Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/24/1993 03:30 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 COMMITTEE
March 24, 1993
3:43 p.m.
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Suzanne Little
SENATE MEMBER ABSENT
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chairman
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
OTHERS PRESENT
Representative David Finkelstein
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics
WITNESS REGISTER
Jeff S. Anderson
1230 Friendly Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Public member to testify.
Joseph P. Donahue
P.O. Box 1736
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Public member to testify.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-31, SIDE A
Number 001
Chairman Robin Taylor called the Joint committees of the
House and Senate Judiciary Committee to order at 3:43 p.m.
to discuss the appointment and selection of two people to
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics: DR. JEFF S.
ANDERSON and JOSEPH P. DONAHUE.
Number 020
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced the Co-Chairman of the committee,
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, and the remainder of the Senate
and House Committee members.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained to DR. ANDERSON the committee had
his letter, application form, resume, voter registration,
and a background check, which showed nothing amiss. He
asked DR. ANDERSON to make an opening statement.
Before DR. ANDERSON made his statement, REPRESENTATIVE KOTT
announced he had a close economic relationship between
himself and DR. ANDERSON. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked to
excuse himself from participation in the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked REPRESENTATIVE KOTT for his disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained they had an employer-employee
relationship, since he had taught at Wayland Baptist
University for the past seven years, and would continue to
teach in the coming year.
SENATOR TAYLOR said there was a motion to abstain from
taking part in the committee process because of a close
economic relationship. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected and
thought he should participate.
There was a discussion on the legality of the motion, and
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES withdrew her objections.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT was not required to participate.
SENATOR TAYLOR renewed his invitation to DR. ANDERSON to
make an opening statement.
Number 088
DR. ANDERSON thanked the committee for the invitation, as
well as CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE for this opportunity to be
invited before the committee.
DR. ANDERSON began by explaining he came to Alaska in 1991
to become the director of the Wayland Baptist University's
Alaska extension, both in Anchorage and the Interior. He
explained his involvement in the post-secondary commission
meetings and his growing interest in ways he might be able
to serve the state in a volunteer capacity.
DR. ANDERSON explained his responsibilities at Wayland
University as primarily administrative, but teaches several
classes during the school year. He described his duties as
the administrator for Wayland in meeting the needs of the
students.
DR. ANDERSON said the advertisement in the newspaper piqued
his attention. He read a copy of the ethics law and decided
to apply.
SENATOR TAYLOR opened the meeting to question by committee
members.
Number 146
SENATOR LITTLE asked DR. ANDERSON if he had spoken to any
legislators before or after making his application.
DR. ANDERSON explained he had not heard anything for so
long, he didn't think he had been considered. He
acknowledged a brief conversation with REPRESENTATIVE KOTT
about teaching during the summer and fall semesters, and
whether he might be coming before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked DR. ANDERSON if the stories in
the press about the casualties had given him any heartburn,
and DR. ANDERSON indicated his desire and interest to serve
on the committee had not changed. He didn't think the
newspapers told the whole story, but he did share the jokes
from other people when they found he was coming to Juneau
for a hearing.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked DR. ANDERSON how he would react
to pressure brought to bear. DR. ANDERSON didn't think he
would have any problems, since he knew the ethics law quite
well, and he described his research on the law. He became
involved in the interpretation of the ethics code, as
apposed to a moral opinions on the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned further the interpretation
and application of the ethics statute. DR. ANDERSON opined
the distinction between personal morality and an ethics
code, and he commented on personal morality, the ethics
code, and abuse of power. He quoted some of the provisions
in the statute to confirm his opinions.
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER described the urgency on the
legislature to establish an ethics committee as related to
the allegations against two members of the legislature. He
asked DR. ANDERSON if he had formed any opinions about any
allegations against any members of the legislature.
DR. ANDERSON admitted to some biases from reading the
newspaper accounts, but thought it was more important to
know the whole story. He felt he has a reputation for being
fair and open minded, and he described some general
concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked DR. ANDERSON how he would mesh
the responsibilities and duties of the ethics committee with
his personal life. He said he had first discussed these
questions with CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE, his employer at Wayland
Baptist University, and his staff in Anchorage to let them
know there might be several weeks when he might be out of
the office.
Number 324
DR. ANDERSON explained he had two young children, ages 8 and
4, and he had discussed the possibilities with his wife. He
thought it would be difficult for anyone with a full-time
career, and he suggested the legislators were involved in
similar decisions. He claimed he had the full support of
his staff, his employer, and his family.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked about any interaction with the
press and how he might deal with an obstreperous press. DR.
ANDERSON said he had very few dealings with the press and
his responsibilities were low key. He did understand about
being pushed and pointed in a particular direction, but he
didn't think he would have a problem with it.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked MR. ANDERSON'S for his
personal philosophy as far as problems with the press, and
DR. ANDERSON said he would defer to the chair for liaison
duties.
Number 375
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned DR. ANDERSON closely on
his educational background and Wayland Baptist University,
and he explained some background information on the Wayland
Baptist University system, which are usually connected to
military bases except in Alaska. The committee members also
discussed Vanderbilt University, which DR. ANDERSON had
attended for his doctorate.
SENATOR LITTLE quizzed DR. ANDERSON on any conclusions from
the stories he had read to this point.
MR. ANDERSON, in reference to SENATOR JACKO, reviewed what
he thought might be violation of the ethics code, but he had
read about similar ethics complaints that had been dropped.
He thought he could successfully sift through the
complaints.
Number 441
There ensued some raillery about what one reads in
newspapers, and he elaborated on being a Baptists, and how
they are sometimes lumped together on philosophical and
religious issues. He spoke against lumping everyone
together in one pot - even legislators - and asked that he
be perceived as being open minded, also.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES described an ethics complaint filed
against the legislature for not filling the ethics committee
by now, and she indicated that some ethics complaints were
frivolous. She asked how he would deal with frivolous
complaints. DR. ANDERSON said he would take them seriously
and follow the ethics code. He reviewed some of the
previous complaints and how they were handled. She asked
him if that was how he would handle the complaints, and he
said he would.
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN described a hypothetical complaint and
asked DR. ANDERSON how he would make his decision. DR.
ANDERSON suggested there might be a time factor in making a
decision, but he was confident he could help the committee
reach a consensus agreement.
Number 510
SENATOR LITTLE asked DR. ANDERSON how he felt about a person
who drinks alcohol. DR. ANDERSON indicated he had no
problem with drinking, said it was a personal moral issue,
and was not related to the ethics code. SENATOR LITTLE
asked if he thought a person's actions could be excused
because of the influence of alcohol, and DR. ANDERSON said,
"Absolutely not."
SENATOR TAYLOR gave DR. ANDERSON a hypothetical case in
which the press has escalated the tension for some period of
time. After an exhaustive investigation of the person
charged with the ethics violation, the ethics committee
found the charges were totally groundless, and were
politically motivated. SENATOR TAYLOR asked DR. ANDERSON
what he would do in such a case, while being hampered by a
code of confidentiality.
DR. ANDERSON did not understand the case, so SENATOR TAYLOR
described it again, blaming the media for exposing the
confidential nature of the case. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what
the committee could do to make the person charged with the
complaint whole again - if they find the charges totally
groundless.
DR. ANDERSON reviewed a case he had found in his research
with similarity related issues along the lines of SENATOR
TAYLOR'S make-believe case, and he said the complaints were
dropped. DR. ANDERSON didn't think, in such a case, that it
could be undone, and he blamed the press for not being as
careful as it should be in assessing a person. He explained
he would be limited to the constraints of the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR referred to DR. ANDERSON'S distinction as to
what would be a violation of the code and what would be a
violation of morality to ask if he came to the committee
with an inherent set of standards of conduct for
legislators.
DR. ANDERSON explained he was an ordained minister as well
as an educator, and he would not put his personal morality
on anyone. DR. ANDERSON reiterated his belief it was the
major responsibility of the ethics committee to interpret
the legal code, and he spoke again about controlling his
biases.
Number 625
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for DR. ANDERSON'S understanding of a
citizen legislature with all kinds of occupations, and he
said it was important to know if DR. ANDERSON expected all
legislators to live up to a certain standard. DR. ANDERSON
claimed he had no expectations of others that would be
unique to legislators.
SENATOR LITTLE asked DR. ANDERSON how he would define his
particular congregation, and he rephrased his remark that
all Baptists were not alike. He portrayed himself as a
moderate Baptist and not part of the fundamentalist
category. He shared some of his personal and important
views about his belief in Jesus Christ.
Number 670
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked DR. ANDERSON why he would want to
subject himself to pressure, ridicule, and personal attack,
in being on the ethics committee. DR. ANDERSON said he had
thought about that, but he felt his background would help
him do a good job on the committee. He was willing to take
the risks.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wanted to address SENATOR
TAYLOR'S imaginary case of false accusations to clarify the
committee couldn't explain the details in the case of
insufficient evidence, but the confidentiality would not
apply to the person accused. He said the person accused
could described the details to the press to clear their
name, andit was only the members of the committee who were
under a ban of confidentiality.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed the accused person would have the
right to go to the press, but he thought if the person had
been beat up by the press, the press wouldn't listen to the
person's explanation afterwards. They discussed the
confidentiality of the committee, and SENATOR TAYLOR
continued to castigate the media.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND, in answer to a statement by SENATOR
TAYLOR about the different backgrounds of the legislators,
thought when they take the oath of office, legislators are
imbued with a lot more power than just plain citizens. He
reviewed the distribution of money, the laws that effect
lives, and the influence of the budget on the lives of the
rest of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND defined the ethics code as it
applies to the misuse of a legislator's position, and he was
troubled by a statement he heard from DR. ANDERSON that put
legislators on a par with ordinary citizens. DR. ANDERSON
clarified his statements as to the ethical code and his
distinction between ethics and morality. They discussed a
clear definition of ethical standards.
SENATOR LITTLE asked DR. ANDERSON if he personally held
legislators to a higher standard than the general public,
and DR. ANDERSON said he would like to hold them to a
certain standard of behavior, just as he would a minister.
DR. ANDERSON thought such standards were owed by the
legislators to the citizens.
SENATOR LITTLE asked DR. ANDERSON how he would define sexual
harassment.
Number 775
DR. ANDERSON explained his university had a clearly defined
sexual harassment policy, and he gave examples of behavior
that was not appropriate, either stated or implied.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES followed in the same line to ask
whether it had to be harassment to the opposite sex, and DR.
ANDERSON explained grey areas such as intent and friendship
with the opposite sex.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if sexual harassment could be
identified by the person being harassed, more so than the
person doing the harassing.
Number 800
DR. ANDERSON thought it would be and that persons should be
able to answer the accusations, but a person felling
harassed should be able to use proper channels to object.
After some discussion, REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to
SENATOR LITTLE'S question whether the use of alcohol might
change the intent of the perpetrator, and DR. ANDERSON
thought the perpetrator should still be held accountable.
They continued to discuss intent v. action and agreed it was
tough to answer.
Number 830
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed his interest in the life experience
of a person rather than education or offices held, and he
asked DR. ANDERSON about his background as to family,
compassion, and frailties.
Number 836
DR. ANDERSON described his family, a working wife, two young
children, and being foster parents in terms of compassion.
He described his call to the ministry and his approach to
dealing with people. He said he had never sat on a
committee exactly like the ethics committee before, but he
related he was familiar with the variety of committee work.
DR. ANDERSON declared he was a Cheechako and discussed the
importance of his contribution to the committee.
TAPE 93-31, SIDE B
Number 001
DR. ANDERSON explained the longer they were in Alaska, the
more they liked it.
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed appreciation to DR. ANDERSON for
his testimony and introduced the next prospective member,
JOSEPH DONAHUE.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained to MR. DONAHUE the committee also
had his letter, application form, resume, a voter
registration showing an undeclared affiliation, and a
background check, which revealed nothing. He invited MR.
DONAHUE to make his statement before opening the committee
to questions.
MR. DONAHUE said he could shorten the interview by seconding
all of DR. ANDERSON'S answers. He elicited the information
that he had two grown children, and a wife, who works for
the legislature, but he didn't see that as a problem.
Number 092
He reviewed his college degree in agricultural engineering,
his 25 years with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, his arrival
in Alaska in 1972, worked in Fairbanks and Juneau, his
return to Washington D.C. for four and half years as the
Alaska Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, and his arrival
back in Alaska.
MR. DONAHUE considered himself as having a good standard of
ethics, and he thought all public officials should have the
public trust that comes with serving as a public servant.
He reviewed his service on the school board and on a real
estate appraisal board, and he encouraged ethical practices
in public service.
MR. DONAHUE said he had seen the ethics code, and he thought
making the judgement calls would be extremely difficult, but
he described the judgement calls that he has made.
SENATOR TAYLOR opened the committee to questions by the
members.
SENATOR LITTLE said she had been talking to people in her
area, just twelve miles from MR. DONAHUE, who think very
highly of him. She asked how he would handle his wife's
employment for a legislator.
MR. DONAHUE said he would stay out of that part of any
discussion and would not participate if it involved her
office.
Number 177
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS thanked MR. DONAHUE for submitting
his name for the committee and asked if, when he worked for
the federal government, he operated under an ethics code.
MR. DONAHUE explained the government has extensive rules on
conflict of interest and a code of ethics, which continued
after an employee leaves the federal government. He
indicated it was stronger than the ethics code for
legislators and explained how he worked with the ethics
code in the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked about his personal life in
relation to his business operations.
MR. DONAHUE explained he was building a house to be
completed in June. In addition he has a consulting business
associated with non-profit native organizations dealing with
government contracting, writing grants, conducting grant
seminars and writing handbooks, but he indicated he had
control over his work load as a private business person. He
thought he would be able to adjust his schedule to have time
to work on the ethics committee, since he is used to making
time for committee meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER described stories in the newspapers
involving accusations against members of the legislature
that have been filed and awaiting determination by the
ethics committee. He asked MR. DONAHUE if he had been
exposed to them and formed any opinions.
Number 249
MR. DONAHUE said it was hard to miss the newspaper accounts,
but he said he had been careful not to form an opinion,
because he knew all of the facts were not yet available.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked MR. DONAHUE if he would be
comfortable applying the dictates of the ethics statute,
rather then what might be his own personal beliefs, to
render judgement.
MR. DONAHUE said he was used to applying statutes, mostly on
the federal level, with which he didn't always agree, but he
would adhere to the ethics statute.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked MR. DONAHUE if he had any
problems dealing with the press during the time of he was
working with such highly visible issues as ANCSA, ANILCA,
and subsistence. She wanted to know his experience in
dealing with the press.
Number 299
MR. DONAHUE described his experiences that led him to be
more careful in his dealings with the press, but had no
problem dealing with the press when he was on the school
board. He thought there should be a single spokesman from a
group, but he supported the media in their need to have
information.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked him why he had no military
record. MR. DONAHUE explained he was going to school during
the Vietnam War, and was a member of the Air Force ROTC.
When he was ready to go to war, a medical problem was
discovered, and he wasn't allowed to serve.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked MR. DONAHUE about his consulting
service.
Number 374
MR. DONAHUE explained he had been conducting seminars on
federal government contracting under an act which allows
Indian groups to take over the service delivery functions of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Health Service. He
elaborated on his seminars and his grant writing experience.
In addition, he is writing handbooks and conducting training
seminars.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested, with such a busy schedule,
he must have due dates that were important, and asked if it
would place any restrictions on his schedule in relation to
the ethics committee. MR. DONAHUE described how he could
juggle his schedule to make time for the ethics committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked MR. DONAHUE why he wanted to
serve on the ethics committee. MR. DONAHUE indicated he
believed in the concept of public service and the public
trust. They discussed his elected position on the school
board as exercising objectivity, which he would use to make
the ethics statute work. MR. DONAHUE thought the present
ethics statute was better than the previous one, and they
discussed whether it was enforceable.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked about his opinion of the
press, and MR. DONAHUE thought the press was a necessary
evil. He described the necessity to have a source of
information available, but he questioned the validity of
some of the information.
Number 483
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked for an example of MR.
DONAHUE'S characterization of the press as a "necessary
evil." MR. DONAHUE used the news stories that were written
about the complaints which were filed against a legislator
and how the media feels duty bound to bring it to the
public. He said the evil was because there was no
development of data gathered from all sides, and the public
doesn't know how much of the true facts were gathered.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked if he knew of any elements of
unfairness in the recent ethics claims against the two
legislators mentioned in the press. MR. DONAHUE thought
there was unfairness in both the accused and the accuser
having parts of the story driving the press.
Number 530
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON reviewed MR. DONAHUE'S experience in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and asked his opinion as to how
the federal government dealt with aboriginal Americans.
Number 537
MR. DONAHUE indicated it would be difficult to describe in
such a short time frame, but characterized it as being
fairer than other governments in other similar situation.
he thought he had used sensitivity, without bias, in his
dealings with aboriginal Americans. They both agreed it was
a difficult question.
Number 570
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked MR. DONAHUE for his opinion of
legislators, and MR. DONAHUE said he could use all of the
adjectives in the world - both good and bad. REPRESENTATIVE
DAVIDSON asked for specific labels, and MR. DONAHUE thought
generally that legislators were hard-working and dedicated,
but he gave some examples of the exception.
In answer to a question, MR. DONAHUE characterized himself
as a moderate, a fiscal conservative, and more liberal in
the principal of law. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON thanked him
for his candid answers.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked MR. DONAHUE for his opinion on the
difference between unethical conduct, immoral conduct, and
conduct that violates the law. MR. DONAHUE opined they were
not all the same. He explained moral law is between a
person and his God, ethics is an individuals sense of right
and wrong, except when it is governed by a statute, then it
is the law.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND disclosed that HELEN DONAHUE was his
bowling partner. He then asked about the former SENATOR
PAUL FISCHER, for whom MRS. DONAHUE worked. He asked for
MR. DONAHUE'S opinion about the accusations of ethical
problems against SENATOR FISCHER.
Number 653
MR. DONAHUE thought SENATOR FISCHER, as well as the present
legislators charged with ethics violations, deserved to have
all of the facts brought forward before a judgement is made.
He was not in Kenai at the time some of the accusations were
made, so he was unable to form an opinion.
SENATOR TAYLOR posed a hypothetical case, in reference to
the question from REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, of a major violation
of the law while saving a person's life, and he asked MR.
DONAHUE if, in his opinion, he had violated the ethics
statute.
MR. DONAHUE thought he would be accountable for his
violations of the law, but he had done the right thing in
that instances. SENATOR TAYLOR expressed pleasure at MR.
DONAHUE'S answer and said it pointed out the choices people
have to make under certain circumstances where violations of
law may occur, yet, at the time it was ethical conduct.
SENATOR TAYLOR reiterated a question he had asked DR.
ANDERSON as to whether a citizen legislature should be held
to a standard higher than ordinary citizen.
Number 703
MR. DONAHUE said they were held to a higher standard by the
ethics law which will be implemented by the Ethics
Committee. He thought public servants should be held to a
higher standard of ethics, and he used his tenure on the
school board to explain what he meant.
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed his concern at the confusion
between standards of ethical considerations and conduct that
might be criminal conduct. They discussed his previous
hypothetical example of speeding to save a life as ethical.
SENATOR TAYLOR posed a hypothetical situation in which both
he and MR. DONAHUE had left a school board meeting and
proceeded to get drunk, drove home, and got caught. SENATOR
TAYLOR said that would have been a criminal act. MR.
DONAHUE agreed it would, but he also thought it might be an
unethical act because the school board sets a standard for
the conduct of children. There ensued a discussion between
them about the ethical implications of the situation, and
how each might judge the ethics of the conduct.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. DONAHUE to expand on a phrase from
his letter, "to protect the public's interest in preventing
misuse of elected and appointed positions for personal
gain." MR. DONAHUE said it was most difficult for a
legislator to make decisions that might end up affecting the
legislator in a financial way, and he outlined the
possibilities for abuse.
Number 775
SENATOR TAYLOR said it was also one of the easiest to
identify as a violation, and MR. DONAHUE thought it was,
unless there were levels in between.
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked MR. DONAHUE would be the second
person on the ethics committee with experience on a school
board and asked if the experience was of benefit to him.
MR. DONAHUE agreed the experiences were helpful, but doubted
being on the ethics committee would be fun.
SENATOR TAYLOR concluded the questioning by asking MR.
DONAHUE if there was anything in his background important
for the Judiciary Committees to know. MR. DONAHUE mentioned
his two sons, whom he thought were important guys, and had
been an important part of his life experience. He suggested
he had learned from all the different jobs he had held and
the people he knew. He also thought the Indian adage about
respecting the elders and the wisdom of age was also
important in his life.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. DONAHUE for his candid and honest
answers and closed the meeting.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|