Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/04/1993 11:00 AM 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 4, 1993
11:00 a.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
Rep. Cynthia Toohey
Rep. David Finkelstein
Rep. Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Continuation of Confirmation Hearings - Public Members of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
WITNESS REGISTER
Niel Thomas
14740 Mossberry Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 345-1552
Position Statement: Answered committee questions via
teleconference
Margie MacNeille
8101 White Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 346-3326
Position Statement: Answered committee questions via
teleconference
Dr. Rodman Wilson, M.D.
6234 Tanaina Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Phone: 243-5583
Position Statement: Answered committee questions via
teleconference
ACTION NARRATIVE
HOUSE TAPE 93-8, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE meeting to order at 11:12 a.m. on February 4,
1993. He explained that due to weather problems, the public
member appointees to the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics were not able to fly into Juneau. Appointees Margie
MacNeille, Rodman Wilson, and Niel Lawrence would therefore
participate in the meeting via teleconference from
Anchorage.
Senate members present were Senator Taylor, Senator Halford,
and Senator Little. Senator George Jacko was absent.
House members present were Representative Brian Porter,
Representative Jeannette James, Representative Pete Kott,
Representative Gail Phillips, Representative Joe Green,
Representative Jim Nordlund, and Representative Cliff
Davidson.
A quorum was present.
Number 071
MR. THOMAS said that he was pleased to have been appointed
to the Ethics Committee. He said that his real estate work
lent him experience in bringing together people with
differing interests. He noted he also has experience as an
arbitrator of labor disputes and was the former director of
the State Human Rights Commission. In that role, he worked
as an impartial fact finder. Given that experience, he felt
that he had something to offer to the Ethics Committee. He
also said that he did not consider himself a partisan
political person.
Number 134
REP. PHILLIPS said that she had information indicating that
in 1986 Mr. Thomas had changed his party affiliation to
Democrat, and then in 1992 changed his registration back to
undeclared. She asked Mr. Thomas to clarify his
partisanship based on that information and also to tell the
committee whether his 1992 change in registration had
anything to do with his application to the Ethics Committee.
Number 154
MR. THOMAS responded that Rep. Phillips' information was
news to him. He said in 1992 he changed his residence
address. He stated that he could not remember why, in 1986,
he declared a party registration. He noted that changes he
made in his registration in 1992 had nothing to do with the
Ethics Committee.
Number 180
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Thomas if he were aware that there
were to be two Republicans, two Democrats, and one
undeclared individual comprising the public members on the
Ethics Committee.
Number 190
MR. THOMAS said that he first became aware of the need for
public members on the Ethics Committee via a newspaper
advertisement last fall.
Number 212
REP. GREEN asked Mr. Thomas what prompted him to apply to be
on the committee.
Number 226
MR. THOMAS said that he noticed that the committee had been
reconstituted, saw the advertisement looking for public
member applicants, and felt that he could lend some
expertise to the committee. He said that his decision had
no connection to his real estate career, except for the
relevant experience he had gained in that career.
Number 244
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Thomas to define "ethics" in his own
words and then to relate the work of the Ethics Committee to
his own qualifications.
Number 258
MR. THOMAS replied that to some extent, ethics had been
spelled out in the law. He added that the work of the
committee would be guided, to a large extent, by a
historical series of debates, discussions, and legal
opinions on the subject. He said the committee's work would
be to build upon that base. He stated that the committee
would also be dealing with new matters as they surfaced, and
that the committee's judgment about those matters would
depend on that historical base.
Number 300
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Thomas how extensive a role
investigation would play in the Ethics Committee.
Number 308
MR. THOMAS responded by saying that were a complaint filed,
the committee would have the authority to hire an
investigator to determine facts. The committee could then
study those facts and make a preliminary decision about
whether the investigation should proceed further.
(Chairman Taylor noted the arrival of Senator Donley.)
Number 326
REP. DAVIDSON thanked Mr. Thomas for applying to be on the
committee. He asked Mr. Thomas why an impartial fact-finder
would care about someone's party label.
Number 350
MR. THOMAS said he couldn't imagine someone's party label
making any difference, except in the event that the party
label related to the question before the Ethics Committee.
He added that he anticipated that most complaint situations
would be totally unrelated to party affiliation.
Number 360
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Thomas to characterize some of his
previous impartial fact-finding missions - the situation
ethics he encountered, the characteristics of the process,
and how he saw his role on the committee.
Number 370
MR. THOMAS spoke about his real estate work, in which he
brought buyers and sellers together. His role was to search
for points on which these two groups would agree, to search
for a middle ground, and to work to resolve disagreements.
Earlier in his career, he served as an arbitrator for labor
disputes. His role in that job was something like a private
judge. He would hear two sides of a labor dispute and issue
an impartial, binding opinion. He mentioned that for eight
years he worked on the staff of the Human Rights Commission.
In that role, he supervised a staff of people whose job it
was to impartially assess the merits of discrimination
complaints.
Number 422
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Thomas if he perceived any
differences in the job he would do on the Ethics Committee
and his real estate, labor dispute, and Human Rights
Commission experience. Specifically, Rep. Davidson wanted
to know if there were a difference in the standard by which
Mr. Thomas would judge a legislator versus someone whom he
might encounter in his other lines of work.
Number 435
MR. THOMAS said that many people believed that elected
officials should be held to a higher standard of conduct
than other people. He mentioned the code of ethics among
real estate professionals and said that those standards
could apply equally to the public sector. He stated that he
was not convinced that public sector officials could be
expected, in every case, to act according to a standard of
conduct far in excess of that of everyone else. He said he
would rather see all humans strive to achieve a level of
fairness and honesty, rather than ascribing certain
standards of conduct to certain groups of individuals.
Number 463
REP. PORTER commented that he had known Mr. Thomas for many
years and worked with him when Mr. Thomas worked for the
Human Rights Commission. He asked Mr. Thomas to comment on
recent newspaper articles about legislators and whether he
had formed any opinions about the ethical conduct of the
individuals named.
Number 477
MR. THOMAS said that when a matter received extensive
publicity, it became difficult for that matter to be judged
impartially. At the same time, he added, society did not
presume that people like judges would necessarily be
prejudiced by what they read in the newspaper. He said that
he had an open mind, and there was almost always more than
one side to a story.
Number 506
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Thomas to explain how he came to
apply for a seat on the Ethics Committee.
Number 511
MR. THOMAS answered that he saw a newspaper ad announcing
vacancies on the committee. He then went to the legislative
information office and picked up an announcement detailing
how to apply.
Number 522
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Thomas how long he had served on the
Alaska Judicial Council's Committee on Judicial Retention.
Number 524
Mr. Thomas said that this committee was a very short-lived,
unofficial committee. It was in existence for less than a
year, in 1989 or 1990.
Number 535
REP. PHILLIPS questioned whether Mr. Thomas had sufficient
available time to devote to the committee.
Number 542
MR. THOMAS said that he was an independent contractor with a
real estate agency and could set his own schedule. He added
that it was frequently possible to conduct his business over
long distances. He saw no conflict between his personal
life and committee work.
Number 556
SEN. LITTLE thanked Mr. Thomas for applying for a seat on
the committee. She asked Mr. Thomas if he had dealt with
media pressure before and if he had found it difficult.
Number 568
MR. THOMAS replied that he was a former reporter and
continued to write a real estate column for the Alaska
Journal of Commerce. As the director of the Human Rights
Commission, he related to the press as a public official.
He added that he was comfortable in that role.
Number 585
REP. KOTT expressed his appreciation for Mr. Thomas'
application to serve on the committee. He asked Mr. Thomas
if he had had any recent contact with any member of the
legislature.
Number 593
MR. THOMAS said that the only contact he had was a call from
Rep. Finkelstein the week before cautioning him about
dealing with the press.
Number 599
REP. GREEN described a hypothetical situation in which Mr.
Thomas had a sour business experience with a legislator.
Rep. Green asked Mr. Thomas to explain how he would attempt
to remain impartial when investigating a complaint against
that same legislator.
Number 618
MR. THOMAS spoke of the committee members' need to disclose
close economic associations with legislators, lobbyists, and
others. He said that he would have to ask himself, in that
situation, whether or not he could be impartial. He added
that he could envision circumstances in which a committee
member would excuse her- or himself from investigating a
complaint.
Number 645
REP. JAMES asked Mr. Thomas to explain why the ethics law
required two Republicans, two Democrats and one undeclared
individual to serve on the Ethics Committee.
Number 653
MR. THOMAS said that the composition could be different,
given that the law merely provided that no more than two
public members could be from the same party.
Number 664
REP. JAMES repeated her question about why the requirement
of party diversity existed in the first place.
Number 684
MR. THOMAS stated that he presumed that the party limitation
was put in as a check on one party dominating the committee.
Number 695
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about why Rep. Finkelstein had
telephoned him.
Number 699
MR. THOMAS replied that Rep. Finkelstein was probably
cautioning the public members against saying anything that
would be inappropriate for unconfirmed public members of the
Ethics Committee.
Number 704
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Thomas if he knew of any reason
why Rep. Finkelstein would need to call him.
Number 708
MR. THOMAS said that much of the conversation centered
around the mechanics of traveling to Juneau for the
confirmation hearings. He added that he would not want to
speculate on why Rep. Finkelstein mentioned the media.
Number 712
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that a newspaper article asserted
that four of the five appointees had allegedly reached some
sort of conclusion regarding the Jacko incident and ethics
laws. He asked Mr. Thomas if he were one of the four cited
by the media.
Number 718
MR. THOMAS mentioned that he had been careful not to say
anything of substance when speaking to a Juneau reporter.
He declined to speculate on what other committee members had
said or done. He cited his past dealings with the press and
said that he understood if the other appointees had said
something that was misinterpreted by the press.
Number 728
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that people often inadvertently made
comments to the press without realizing how they might be
interpreted.
Number 731
MR. THOMAS commented that judging from his dealings with
other appointees, he did not believe that any matters that
might come before the committee had been prejudged in any
way.
Number 742
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Thomas if he had, in his mind, a
standard of conduct that he felt would be appropriate for
certain types of people.
Number 754
MR. THOMAS stated that elements of an individual's past
might or might not have anything to do with their
suitability for engaging in a particular profession. He
said no one has led a perfect life. However, at times, an
individual's conduct could make it unlikely that she or he
could credibly perform the public's business. Individual
facts and circumstances must always be considered, he added.
Conduct should not be examined in and of itself, he said,
particularly if it happened a long time ago. What must be
noted was a person's ability to perform his or her function.
Number 781
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Thomas to tell the committee
something about his background and life experiences.
Number 794
MR. THOMAS noted that he was a forward-looking individual
who tended not to dwell on old problems and failures. He
spoke of his last years on the staff of the Human Rights
Commission and how he was fired from his position. In
retrospect, he felt that he could have performed better in
that job. He said that he learned from that experience and
was pleased with the state of his life at the present time.
In that light, he said he would like to make a contribution
to the state by serving on the Ethics Committee.
HOUSE TAPE 93-8, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. DAVIDSON spoke of how past events often came into the
present for public officials. He asked Mr. Thomas to
comment on this situation.
Number 029
MR. THOMAS indicated that he understood how people felt when
their performance had been questioned in public. At the
same time, he believed that those who offered themselves up
for public service knew that this could occur.
Number 060
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR conveyed his appreciation for Mr. Thomas'
candor. He then invited MARGIE MACNEILLE to address the
committee.
Number 093
MS. MARGIE MACNEILLE discussed her service on the former
Ethics Committee. She said that in her experience with the
former committee, the party membership of the public members
had not been an issue during committee proceedings.
Number 141
MS. MACNEILLE mentioned her work as a lawyer and her
training in legal ethics. She added that legislators and
legislative employees needed to put the public's interest
ahead of their own. She spoke of having reviewed the new
ethics law, and her concern that the law be very specific
about what legislators and legislative employees could and
could not do so that the public and the Ethics Committee
could easily determine whether or not conduct was ethical.
Number 186
REP. GREEN commented that he knew Ms. MacNeille from his
tenure on the Chugach Electric Association's board of
directors. He asked Ms. MacNeille why she wanted to serve
on the new Ethics Committee.
Number 200
MS. MACNEILLE spoke of her upbringing in the state of
Maryland, and expressed an opinion that political corruption
was common there. Alaska, in comparison, had very clean
government, she said, and she would like to help keep it
that way. She added that she was not a political person.
Number 225
REP. PORTER asked Ms. MacNeille if she had formed any
opinions about recent events reported in the media about
members of the legislature.
Number 242
MS. MACNEILLE said that she had not yet formed any opinions,
nor had she spoken to the press since the legislature
convened. In her experience, she stated, she had learned
that nothing was the way that it first appeared. Often, she
said, there was a lot more to the story. She added that she
considered herself very open-minded.
Number 268
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. MacNeille how she would be able to
juggle her young family and her work on the committee.
Number 276
MS. MACNEILLE said that she had considered her family
demands when she applied to be on the Ethics Committee and
believed that she could handle both family and committee
demands.
Number 304
REP. DAVIDSON thanked Ms. MacNeille for her continued
willingness to serve on the Ethics Committee. He added
that, given Ms. MacNeille's experience, she probably had a
better concept of legislative ethics than most of the
legislators present. He asked if, in her past Ethics
Committee work, the thought of partisanship had ever entered
into her decision making.
Number 325
MS. MACNEILLE answered that she didn't believe so.
Number 330
REP. NORDLUND expressed his appreciation for Ms. MacNeille's
application to serve on the new Ethics Committee. He asked
her how she came to be selected by Chief Justice Daniel
Moore to serve on the committee.
Number 342
MS. MACNEILLE responded that she submitted an application.
She added that she believed that Justice Moore had screened
the applicants and created a short list. He interviewed her
briefly over the telephone and then spoke with her again to
say that she had been selected as one of the public members
of the Ethics Committee. She commented that her prior
service on the Ethics Committee was probably instrumental to
her selection to be on the new committee.
Number 359
REP. JAMES asked Ms. MacNeille how she would find working
with non-attorneys on the committee.
Number 373
MS. MACNEILLE stated that every person had her or his own
personal code of ethics. Then, she said, there was the
ethics statute, which was separate from personal codes of
ethics. She spoke of complaints which the old Ethics
Committee had heard and on which they had chosen to take no
action. People still disagree with what happened, she said.
She added that it was her belief that the committee's
actions were required by the ethics statute, and she was
comfortable with those actions.
Number 406
REP. JAMES commented that she liked the continuity that Ms.
MacNeille would bring to the new Ethics Committee.
Number 412
REP. GREEN asked Ms. MacNeille how she, as a young woman,
would be able to impartially judge a male legislator who had
been accused of sexual harassment.
Number 427
MS. MACNEILLE thanked Rep. Green for calling her a "young
woman" at age 42, and replied that she had been involved in
the male legal and business world and was familiar with the
range of behavior displayed between men and women. She said
that she thought she could appropriately handle any matter
that came before the committee. She added that she also had
experience working in employment law.
Number 453
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that he appreciated Ms.
MacNeille's candor in discussing past decisions made by the
Ethics Committee and the resulting pressure brought to bear
on the committee members. He said that he shared Ms.
MacNeille's belief that the old Ethics Committee had
rendered an accurate decision, based on the law as it had
existed. He added that he was proud of the committee's
actions, because it had done what it was supposed to do and
not what the public had wanted it to do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned Ms. MacNeille on whether she
would be influenced by the public or the press to act in a
certain way.
Number 476
MS. MACNEILLE commented that those who knew her were aware
that she tended not to react to outside pressures. Her
motivating force was not public reaction, but serving the
public interest, she said.
Number 495
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about her husband's law firm's
contractual relationship with the state.
Number 498
MS. MACNEILLE said that she had filed a request for a
nonconfidential advisory opinion about that contractual
relationship. She then proceeded to outline the facts of
the situation, adding that she did not believe those facts
rendered her an inappropriate appointee to the Ethics
Committee. However, she added that she believed the Ethics
Committee was the appropriate body for making that
determination.
MS. MACNEILLE said that her husband's law firm had contracts
with the University of Alaska. Those contracts, she said,
were not competitively bid under the state purchasing code.
That was because the University did not bid contracts;
rather, they issued competitive RFPs. Also, on two
occasions, she said, the law firm was retained by the
University on a basis that was not a competitive RFP,
because of the law firm's specific expertise.
MS. MACNEILLE cited a third instance, in which her husband
was retained by the Condon law firm to assist in the
settlement of oil royalties cases. In her understanding,
the Condon law firm's contract with the state was entered
into in the early 1980s, before the existence of the
legislative ethics act. That contract was not competitively
bid and had been renewed annually on a noncompetitive basis.
Her husband did not contract directly with the state, she
said, but his billings to the Condon law firm flowed through
to the state. These contracts, she added, had nothing to do
with her.
Number 579
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that he appreciated Ms.
MacNeille's answer. He added that, like Ms. MacNeille,
during his tenure on the old Ethics Committee, he didn't
recall ever knowing which party each public member belonged
to. Nor, he said, had he seen any conduct that indicated
partisanship. He reiterated Rep. Finkelstein's comment that
the reason for the party requirements for public members of
the Ethics Committee was to prevent the committee from being
loaded with members of one party.
Number 599
MS. MACNEILLE mentioned that Justice Moore had told her that
most of the applicants to the committee were members of the
Green party.
Number 600
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. MacNeille if she had anything to
add.
Number 611
MS. MACNEILLE said that she lived a fortunate life in that
she was able to live in Alaska and could stay home with her
children. At the same time, she added, her life had not
been without character-building experiences, some of which
had come during her tenure on the old Ethics Committee.
Another difficult time in her life was the Chugach Electric
Association strike in 1987 when she was employed by the
company.
MS. MACNEILLE stated that she believed she had the
willingness, the ability, and the fairness to carry out the
responsibilities of the public members of the Ethics
Committee and she hoped that she would have the opportunity
to do so.
Number 633
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Ms. MacNeille for her candor, her
prior service on the Ethics Committee, and her willingness
to serve again.
Number 642
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called DR. RODMAN WILSON to address the
committee next.
Number 644
DR. WILSON commented that he had responded to the November
advertisement seeking applicants for the public member seats
on the Ethics Committee. He added that he was a retired
physician, having practiced internal medicine for years. In
addition, he had served as the public health director for
the Municipality of Anchorage. Most recently, he was a
member of the legislature's Health Resources and Access Task
Force.
DR. WILSON said that his work as a physician lent him a
great deal of insight into human behavior -- insight which
would serve him well on the Ethics Committee. He mentioned
his 1989-1990 tenure on the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, which dealt with topics similar to those handled
by the Ethics Committee. At that time, he participated in
an interview with ethics expert Michael Josephson. Dr.
Wilson cited his long-term interest in medical ethics and
his work on the ethics committees of private hospitals. He
emphasized his belief that he would be a thoughtful and
fair-minded member of the Ethics Committee.
Number 707
REP. GREEN asked Dr. Wilson to expand on a statement he had
made in a letter about his understanding of the legislative
process and the behavior of legislators.
Number 717
DR. WILSON mentioned his legislative work with the Alaska
State Medical Association over the last few decades.
Through that work, he learned about the political process.
While he was in Juneau, he observed some of the social
activities of legislators, he said.
Number 737
REP. PORTER indicated that he had known Dr. Wilson for many
years. He asked Dr. Wilson if he had formed any opinions
about recent allegations made about certain legislators.
HOUSE TAPE 93-9, SIDE A
Number 000
DR. WILSON said that he had been contacted by a Juneau
Empire reporter on January 18. The reporter asked Dr.
Wilson if he believed that the Jacko matter would come under
the scope of the new ethics law. Dr. Wilson responded that
he had read the law and thought that, were the allegations
true, then the situation would probably come under the
purview of the Ethics Committee.
Number 042
REP. PORTER asked Dr. Wilson if he had formed any opinions
about the allegations, based on media accounts.
DR. WILSON said that he had not.
Number 049
REP. DAVIDSON asked Dr. Wilson about his perception of the
political "scene" today, as his comments before had
addressed the "scene" in past decades.
Number 062
DR. WILSON stated that he believed that all legislators were
sincerely interested in doing their jobs to the best of
their abilities. He added his belief that legislators were
underpaid and underappreciated. He commented that
legislators were human beings with strengths and weaknesses.
Legislators got in trouble sometimes, he noted, but for the
most part performed their functions and represented their
constituents well.
Number 085
REP. DAVIDSON expressed his appreciation for Dr. Wilson's
willingness to serve on the Ethics Committee.
Number 092
REP. NORDLUND acknowledged the belief of some committee
members that Dr. Wilson's political activities might somehow
bias his ability to make objective judgments about
legislators. He cited Dr. Wilson's political activity,
including having run for office twice as a Democrat. He
asked Dr. Wilson if he believed that his association with
the Democratic party would bias him in his review of ethical
conduct of legislators.
Number 125
DR. WILSON stated that it was his belief that his Democratic
affiliation would not bias him at all. He noted that he was
once a Republican, changing parties in 1988. He added that
he thought that the party affiliations of Ethics Committee
members would not have an effect on the committee's
deliberations.
Number 145
REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson if he had quit his job with
the Municipality of Anchorage in 1987 in order to run for
office.
Number 150
DR. WILSON outlined the sequence of events at that time. He
said he resigned from his municipality job on December 31,
1987. Four or five months later, he said, he impetuously
decided to run for the legislature.
Number 169
REP. PHILLIPS commented that Dr. Wilson had only served 18
months of a three-year term on the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, quitting to run for office again. If confirmed
on the Ethics Committee, she asked, could Dr. Wilson be
expected to serve a full term, or would he quit at the next
opportunity to run for office?
Number 176
DR. WILSON indicated that he did not intend to run for
public office again, because of his age.
Number 205
SEN. LITTLE inquired about Dr. Wilson's ability to be away
from home often while working on Ethics Committee matters.
Number 218
DR. WILSON said that he was retired and available.
Number 232
REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson if, at the time of
application, he fully understood what his role on the Ethics
Committee would be.
Number 243
DR. WILSON responded that he was aware of what he was
getting into when he applied to be on the committee.
Number 257
REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson why he had responded to a
press inquiry about the allegations surrounding Senator
Jacko.
Number 268
DR. WILSON acknowledged that he had erred in responding to
the Juneau Empire reporter. He cited his work as the public
health director for the Municipality of Anchorage, and his
experience in dealing with the media in that role. His
pattern was to give direct and full responses to the media
at that time, even when those responses reflected poorly on
himself or on the municipality. He admitted falling into
that mode when the reporter called him. He further admitted
that he had said more than he should have. However, he
stressed his belief that reporters had the right to question
prospective members of the Ethics Committee.
Number 310
REP. PHILLIPS asked what Dr. Wilson would do if he were on
the committee, deliberating a case, and was approached by a
reporter.
Number 320
DR. WILSON said that he would not comment at all on cases
before the committee.
Number 325
REP. GREEN inquired about Dr. Wilson's probable response to
an Ethics Committee investigation into behavior that
involved alcohol.
Number 348
DR. WILSON stated that he had seen his share of medical
miseries associated with alcohol. He himself was a social
drinker, he said. He added that there were proper and
improper uses of alcohol. Each individual was responsible
for his or her personal conduct, he noted. Being
intoxicated, in and of itself, did not excuse improper or
destructive behavior, he said. He added that he could
impartially judge the behavior, and not necessarily the
reason for that behavior.
Number 388
REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson if he had been contacted by
any members of the legislature since his initial comments on
the Jacko case.
Number 396
DR. WILSON indicated that Rep. Finkelstein had called him
about the scheduling of the confirmation hearings. During
that conversation, Rep. Finkelstein mentioned that there was
some concern about Dr. Wilson's comments to the Juneau
Empire. Dr. Wilson said that Rep. Finkelstein was the only
legislator to whom he had spoken about the Ethics Committee,
with the exception of Rep. Porter and his staff, who had
called him about the scheduling of the hearings.
Number 423
REP. FINKELSTEIN indicated that he had not made a point of
trying to speak with the nominees. Rather, a number of
legislators had expressed concern to him over statements
made to the press by the nominees. Rep. Finkelstein tried
to get the word out to the nominees that legislators were
concerned about that. He eventually got in touch with Niel
Thomas and asked him to pass the word to the other nominees
to exercise caution in dealing with the press. Later,
however, Dr. Wilson called Rep. Finkelstein back.
Number 440
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted his appreciation of Dr. Wilson's
candor and his appearance before the committee. He noted
that he himself often said more to the press than he should.
Number 458
DR. WILSON indicated that he had no additional statements to
make, other than to note his appreciation of the committee's
work.
Number 473
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that they would be signing off of the
teleconference. He asked the committee members how they
wished to proceed.
Number 486
REP. NORDLUND asked if they would be signing a form,
indicating "do confirm," "do not confirm," or "no
recommendation."
Number 490
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that was his intention.
Number 499
REP. JAMES expressed concern over the procedure the
committee intended to follow.
Number 524
REP. PORTER noted that confirming Supreme Court nominees was
a new process for the legislature.
Number 539
REP. NORDLUND stated that they were just making a
recommendation for floor action in their respective bodies,
and the floor would be the proper arena for explaining why a
nominee should be confirmed or rejected.
Number 545
REP. JAMES expressed her opinion that the confirmation
hearings ought to have a conclusion of some sort.
Number 549
REP. DAVIDSON said that sometimes there was not a clear,
articulable reason for deciding to vote against confirming
someone. The Judiciary Committee members were not the judge
and jury, he added, but simply facilitators. As such, they
should make themselves available to other members.
Number 569
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted his pleasure at the excellent
attendance by the committee members during the hearings, and
the quality of the questions asked during the process. He
also acknowledged the participation of other members,
including Rep. Finkelstein, and staff. He said that he felt
it was time for the two committees to meet separately and
sign the recommendation forms.
Number 589
REP. NORDLUND inquired about the availability of minutes
from the two days of hearings.
Number 598
SEN. TAYLOR indicated that the staff would try to have the
minutes available by Monday.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the joint meeting at approximately
1:00 p.m.
Number 599
CHAIRMAN PORTER immediately called the HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE meeting to order.
Number 607
REP. PHILLIPS said that it would be appropriate for the
committee to report the nominees out of committee with
individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the presence of a quorum.
Number 613
REP. DAVIDSON moved that the committee move out the nominees
for the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics with
individual recommendations.
Number 617
REP. JAMES said that she wanted to communicate with other
committee members prior to making a recommendation.
Number 631
REP. DAVIDSON stated that he was uncomfortable with that.
Either the nominees were qualified to serve on the
committee, or they were not, he said. He added that he did
not understand what purpose would be served by the committee
members communicating with one another about the nominees.
Number 650
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he was also uncomfortable with
Rep. James' suggestion. He indicated that filling out the
recommendation form did not bind the committee members to a
specific vote on the floor.
Number 664
REP. DAVIDSON commented that it was similar to being
elected, in that no one handed out explanations as to why a
candidate was voted into or out of office.
Number 666
Without objection, the nominees to the public member seats
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics were reported
from the committee with individual recommendations. Members
then signed the recommendation forms.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|