areas in the act that need clarification or cleaned
up, the committee can suggest [unintelligible]. He does not
know of that is [unintelligible] thus far.
17. ADJOURN
CHAIR COOK entertained a motion to adjourn.
MS. FANCHER so moved.
CHAIR COOK entertained objections. Hearing none, the
meeting adjourned at 12:45 PM.
12:44:57 PM
ADJOURN:
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| PUBLIC Full committee meeting packet 1-9-2024.pdf |
JETH 1/9/2024 8:30:00 AM |