Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/03/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE
JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES
February 3, 1993
1:00 p.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter
Rep. Jeannette James
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Sen. Robin Taylor, Chairman
Sen. Rick Halford
Sen. Suzanne Little
Sen. Dave Donley
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Sen. George Jacko
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Sen. Drue Pearce
Sen. Johnny Ellis
Sen. Bert Sharp
Sen. Randy Phillips
Sen. Jay Kerttula
Sen. Fred Zharoff
Rep. Carl Moses
Rep. David Finkelstein
Rep. Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearings - Public Members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics
WITNESS REGISTER
Jack P. Curry
P.O. Box 210842
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Phone: 789-0444
Position Statement: Answered committee questions
Ruth Apgar
P.O. Box 597
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Phone: 442-3028
Position Statement: Answered committee questions
ACTION NARRATIVE
HOUSE TAPE 93-6, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEES meeting to order at 1:19 p.m. on February 3,
1993. Senate members present were Senators Taylor, Halford,
Little and Donley. Senator George Jacko was absent. House
members present were Representatives Brian Porter, Jeannette
James, Pete Kott, Gail Phillips, Joe Green, Jim Nordlund,
and Cliff Davidson.
Number 043
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained that the purpose of the meeting
was to consider the confirmation of those who had been
appointed to the public member seats on the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics. The Chairman indicated the two
appointees who were present, MR. JACK CURRY and MRS. RUTH
APGAR. Chairman Taylor mentioned that the other three
appointees were unable to be present due to weather-related
flight problems. Chairman Taylor said that attempts would
be made to have the three absent appointees participate in
the meeting via teleconference; however, if that were not
possible, a second meeting would be scheduled for the
following morning.
Number 057
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. JACK CURRY to come forward to the
witness table. The Chairman stated that the committees'
intent was to provide committee members, the public, and the
appointees with an arena in which to eliminate any doubts
about the ability of the appointees to ably serve as members
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Number 107
REP. DAVIDSON asked if appointees would be making opening
statements.
Number 110
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that opening statements would be
appropriate and asked Mr. Curry to provide one. He also
stated that the two teleconference sites, Anchorage and
Fairbanks, had not yet called in due to a lack of
participants, but would be hooked up to the meeting if and
when they did call in.
Number 119
MR. CURRY did not have a statement prepared, but spoke about
why he wanted to be a member of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics. He said the public was naturally
suspicious of legislators, and the media often focused on
negative aspects of the legislature. A relatively small
number of public servants were corrupt, he added. The vast
majority of legislators were hardworking, caring individuals
who had the best interest of the state in their minds, he
continued. He said that the focus was protecting the Alaska
Legislature's reputation. He noted that the success of the
state depended on the credibility of all of the state's
citizens, including its legislators. By becoming a member
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, Mr. Curry
said that he hoped to contribute to the success of the
state.
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Curry why he did not participate in
the political process, through voting, in his previous state
of residence, Washington, but wanted to participate in
Alaska's political process now.
Number 173
MR. CURRY said that he believed that the right to vote was
vital, but he chose not to register to vote for several
years in the state of Washington. He said that he had no
reason or excuse for not voting while a Washington resident.
As for his interest in participating on the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, he said that he wanted to do his
part. He also mentioned that he had been professionally
involved in areas relevant to the committee.
Number 190
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Curry what was different about
Alaska that prompted his interest in the political process.
MR. CURRY had no response.
Number 197
REP. PHILLIPS questioned Mr. Curry about his recent
registration as a Republican, given the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics' public member composition of two
Republicans, two Democrats, and one Undeclared. She asked
about his involvement with the Republican party.
Number 215
MR. CURRY said that he considered himself conservative and
Republican. He added that he has not participated in any
political activities during his professional life.
Number 244
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Curry if he knew why he was selected
as one of the two Republican public member appointees to the
committee.
Number 248
MR. CURRY indicated that he did not know the reason for his
selection, other than his interest in serving on the
committee.
Number 252
REP. GREEN asked Mr. Curry what courses he taught.
Number 259
MR. CURRY responded that he taught business data processing
courses, as well as networking, computer accounting, systems
analysis, EDP auditing (which involves issues of privacy and
confidentiality, he said), advanced analysis, and
accounting.
Number 268
REP. GREEN noted that these types of courses are in a field
that would lead one into a less public life. Rep. Green
then asked Mr. Curry what he would do, if serving on the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and someone were
giving the same sort of vague answers that Mr. Curry was
currently giving to questions put to him.
Number 283
MR. CURRY replied that he would want more specific answers
if the questions involved specific accusations. He noted
his long-term involvement in privacy, confidentiality, and
ethics issues.
Number 304
REP. PORTER asked Mr. Curry if his status as a state
employee would be a conflict of interest.
MR. CURRY said that his status as a state employee would not
jeopardize his ability to act fairly on the committee.
Number 314
REP. PORTER outlined a hypothetical situation in which he
was the chairman of the Finance Committee and the University
were due for some increases or some budget cuts. If he
(Rep. Porter) were the subject of an ethical inquiry, would
that present a problem for Mr. Curry?
Number 323
MR. CURRY said that there would be no problem.
Number 326
REP. PORTER asked Mr. Curry if some members of the public
might think there was an appearance of a conflict of
interest.
Number 331
MR. CURRY responded that some members of the public would
always feel that a conflict of interest existed in any
situation.
Number 335
REP. PORTER asked Mr. Curry if the appearance of a conflict
of interest were worthy of consideration regarding his
appointment.
Number 341
MR. CURRY said that the appearance of a conflict of interest
because he was a state employee was not an issue, in his
opinion.
Number 343
SEN. HALFORD asked Mr. Curry how he had heard about the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and how he had come
to apply for one of the public member seats on the
committee.
Number 348
MR. CURRY indicated that he had seen an advertisement in the
newspaper in November. He said he sent in his resume
because he wanted to help out in a field where he had
extensive experience.
Number 378
SEN. HALFORD asked Mr. Curry who he responded to when he saw
the newspaper advertisement.
MR. CURRY replied that he responded by sending a letter to
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Number 380
SEN. HALFORD asked Mr. Curry if that were his first contact
with anyone about the committee.
MR. CURRY said that was true; he had not been in contact
with anyone about the committee prior to sending his letter
to the Supreme Court.
Number 385
SEN. LITTLE thanked Mr. Curry for his interest in the
committee. She then asked Mr. Curry to speak about a
decision he had made concerning right and wrong in his own
life and how it affected his life.
Number 409
MR. CURRY told the joint committee about a situation that
occurred in the early 1970s when he was a college student.
He said that he had unintentionally responded incorrectly to
a question on a college form. Several years later, college
officials alleged that Mr. Curry had lied on the form. This
caused him to nearly lose credit for three or four years'
worth of college study. He said that he was very sensitive
to rules and regulations, but he was also a human being. He
added that he hoped that he was compassionate enough to deal
with issues in a logical manner without trying to enforce
standards of perfection on others.
Number 439
SEN. LITTLE asked Mr. Curry if he felt that legislators were
above the law.
Number 442
MR. CURRY responded that he didn't believe that anyone was
above the law. However, he said, there were so many laws
that it was difficult for one to be aware of all the laws in
existence. He added that he believed that, in general,
people tried the best they could to comply with the law.
Number 453
REP. NORDLUND questioned Mr. Curry about whether his
partisan political activity or inactivity were relevant to
work he would do if he were appointed to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Number 460
MR. CURRY said that he felt that his lack of partisan
political activity was an advantage to the committee.
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Curry why he registered as a
Republican.
Number 486
MR. CURRY said that he had been a Republican since he had
been old enough to vote, but he did not actively participate
in political party activities.
Number 496
REP. KOTT asked Mr. Curry why he felt that there was a bi-
partisanship requirement for the public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. He then asked Mr.
Curry if he felt he could adequately represent the
Republican party on the committee.
Number 513
MR. CURRY answered that his conservative approach to
business and all other activities led him to consider
himself a Republican.
Number 521
REP. KOTT noted that there had been a long lapse between Mr.
Curry's current voter registration and his past
registration. He asked Mr. Curry what party he had been
registered under prior to his most recent registration in
October, 1992.
Number 530
MR. CURRY answered that in the early 1980s, in the state of
Washington and prior to that in California, he was
registered as a Republican.
Number 537
REP. PHILLIPS requested that Mr. Curry explain his previous
statement about the public being "naturally suspicious" of
legislators.
Number 546
MR. CURRY said that media accounts, combined with the
unknown nature of many legislative proceedings, led the
public to be suspicious. He added that the public formed
opinions quickly when allegations surface. He said that he
himself was unprejudiced against legislators.
Number 562
REP. PHILLIPS said that she understood Mr. Curry to say that
suspicion of legislators was not necessarily Mr. Curry's
personal opinion, but his perception of the public's
opinion.
Number 564
MR. CURRY indicated that Rep. Phillips was correct. He said
that people often formed opinions without facts. He
emphasized the importance of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics having both legislators and members of
the public sitting on it.
REP. PHILLIPS asked if the public's suspicion of legislators
were shared by Mr. Curry.
MR. CURRY admitted that he occasionally formed opinions
prematurely.
Number 590
SEN. HALFORD said that he appreciated Mr. Curry's frankness.
He asked Mr. Curry about the University's reaction to his
interest in the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Number 596
MR. CURRY responded that the University was supportive of
his participation on the committee.
Number 607
SEN. HALFORD mentioned that the University encouraged its
faculty to participate in the public process.
Number 614
REP. GREEN indicated his suspicion of those who were
suspicious of him. He asked Mr. Curry what his reaction had
been in the early days of the Iran-Contra situation.
Specifically, he wanted to know whether Mr. Curry had formed
an opinion in the early days of that situation.
Number 630
MR. CURRY said that he did not form an opinion early on
because he was certain that a great deal of information had
yet to be gathered before he could form an opinion.
Number 642
REP. PORTER asked Mr. Curry if he had formed an opinion on
recent allegations reported in newspapers about legislators.
Number 648
MR. CURRY said that he had formed absolutely no opinions.
He said that he felt that the newspaper was a poor place in
which to condemn a person.
Number 653
REP. PORTER asked Mr. Curry how he would begin an inquiry
into these allegations if he were on the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
Number 656
MR. CURRY said that he would begin by gathering as much
information as he could before proceeding.
Number 666
REP. DAVIDSON expressed his thanks to Mr. Curry for applying
for membership on the committee. He added that he felt that
it was right for the public to be suspicious of its elected
officials. He then asked Mr. Curry if he wished to change
the public's natural suspicion of legislators.
MR. CURRY indicated that he could do his share in changing
that perception. But, he added, Alaska was a community and
each citizen contributed to the state's reputation.
Number 692
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Curry how he would characterize his
knowledge of ethics in government and whether he thought it
was possible to legislate ethical behavior.
Number 699
MR. CURRY replied that he did not think it was possible to
legislate ethical behavior. He further stated that he had
not done any research on ethics in government, but he had
researched privacy and confidentiality in government and in
private industry.
Number 716
REP. GREEN asked Mr. Curry to give some insight as to why,
given his background, he wanted to be a member of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Number 727
MR. CURRY said that he felt the committee was having
difficulty with his inability to categorize himself as a
Republican or an Independent or a political individual. He
stated that he was interested in the outcome of the
political process, but had not found it necessary to
actively involve himself in that process. When he saw the
newspaper advertisement, he said, he felt that he could lend
some relevant expertise to the committee.
Number 749
SEN. LITTLE asked Mr. Curry what he felt the most important
function of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics was.
MR. CURRY said that education would be an important function
because of the new law.
Number 761
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Curry to clarify whether or not he
had contact with any legislators about his application to
the committee, given that he had sent a letter to Rep.
Finkelstein.
Number 768
MR. CURRY said that he sent the letter to Rep. Finkelstein,
as he was the one who was collecting the materials from the
public member applicants and then passing those materials on
to the Supreme Court. He added that he had never talked
with Rep. Finkelstein.
Number 773
REP. FINKELSTEIN then told the committee that the Supreme
Court had asked him to publish the advertisement, collect
resumes, and forward those resumes on to the Court. If his
office received phone calls, Rep. Finkelstein and his staff
explained that they were merely serving as a collection
point and were not selecting applicants.
Number 779
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Curry if he believed he would be a good
representative for the Republican philosophy on the ethics
panel.
Number 789
MR. CURRY stated that he had no doubts as to his ability to
be a good representative on the committee. He said his
parents were Republicans, his children who were old enough
to vote were Republicans, and he was as well.
Number 797
REP. NORDLUND asked Mr. Curry to expound on his opinions
about the press, and how the press's reporting of a story
might color his opinion about the story's subject.
Number 808
MR. CURRY said that he felt there was some sense of
sensationalism in newspapers. When he read the newspaper,
he said, he kept in mind that he might not be getting all of
the facts.
Number 821
REP. NORDLUND asked if Mr. Curry felt the media were
sometimes inaccurate in their reporting.
Number 823
MR. CURRY said that he was inclined to believe that the
media did not always have all of the information necessary
to form a true understanding of situations.
HOUSE TAPE 93-6, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. PORTER thanked Mr. Curry for applying to be on the
committee. He mentioned that he had only been a Republican
for a few months more than Mr. Curry so he had no concerns
about Mr. Curry's ability to adequately represent the
Republican party.
Number 018
SEN. HALFORD questioned Mr. Curry about his views on
applying the open meetings act to the legislature;
specifically, balancing the public's right to know with the
ability to freely exchange embryonic ideas.
MR. CURRY said that he understood the situation, but did not
have any good ideas about how to achieve that balance.
Number 050
SEN. HALFORD said that applying the open meetings act to the
legislature would be one of the difficult, early tasks of
the committee.
Number 058
SEN. LITTLE asked Mr. Curry to detail his experience in
dealing with public and media pressure, as well as his and
his family's ability to tolerate it.
Number 066
MR. CURRY said that he found it inappropriate for individual
committee members to voice their opinions to the press
regarding committee matters. Announcements and decisions
should be coming from the committee, he said. He stressed
that he would not offer his opinions on committee matters
outside of the body.
Number 087
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Curry if he were married.
MR. CURRY said that he had been married for around 20 years,
and introduced his wife, Camille. He said that he had five
sons and one daughter.
Number 130
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR inquired about Mr. Curry's life experiences.
Number 146
MR. CURRY said that, like most people, he had been through
some trauma in his life. He mentioned leaving high school
without a clear idea of what to do with his life, joining
the Air Force, going to Officers' Candidate School,
attending flight school, being in a plane crash, going to
school, bumming around, and being divorced and remarried.
When he got out of banking in 1984, he and his wife opened
up a small business and lost it a year later. He just
finished paying the loan off. He and his wife decided to
pay the loan off rather than to declare bankruptcy.
Number 187
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mr. Curry for his candor. As
committee members had no other questions for Mr. Curry, the
committee stood in recess.
Number 197
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the committee back to order at 2:25
p.m. He stated that the three absent appointees were on
their way back to Anchorage and were due to land in just
over an hour. He added that the three might be able to join
the committee via teleconference.
Number 219
REP. FINKELSTEIN explained that the new ethics law stated
that no more than two public members could be from the same
political party. This was not, he said, so that those
active in partisan politics would get seats on the
committee. Rather, the intent was to obtain a group of
fair-minded people without a particular political agenda.
The party restrictions were put into the law to prevent an
attempt to unfairly load the committee with the members of
any one party.
Number 237
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MRS. RUTH APGAR to take a seat at the
witness table. He invited her to make an opening statement
if she cared to, but Mrs. Apgar stated that she preferred to
make a brief statement at the conclusion of the committees'
questions.
Number 250
REP. PHILLIPS questioned Mrs. Apgar about her voter
registration history and her involvement with the Republican
party.
Number 272
MRS. APGAR said that she had never been involved with the
Republican party. She was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but
diverged with the party philosophy at least five years ago.
She said that when she did finally change her registration
to Republican last fall, she had not heard of openings on
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Number 314
REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Apgar why she wanted to serve on the
committee and what was the most important attribute that she
would bring to the committee.
MRS. APGAR said that she always wanted to be involved in
government, but never expected to become involved. When she
heard about the openings via the radio, she felt that her
work as an investigator and her involvement with the state
employees union would qualify her for the position. She
stated that she knew she could do a good job.
Number 347
REP. KOTT requested that Mrs. Apgar tell the committees
something about her personal life.
Number 349
MRS. APGAR mentioned that she had been married for 26-1/2
years, and had three children and four grandchildren. She
further stated that she had been an Alaska resident since
1969, always living in Bush Alaska: Healy, Skagway, and
Kotzebue.
Number 373
REP. NORDLUND thanked Mrs. Apgar for traveling all the way
to Juneau to appear before the committees. He then asked
her to discuss her involvement in ivory trading, which
became somewhat of a controversy several years ago.
Number 383
MRS. APGAR told the committee that when her family lived in
Skagway, they ran a hotel, restaurant, gift shop and taxi
business. She ran the hotel while her husband managed the
other three parts of the business, she said. She explained
that her husband bought ivory for the shop. It was their
first time in business, she said. Neither one of them
adequately researched the ivory laws. Unbeknownst to them,
she said, there had been a change in the federal ivory laws,
and some of the ivory that her husband sold was illegal -
white ivory.
MRS. APGAR said that on one occasion, her husband's partner
called from Louisiana and asked her husband to send some
ivory because there was a buyer there. Her husband offered
to let her take the ivory, and she viewed the trip south as
a welcome break from the hectic demands of business and
family. She transported the ivory to New Orleans, Mrs.
Apgar stated. She felt that the newspaper's account of the
situation was fairly accurate in that the ivory was legal.
What she and her husband did not know, she said, was that
she was selling ivory to a federal agent in Louisiana. She
and her husband had been very ignorant, she said.
Number 450
MRS. APGAR stated that both she and her husband were cited
and went to court. Her husband was fined and placed on
probation. The charges against her were dismissed. They
have never done any business in ivory since, she added. She
felt that terms such as "trafficking" and "plea bargain"
were inappropriate when used to describe her situation. She
neither transported nor sold illegal ivory. The judge found
this to be so, too, and dismissed her case.
Number 470
MRS. APGAR said that her husband was fined and put on
probation; however, sometime later his probation was
shortened and dropped and some of the fine forgiven. Later,
a civil action was filed against her husband's partner and
she was asked to testify. She did testify, but knew very
little about the ivory business.
Number 476
REP. NORDLUND inquired about Mrs. Apgar's dealings with the
media over the ivory situation, particularly her alleged
comment that she was going to ask the Lord to punish a
reporter for running a story. He felt that muzzling
reporters was inappropriate behavior for someone applying to
be on the ethics committee.
Number 490
MRS. APGAR admitted having made the aforementioned comment.
She felt that her actions were not wrong, as she felt the
reporter was judging her. The incident had occurred 13
years ago, she said, and the charges were dismissed;
therefore, running the story at this date was wrong, she
felt.
Number 509
REP. DAVIDSON thanked Mrs. Apgar for appearing before the
committee. He mentioned the necessity of the committee
dealing with sensitive information and asked her about an
allegation that she had allowed sensitive information to
become public while working in her job as an investigator
for the Division of Family and Youth Services.
Number 527
MRS. APGAR said that she understood that an individual
claimed to have overheard her at a Kotzebue restaurant. She
explained that she habitually met prior to court proceedings
with people from other agencies involved in her work, often
at a particular Kotzebue restaurant. Weather permitting,
the working group would meet in a room apart from the rest
of the restaurant. When it was particularly cold, however,
they would sit in the main part of the restaurant at a table
set apart from the rest in the room. She didn't believe
that anyone could have overheard confidential information,
because she and her associates were very careful not to
disclose that kind of information. She said that she didn't
believe that any confidentiality was compromised.
Number 590
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Apgar to give her definition of the
term "fair-minded" and to tell the committee if she felt
that she was fair-minded.
Number 595
MRS. APGAR said that she thought it was difficult to be
fair-minded, as one must often struggle with one's
upbringing and personal standards and biases. She believed
that her work as an investigator required that she look at
both sides of a situation and weigh the facts.
Number 609
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Apgar if she felt that fair-
mindedness were a relative and comparative trait.
MRS. APGAR said that she did not understand the question.
Number 624
REP. PORTER asked whether the charges against her were
dismissed after she agreed to testify for the government.
Number 634
MRS. APGAR said that she did not remember the exact sequence
of events, but thought that was not the case. She didn't
believe that she knew any of the other people who were
facing charges at the time her charges were dropped. She
was contacted after she and her family had moved from
Skagway to Kotzebue and she was asked to testify in a civil
suit.
Number 640
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Apgar if she did indeed testify.
MRS. APGAR said that she did testify.
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Apgar if she were charged with a
crime, and if those charges were later dismissed.
MRS. APGAR said that she was cited for a criminal violation
and that the charges were later dismissed.
Number 649
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Apgar if she had said that her
involvement in the ivory trade had nothing to do with ethics
whatsoever.
MRS. APGAR stated that she had said that.
REP. PORTER indicated that he had difficulty understanding
how a citation for a criminal violation could have nothing
to do with ethics. He asked her for an explanation.
Number 657
MRS. APGAR said that had she been found guilty, she would
answer the question differently. However, she said, just
being charged with a crime was not an indication of
unethical behavior. She said that she had been asked why
she did not include the citation on her application. The
reason for the omission, she stated, was that the charges
were dismissed, and she never felt that she had done
anything wrong. Her husband had used poor judgment, she
added, and she had been ignorant of many things.
MRS. APGAR next cited an example of having unknowingly
violated a speed limit and being cited and fined. She asked
Rep. Porter if that constituted unethical behavior.
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Apgar to discuss her perception of
the difference between a speeding ticket and a charge of
theft.
Number 702
MRS. APGAR indicated that she felt knowingly, purposefully
stealing was probably the greater offense.
Number 710
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Apgar if she considered both theft
and speeding crimes of moral turpitude.
MRS. APGAR said that theft could be such a crime, and some
people might consider speeding to also be such a crime.
Number 716
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Apgar whether she believed she had
committed a criminal offense in relation to her activities
surrounding the ivory trade.
MRS. APGAR said that she did not knowingly commit an
offense.
Number 720
REP. PORTER asked if Mrs. Apgar were aware that ignorance of
the law was not an excuse under the law.
MRS. APGAR said that she was aware of that.
Number 725
REP. PORTER again inquired as to whether Mrs. Apgar
committed any crime.
MRS. APGAR said that she had committed no crime.
Number 730
REP. PORTER asked if she had been involved in her husband's
activities, for which he pleaded guilty.
Number 732
MRS. APGAR said that she had been uninvolved, except for one
instance in which she accepted a check from a buyer who had
brought it to her house. As her husband was not at home at
the time, Mrs. Apgar accepted the check. The ivory involved
in that sale was illegal. She reaffirmed her belief that
ignorance was not an excuse for her behavior. She and her
husband had paid and continued to pay for their mistakes,
she added.
HOUSE TAPE 93-7, SIDE A
Number 016
REP. GREEN said that he was pleased to note that Mrs. Apgar
was a born-again Christian. He expressed concern over her
earlier comment that knowingly stealing was probably a
greater crime than speeding. He also questioned her
statement that she didn't know that what she was doing in
the ivory transactions was wrong, in light of a statement
she had made to a newspaper that she had a feeling that her
and her husband's activities "were not on the up and up."
Number 079
MRS. APGAR stated that when she returned from Louisiana, she
felt uneasy and questioned her husband. She said that he
reassured her that he would not deal in illegal ivory.
Number 112
REP. GREEN said that it sounded as if Mrs. Apgar's husband
had a profound influence on her actions, which concerned him
in light of her potential appointment to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Number 137
MRS. APGAR clarified that the gift shop was her husband's
business and she accepted his explanations about the ivory.
In retrospect, she said, she should have researched the
applicable law further, instead of relying on her husband's
information. She indicated that she was quite capable of
doing her own research and forming opinions without the
assistance of her husband.
Number 165
REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Apgar at what point in her past she
ceased to be greatly influenced by her husband.
Number 212
MRS. APGAR said that she had grown as a person over the last
13 years, especially since the ivory incident. She was more
cautious now, in part as a result of her name being in the
media.
Number 229
SEN. LITTLE thanked Mrs. Apgar for appearing before the
committee. She then asked if Mrs. Apgar had formed any
opinions on the allegations surrounding Senator Jacko, as
she had been quoted in the newspaper regarding the matter.
Number 267
MRS. APGAR indicated that she had not yet formed an opinion
on the matter. She said that the newspaper was a poor
source from which to begin an investigation.
Number 275
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Apgar if, at the time she applied
to be on the committee, she was aware of what the committee
work would entail.
Number 288
MRS. APGAR said that she had some understanding of the
duties involved, although less understanding than she now
had. She noted that the committee's profound role in the
lives of legislators had not occurred to her at the time of
her application. Recent media accounts had brought that
fact to her attention, however.
Number 317
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Apgar, if, at the time of her
application, she understood the great need for
confidentiality and the necessity of not making statements
to the media or forming judgments.
MRS. APGAR said that she understood that.
Number 326
REP. PHILLIPS then asked why she had felt it necessary to
express a judgment to the newspaper prior to her
confirmation.
Number 332
MRS. APGAR said that she had been caught off-guard by the
reporter. She had assumed that he had called to ask her
questions about herself, not about other matters. She tried
to answer the reporter's question honestly, without making a
judgment call. She added that she didn't see her comment as
a judgment call. She merely wanted to indicate that if a
complaint against Senator Jacko were made, an investigation
would have to ensue.
Number 361
REP. JAMES asked Mrs. Apgar to relate her experiences in
dealing with the media and how she would respond to
newspaper inquiries about Ethics Committee matters.
Number 378
MRS. APGAR said that she had very little experience with the
media. She added that Ethics Committee members should not
respond individually to media inquiries, but should issue
statements as a body.
Number 396
REP. JAMES asked Mrs. Apgar how she would respond today to
press inquiries about her appointment to the Ethics
Committee and her position on Ethics Committee matters.
MRS. APGAR indicated that she would give no response to
inquiries.
REP. PORTER commented that all five public member appointees
had consented to allow access to their criminal records, and
none of the appointees had any entries on their records.
Number 424
REP. NORDLUND asked Mrs. Apgar if people who unknowingly
commit crimes should still be held accountable for their
actions.
Number 430
MRS. APGAR said that they should be held accountable, as she
and her husband were. They made a mistake and they had paid
for it.
Number 437
REP. NORDLUND noted that the committee would be striving to
hold legislators to a very high standard of conduct.
Number 446
SEN. HALFORD asked Mrs. Apgar when the federal laws on
export and transfer of ivory had changed.
Number 454
MRS. APGAR indicated that she believed that they had changed
the year before she was charged with criminal activity.
Number 456
SEN. HALFORD asked Mrs. Apgar if the law would have been
similarly applicable to her had she been an Alaska Native.
Number 460
MRS. APGAR said that she believed that Alaska Natives could
sell any type of ivory, but she was by no means an expert on
the laws. Sen. Halford and Mrs. Apgar agreed that the ivory
laws were confusing.
Number 466
REP. KOTT questioned Mrs. Apgar about her comments to the
media about Senator Jacko's actions. If she could now, he
asked, would she change the comments that she had made to
the press?
Number 484
MRS. APGAR indicated that if she knew then what she knew
now, she would not have made any comment to the reporter.
Number 494
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern over Mrs. Apgar's apparent
willingness to accept some of the media's comments on
Senator Jacko's actions in light of her past negative
experiences with the media.
Number 514
MRS. APGAR stated that certain allegations had been made in
the newspaper, and she had not, at that point, heard of any
legislators denying that certain actions had taken place.
She noted that if confirmed as a public member of the Ethics
Committee, the first thing she would do would be to shred
the newspaper articles as soon as a charge was leveled.
Number 535
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Apgar if she had a copy of the
new ethics law.
MRS. APGAR commented that she did have a copy of the ethics
handbook, but she had not read the entire handbook.
Number 541
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Apgar about her previous
statement about a letter that had been read to her over the
telephone.
Number 550
MRS. APGAR mentioned that an aide from Rep. MacLean's office
had telephoned her to ask about some media allegations that
she had disclosed confidential information while performing
her job in Kotzebue.
Number 560
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mrs. Apgar had spoken with any
other legislators concerning this matter.
MRS. APGAR said that she did not know any legislators,
except for Sen. Al Adams from Kotzebue. But, she added, she
had not spoken to him.
Number 564
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Apgar if she expected certain
standards of conduct from certain types of people, for
example, a priest, a pauper, a banker, a used car salesman,
or a legislator.
MRS. APGAR said that she believed people were taught such
things from the time they were very young.
Number 585
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mrs. Apgar understood that the
Alaska Legislature was purposefully set up to include people
from all walks of life.
MRS. APGAR said that she understood that.
Number 598
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mrs. Apgar had in her mind a
standard of conduct that she believed should be applied to
legislators and legislative employees.
MRS. APGAR said that there ought to be spelled-out standards
for legislators and their employees.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mrs. Apgar would like to tell the
committee anything else about herself.
Number 614
MRS. APGAR said that she had been blessed with a successful
marriage and a happy life. She emphasized her belief that
she would serve the committee well by being fair. She said
that the legislators did not need to worry about her making
quick judgments about situations based on what she had read
in the newspaper. She urged members to remember that she
had been in the media spotlight herself. She stressed her
fairness and her experience as an investigator.
Number 668
SEN. HALFORD asked Mrs. Apgar if she would be able to take
time away from her job to travel to Juneau for the purpose
of working on Ethics Committee business.
Number 673
MRS. APGAR said that she did not in the past have a problem
taking time off of work to come to Juneau for union
business, and did not anticipate any problems traveling to
Juneau in the future on Ethics Committee business.
Number 679
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mrs. Apgar for her candor.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR recessed the meeting at 3:37 p.m. until
11:00 a.m. the following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|