03/23/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 23, 2007
1:16 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Berta Gardner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 109 (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/30/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/07 (H) Moved CSHB 109(STA) Out of Committee
03/03/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1NR 3AM
03/07/07 (H) DP: ROSES, DOLL, LYNN
03/07/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN
03/07/07 (H) AM: JOHNSON, COGHILL, GRUENBERG
03/19/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/19/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/21/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DAN WAYNE, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter of HB 109 and
responded to questions.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 109.
BROOKE MILES, Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 109.
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 109.
DAVID G. SHAFTEL, Attorney at Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 109, provided an
overview of proposed Amendment 28 and responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:16:47 PM. Present at the call to order
were Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, Holmes,
Gruenberg, and Ramras. Representative Gardner was also in
attendance.
HB 109 - DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
1:17:00 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would
HOUSE BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to the requirement for
candidates, groups, legislators, public officials, and other
persons to submit reports electronically to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; relating to disclosures by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
legislative directors, public officials, and certain candidates
for public office concerning services performed for compensation
and concerning certain income, gifts, and other financial
matters; requiring legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public
officials, and municipal officers to make certain financial
disclosures when they leave office; relating to insignificant
ownership interest in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to
certain restrictions on employment after leaving state service
for purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 109(STA), as amended, along with a pending motion regarding
whether to adopt Amendment 27.]
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that the legislature has honored the
people's will and has been respectful of legislative members and
their vocational pursuits. He opined that there has been a
considerable and appropriate amount of deference given to the
concerns of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and the
charge of the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 109. He said that Amendment 27
would be set aside at present; Amendment 27 read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 4 -5:
Delete "restricting representation of others by
legislators and legislative employees;"
Page 13, lines 12 - 25:
Delete all material and insert:
Sec. 24.60.100. Representation. A
legislator or legislative employee who takes action
for compensation, other than compensation by the State
of Alaska, on behalf of another, including but not
limited to telephone calls and meetings and
appearances at proceedings or meetings, before an
agency, board, or commission of the municipal or
executive branch shall disclose to the committee the
name of the person on whose behalf the action is
taken, the subject matter of the action taken, and the
body before which the action is taken. The disclosure
shall be made within 48 hours of the commencement of
the action taken. A legislator or legislative
employee may not take action for compensation, other
than compensation by the State of Alaska, on behalf of
another, including but not limited to telephone calls
and meetings and appearances at proceedings or
meetings, before an agency, committee, or other entity
of the legislative branch.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 28, labeled 25-GH1059\0.45,
Wayne, 3/23/07, which read:
Page 23, line 24:
Delete "businesses,"
Delete "and"
Page 23, line 25, following "mortgages":
Insert ", and interests in closely held
businesses"
Page 23, line 27, following "bank":
Insert ", trust company,"
Page 23, line 29, following "principles":
Insert "and, without exception under any
circumstances, notwithstanding this section, the
prudent investment rule set out in AS 13.36.230 -
13.36.290"
Page 24, lines 6 - 13:
Delete all material and insert.
"(5) during the term of the trust, a trustor or
other beneficiary of the trust may not communicate with the
trustee except in writing and only regarding (A) a request
for a distribution in cash or another unspecified asset of
the trust, (B) the general financial requirements regarding
distributions from the trust as a whole, (C) direction to
the trustee that, because a law, executive order, or
regulation prohibits the trustor from holding an asset, the
asset may not be held by the trust, (D) direction to the
trustee to sell all of an asset initially placed in the
trust because the trustor has determined the sale is
necessary to avoid a conflict of interest, the appearance
of impropriety, or an ethical violation; quarterly the
trustee may provide to the trustor a written report of the
aggregate market value of the trust's assets and property
but may not disclose to the trustor or other beneficiary of
the trust, or any other interested party, any information
about the identity and nature of any of the assets in the
trust, and the trustee shall be required to report any
known breach of this confidentiality [OR THE TERMINATION OF
THE TRUST TO THE OFFICE WHERE THE TRUSTOR IS REQUIRED TO
FILE STATEMENTS UNDER THIS CHAPTER]; [AND]
(6) the trust shall terminate only upon order of
the commission, the death or incompetence of the trustor,
the termination of the trustor's status as a public
official, or upon revocation, if approved in advance by the
commission, and the trustee shall be required to promptly
report any termination of the trust to the commission;"
Page 24, lines 14 - 22:
Delete all material and insert.
(7) the trustee shall prepare the income
tax return of the trust and may participate in the
audit of the trust's returns with authority to
compromise a tax liability of the trust, but may not
disclose the return or information related to the
return, except promptly after the close of each
taxable year of the trust the trustee shall provide
the trustor with an annual report summarizing
information concerning the trust, including net income
or loss, expenses, capital gains, and capital losses
of the trust, as necessary to enable the trustor to
prepare and file tax returns required by law; however,
the summary may not directly or indirectly identify a
security or other property that is an asset or former
asset of the trust;"
Page 24, line 26, following "(9)":
Insert "for the duration of the trust, a trustor
or other beneficiary may not pledge, mortgage, or
otherwise encumber a person's interests in an asset
that is part of the trust,"
Page 25, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 33. AS 39.50.040 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) A quarterly report of aggregate market value
under this section may include, in addition to the
aggregate market value of the trust's assets and
property, the percentage of that aggregate market
value attributable to the trustor and each
beneficiary, by name. Within 30 days after receipt
from the trustee of the quarterly report of aggregate
market value, the trustor may, notwithstanding the
limitations on a communication's subject under (b) of
this section, provide a written instruction to the
trustee that, with respect to the trust as a whole and
not a particular asset or property of the trust, the
trustor prefers that the trustee adopt an investment
approach that is conservative, moderate, or
aggressive.
(d) A person initiating a written communication
under this section shall cause a copy of the
communication to be filed with the commission within
five days after the date of the communication.
(e) The trustee shall maintain and make
available for inspection by the commission at the
commission's request the trust's tax returns, books of
account, and other records and, on or before May 15 of
each year, shall file with the commission a notarized
document certifying compliance with this section for
the preceding calendar year.
(f) Except as permitted by this section, the
trustee shall make no accounting to the trustor until
the date the trust terminates, and, following the
termination, the trustor shall promptly make a full
accounting to the trustor and turn over to the trustor
all assets remaining in the trust at termination.
(g) The trustee may not at any time be held
liable for an act or omission of the trustee or for
any loss or depreciation of the value of an asset or
property of the trust unless the trustee fails to
exercise good faith, due diligence, and the ordinary
skill, care, and judgment a prudent fiduciary would
exercise."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 34"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 28.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:24:29 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
in response to a question, indicated that if the committee would
momentarily set aside Amendment 28, it would to give him the
opportunity to review it and thus provide the committee with an
explanation.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 29, labeled 25-GH1059\0.20,
Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 15, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 20. AS 24.60.130(o) is amended to read:
(o) In this section,
(1) "majority organizational caucus" means
a group of legislators who have organized and elected
a majority leader and constitute more than 50 percent
of the total membership of the house or senate, as
appropriate;
(2) "minority organizational caucus" means
a group of legislators who have organized and elected
a minority leader and constitute at least 25 percent
of the total membership of the house or senate, as
appropriate."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, line 23, following "majority":
Insert "organizational"
Page 15, line 26, following "majority":
Insert "organizational"
Page 15, line 27, following "minority":
Insert "organizational"
Page 15, line 30, following "majority":
Insert "organizational"
Page 16, line 1, following "minority":
Insert "organizational"
Page 16, line 2, following "minority":
Insert "organizational"
Page 16, lines 3 - 5:
Delete "In this paragraph, "minority caucus" has
the meaning given to the term "minority organizational
caucus" in (o) of this section."
Page 27, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 41. AS 24.60.037(d) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 9:
Delete "Section 28"
Insert "Section 29"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 34"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 44 and 45"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 29.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:26:39 PM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, after recapping
that Amendment 8 had added the word "organizational" before the
word "caucus" in Section 20, noted that there was already a
definition of "minority organizational caucus" in the
legislative ethics statute, and indicated that attorneys
reviewing the bill suggested the addition of a definition of
"majority organizational caucus".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there was a need to amend
the definition of "minority organizational caucus" to state it
is either less than 50 percent of membership, or not the
majority organizational caucus.
MS ANDERSON suggested that since the definition of "minority
organizational caucus" is already contained in the Uniform
Rules, perhaps it should not be changed in HB 109.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no further objections,
announced that Amendment 29 was adopted.
1:29:16 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 30, labeled 25-GH1059\0.40,
Luckhaupt/Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 2, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 15.13.040(m), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, is amended to read:
(m) Information required under this chapter
shall be submitted to the commission electronically,
except that the following information may be submitted
in clear and legible black typeface or hand-printed in
dark ink on paper in a format approved by the
commission or on forms provided by the commission:
(1) information submitted by a candidate
for municipal office for a municipality with a
population of less than 15,000; in this paragraph,
"municipal office" means the office of an elected
borough or city
(A) mayor; or
(B) [PLANNING COMMISSIONER;
(C) UTILITY BOARD MEMBER; OR
(D)] assembly, council, or school board
member;
(2) any information if the commission
determines that circumstances warrant an exception to
the electronic submission requirement [;
(3) INFORMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE MAY 1,
2009, BY A CANDIDATE FOR THE LEGISLATURE]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 25, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 35. AS 39.50.050(a), as amended by sec. 34
of this Act, is amended to read:
(a) The Alaska Public Offices Commission created
under AS 15.13.020(a) shall administer the provisions of
this chapter. The commission shall prepare and keep
available for distribution standardized forms on which the
reports required by this chapter shall be filed. The
commission shall print the forms provided under this
section so that the front and back of each page have the
same orientation when the page is rotated on the vertical
axis of the page. The commission shall require that the
information required under this chapter [, UNLESS IT IS
INFORMATION REQUIRED OF A MUNICIPAL OFFICER,] be submitted
electronically but may, when circumstances warrant an
exception, accept any information required under this
chapter that is typed in clear and legible black typeface
or hand-printed in dark ink on paper in a format approved
by the commission or on forms provided by the commission
and that is filed with the commission. A municipal officer
for a municipality with a population of less than 15,000
shall submit information required under this chapter either
electronically or typed or hand-printed in the manner
described in this subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 28, lines 9 - 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 44. Sections 3, 29, and 35 of this Act take
effect January 1, 2009."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "sec. 44"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 30.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that previously all
municipalities had been exempted from reporting requirements.
Amendment 30 would require that municipalities with populations
over 15,000 submit reports on the same schedule as legislative
members. Amendment 30 is also intended to simplify electronic
reporting by setting the same commencement date for everyone.
He noted that candidates for governor and lieutenant governor,
and state wide ballot propositions would have to submit
electronic reports immediately if "they are doing anything". He
reminded the committee that financial disclosure would be due
starting in April 2009, and campaign disclosures in June 2009.
He indicated that the portion of Amendment 30 that proposes to
change page 28, lines 9-10, would establish an effective date of
January 1, 2009, for Sections 3, 29, and 35 of the bill.
1:33:09 PM
BROOKE MILES, Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
Department of Administration (DOA), concurred with that
summation of Amendment 30. In response to a question, she
explained that the APOC has a neutral position on Amendment 30,
but stated that it is possible that electronic filing by larger
municipalities could be beneficial to the APOC's work. She went
on to say that imposition of a simplified date would work, and
characterized it as a legislative policy choice.
1:34:25 PM
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), in response to a question, stated that the administration
supports Amendment 30, and that it brings the bill closer to the
administration's initial proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that the intent is to give persons
covered by the bill some time to file in order to make sure that
the electronic system would be able to handle any changes to the
reporting system.
MS. MILES explained that 50 percent of legislative members and
17 percent of statewide and municipal candidates reported
electronically. She said that 68 percent of political groups
filed electronically, and noted that the January 1, 2009, date
will allow phase in of the new system since there will be
municipal and state elections before that time that will smooth
out "any rough spots" in the electronic filing system. She
concurred with the statement that the date change in Amendment
30 would move the date for legislative disclosures to January 1,
2009, noting that the current date for disclosure is March 15.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether Amendment 30 expedites the
schedule.
MR. JONES clarified that the net effect of Amendment 30 would be
to include the requirement that candidates running for office in
municipalities of over 15,000 people file their reports
electronically. He opined that in reality the date changes have
very little effect because legislative disclosures would
currently be due March 15th, so moving the effective date of
electronic filing from July 1, 2008, to January 1, 2009, will
only affect persons appointed to legislative office between July
1, 2008, and January 1, 2009.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 30 was adopted.
MS. ANDERSON turned attention to Section 8 of CSHB 109(STA) -
specifically to proposed AS 24.60.030(a)(2)(K) - and noted that
it would prohibit the use of state funds to send out a
legislative newsletter in the 30 days preceding a state
election; however, existing AS 24.60.030(c) prohibits the use of
state funds within 90 days of an election. Because of this
discrepancy, she opined that one of the time periods needs to be
amended. She relayed that the 30-day time period was suggested
because there have been past occurrences wherein legislators
have sent out newsletters in the 30 days preceding an election.
Her office received calls from constituents concerned about the
campaign-related content of some of these newsletters. As a
result, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics recommended
that newsletters not be sent out within 30 days before an
election. Additionally, the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics had wanted to restrict a legislator's use of Office
Allowance Account Funds and Public Office Expense Term (POET)
account funds during that time, but she explained that these
restrictions may not be allowed because those funds are not
state funds - rather, they are funds belonging to the individual
legislator.
MS. ANDERSON referred to a committee handout which illustrates
how the 30- and 90-day provisions would work based on the time
frame from the 2006 campaign season. She said that using 2006
as an example, the 30 day period does not give a legislator much
time between the end of the legislative session and the last day
to use state funds to print a legislative newsletter. Based on
this, her recommendation, she relayed, is to delete [the change
currently proposed via Section 8 of the bill], and amend the
current 90-day period to 60 days, which she surmised would give
legislators adequate time to prepare their legislative
newsletters in time for printing by the Legislative Affairs
Agency print shop, and would resolve an issue she receives many
comments on.
1:44:43 PM
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a query, clarified that she is
suggesting that the change proposed on page 7 [line 15-18] be
deleted and that the 90-day period in AS 24.60.030(c) be amended
to 60 days. She mentioned that she would make the
recommendation to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
that the change to 60 days would allow adequate time for
newsletter preparation.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated he agreed with the 60-day period
and sought clarification regarding whether he would be
restricted from sending out a newsletter more than 60 days from
the general election.
MS. ANDERSON indicated that he would be restricted from doing
so.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the language includes the
Office Allowance Account Funds and POET accounts.
MS. ANDERSON replied that that decision would be up to the
committee, but reiterated that there seems to be a
constitutional prohibition against restricting the use of those
accounts.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to comments, expressed
agreement with a proposal to delete the [change proposed via
Section 8 of the bill] and at the same time amend AS
24.60.030(c) to reflect a 60-day time period.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [made a motion to adopt] Conceptual
Amendment 31, to delete the words, "unless the communication is
(i) sent during the 30-day period immediately proceeding a state
election; or (ii) from page 7, lines 15-18, reinsert the word,
"except", and insert a new section that would alter AS
24.60.030(c)(1)(A) by changing "90 days" to "60 days". There
being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 31 was adopted.
MS. ANDERSON suggested that via Conceptual Amendment 31, AS
24.60.030(c)(1)(A) also ought to have the words, "general
election" added to the list of which elections it applies to.
1:54:01 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS returned the committee's attention to Amendment 28
[text provided previously].
DAVID G. SHAFTEL, Attorney at Law, explained that the first
change proposed by Amendment 28 deletes the broad term
"businesses" and instead makes use of the term, "interests in
closely held businesses", stating that the latter would be
inappropriate for a blind trust. The [third] change proposed by
Amendment 28 specifically references statutes governing the
prudent investor rule as adopted by Alaska.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. SHAFTEL explained that the second change proposed by
Amendment 28 would add the term "trust company" after "bank", as
a corporate fiduciary that could serve as a trustee. He
indicated that this change may increase the number of
institutions that are willing to serve as trustees. He noted
that some larger financial institutions may be reluctant to
serve as trustees if they feel it increases their risk exposure.
MR. SHAFTEL said that the forth change proposed by Amendment 28
clarifies the timing and substance of communications between the
trustee and the trustor. He explained that one type of approved
communication is when a beneficiary may have a need for funds.
Under the federal form, directions can be given to a trustee
that the trust may not hold a certain type of asset if
prohibited by regulation, order, or statute. Further provisions
are being added allowing the trustor to give the trustee
direction to sell all of an asset held in a trust due to the
determination by the trustor that retaining the assets would be,
or appear to be, a conflict of interest.
MR. SHAFTEL went on to explain that language will be added to
clarify that a trustee may provide a trustor a report disclosing
the aggregate value of the trust assets. With regard to
terminating a blind trust, he explained that federal law allows
a trustor to revoke a trust if so approved in advance by the
regulatory commission. He reminded the committee that blind
trusts are voluntary, but the appropriate regulatory agency
should be notified of termination so that it knows the assets no
longer have the protection of the blind trust.
MR. SHAFTEL explained that the provisions of Amendment 28
proposing to alter page 24, lines 14-22, of the bill contain tax
provisions taken from the federal form and replace the tax
provisions currently in the bill. He said that these changes
make it clear that the trustee is responsible for preparing and
filing trust tax returns. However, the trustee is also required
to provide the trustor with information necessary to file
his/her own individual tax return without specifically knowing
the makeup of the trust's assets.
MR. SHAFTEL explained that the change proposed by Amendment 28
to add a new Section 33 - proposed AS 39.50.040(c)-(g) - covers
submission of quarterly reports, and allows the trustor to
provide some written instructions that state the trustor's
preferred investment approach. He expressed his concern with
the language "conservative, moderate, or aggressive", and noted
that although these are common investment terms, it may be
appropriate to include some other more general language that
would allow a trustor to set forth a risk-tolerance preference.
[Proposed subsection (d)] requires that a copy of the
communication written under these provisions must be filed with
the APOC within five days of the date of the communication.
MR. SHAFTEL noted that [proposed subsection (e)] requires
trustees to provide an annual certificate of compliance with the
APOC as a method by which to reinforce to the trustee its
responsibilities of administering a blind trust. Referring to
[proposed subsection (f)] he said that it requires the trustee
to make a full accounting at the time of trust termination and
at that point the trustor is entitled to know and question the
investment decisions. He relayed that the intent of [proposed
subsection (g)] is to make it clear that while the trustee is
responsible for proper investment performance, these provisions
do not create any greater burden on the trustee. He indicated
the need for financial institutions to be willing to take on the
fiduciary responsibilities created by blind trusts.
2:08:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [referring to the language currently in
Section 32 of the bill - proposed AS 39.50.040(b)(2) - and as
that language would be changed via Amendment 28] observed that
the trustee could only be an institution. He asked whether
there are also entities other than banks, trust companies, and
institutional fiduciaries that could manage blind trusts.
MR. SHAFTEL said that based on his experience in Alaska, the
companies that will act as corporate fiduciaries are either
banks, trust companies separate from banks, or specially set up
trust companies such as those set up under Alaska USA Federal
Credit Union or Wells Fargo, for example. In response to a
question, he indicated that he didn't know what types of
institutions were available outside of Alaska that could
administer trusts.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether all trust companies are
bonded.
MR. SHAFTEL answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed the possibility that although
blind trust provisions are currently being considered only for
executive branch public officials, he could see that these
provisions could be useful for municipal officials, legislators,
and judges.
MR. WAYNE explained that AS 39.52.410 contains the authority to
order a public officer under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics
Act to put assets in a blind trust.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what would happen if a trustee
goes out of business.
MR. SHAFTEL explained that the trust itself would not terminate
if the trustee institution went out of business; instead, the
trust would have to be transferred to another trustee. He told
the committee that normally provisions for successor trustees
are contained in the trust document. He responded to a question
by stating that his preference is to not include such a
provision in statute.
2:14:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the change proposed by
Amendment 28 that would insert a new proposed AS
39.50.040(b)(7), questioned whether a blind trust may contain
joint assets, as long as the trustor's spouse is willing to
abide by the terms of the trust.
MR. SHAFTEL replied that if the assets are community property,
or are otherwise marital assets, consent of the trustor's spouse
would be needed in order to place the assets in the trust. This
would need to be worked out by the [trustee] and clients during
the formation of the trust. With regard to how this relates to
blind trusts, he stated that he has not seen this addressed in
the federal statutes. However, he opined, it "certainly
wouldn't hurt" to include [a provision addressing this issue].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Shaftel to look into this
further, and come up with language to be inserted at a later
time.
MR. JONES referred to the language in proposed AS 39.50.040(c)
of Amendment 28 that says, "each beneficiary" of a trust, and
offered his understanding that this "contemplates the
possibility that a trust could have more than one beneficiary."
He stated that the administration believes that blind trusts can
be an effective tool for public officials to use in order to
avoid conflicts of interest, though currently no public
officials are taking advantage of the existing blind trust
provisions, perhaps because many public officials have simply
chosen to divest any potential conflicting investments.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM offered her hope that the proposed blind
trust provisions would provide an additional option for public
officials.
MR. JONES, in response to a question, stated his belief that the
proposed blind trust provisions will give public officials
better direction.
2:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL - referring to proposed AS 39.50.040(c)
of Amendment 28, specifically the words, "[that is]
conservative, moderate, or aggressive" - inquired as to whether
it would be better to change this phrase to, "according to a
prudent investor rule."
MR. SHAFTEL said:
The prudent investor rule ... provides a number of
guidelines for the trustee, ... [and] an argument
could be made that any limitations added by the
settlor really infringe on that statute and the
guidelines that are provided by that statute to the
trustee. So, although we know that typically, in the
investment world, these kinds of risk-tolerance
preferences are almost always explored with the
investor by a financial advisor - and that's why, to
me, and I think to Representative Gruenberg, it made
sense to allow for that kind of expression on the part
of the person who is contributing his or her assets to
the trust - I don't think that just reference to the
"prudent investor rule" would allow for this. ... If
the committee concludes that this kind of preference
should be allowed, then Mr. Wayne and I were
discussing that perhaps it ought to be more in terms
of expressing a preference in terms of risk tolerance,
because that really seems to be what this subject is
aimed at. ...
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the words, "[that is]
conservative, moderate, or aggressive" causes tension with
proposed AS 39.50.040(g) of Amendment 28.
MR. SHAFTEL replied that the standard included in proposed AS
39.50.040(g) applies more to the competency of the investment
techniques used by the fiduciary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the concern with the
aforementioned language could be solved by simply placing a
period after the words, "investment approach".
MR. SHAFTEL suggested instead adding the words, "may adopt a
general investment approach".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to proposed AS 39.50.040(e)
of Amendment 28, commented that the commission might develop a
form for the "notarized document" requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES opined that it is important to leave the
words, "[that is] conservative, moderate, or aggressive" in
Amendment 28. She pointed out that it would be banks and
financial institutions that would be serving as trustees, and
they will always default to the most conservative investment
strategy possible unless there is something in writing that
permits a more moderate approach. She opined that a person
ought to have the ability to put such a preference in writing.
2:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to amend Amendment 28 such
that in proposed AS 39.50.040(f), the words, "the trustor shall"
would be changed to, "the trustee shall".
MR. WAYNE agreed that the language should read "trustee".
[The amendment to Amendment 28 was treated as adopted.]
MS. MILES, in response to a question, said that she does not
anticipate any regulatory issues arising from the adoption of
Amendment 28, as amended, and characterized the proposed changes
as a "substantial improvement" over current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to proposed AS 39.50.040(d)
of Amendment 28, asked if five days is long enough for a person
to file his/her written communication with the APOC.
MS. MILES replied that similar disclosure requirements are
already in place, and that she does not foresee it being a
problem for the APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to proposed AS 39.50.040(e),
reiterated his comment regarding a form for the notarized-
document requirement, and asked whether a statutory change would
be required.
MS. MILES replied that the APOC already has authority to
promulgate forms for this chapter.
CHAIR RAMRAS made motion to adopt Amendment 28, as amended.
There being no objection, Amendment 28, as amended, was adopted.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.
2:29:23 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 32, labeled 25-GH1059\O.39,
Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 26, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 36. AS 39.52 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 39.52.154. State contractor disclosure. A
person seeking to enter into a contract with an
agency, public corporation, or quasi-public
corporation to provide supplies, services,
professional services, or public construction, or who
enters into a contract with an agency, public
corporation, or quasi-public corporation for one or
more of these purposes, shall disclose to the
representative of the agency, public corporation, or
quasi-public corporation that is responsible for
administration of the contract the relationship
between the person and an association, partnership,
business, company, corporation, or limited liability
company if the person making the disclosure serves as
a consultant or advisor to, is a member or
representative of, or has a financial interest of
greater than $5,000 in the association, partnership,
business, company, corporation, or limited liability
corporation."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 32.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
MR. JONES shared his understanding that Amendment 32 is designed
to require a person who is, or wishes to be, a contractor with
the state to disclose all affiliations in which he/she has a
financial interest greater than $5,000. This would apply to
corporations, limited liability companies, and others.
Referring to the last words in proposed AS 39.52.154 of
Amendment 32 - "limited liability corporation" - he suggested
that they be changed to read, "limited liability company." Such
a change would conform the language to the remainder of
Amendment 32. He explained that Amendment 32 adds a new
provision to the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, but opined
that it would fit better in Title 36, Chapter 30, which is the
public contracting statute, because ultimately the goal is to
disqualify individuals unless the aforementioned affiliations
are revealed.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for an example of contractor
disclosure.
MR. JONES explained that if a contractor is applying for a
contract and serves as a consultant or advisor to, or has a
financial interest of greater than $5,000 in another business
entity, this must be disclosed during the application process.
In response to an additional question, he stated that the
administration did not propose this amendment. He offered his
understanding that the intent is to make an individual's
affiliations clear when a state contract is applied for.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that Amendment 32 was withdrawn.
2:36:24 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 33, labeled 25-GH1059\O.41,
Wayne, 3/22/07, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 14, line 29:
Following "file a "
Insert "final"
Following "matter"
Insert "or interest, except for a matter or
interest subject to disclosure under AS 24.60.200,"
Page 14, line 30, following "serving":
Insert ", unless the person previously disclosed
the matter or interest and, for that reason, the
matter or interest is no longer subject to disclosure.
Nothing in this section excuses the filing of a
disclosure or report as may be required by another
section of this chapter"
Page 20, line 7, following "appointment":
Insert ". In addition, a person subject to this
subsection
(1) shall, within 90 days after leaving
service as a legislator, legislative director, or
public member of the committee, file a final report
containing the disclosures required of the person by
AS 24.60.200 for the period that begins on the last
day of the last period for which the person filed a
report required by that section and ends on the date
of the person's last day of service;
(2) who makes a disclosure required by
AS 24.60.200 shall include that disclosure in every
subsequent report under this section unless the matter
or interest disclosed ceases to exist during a period
for which a report has already been filed"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 33.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR RAMRAS explained that Amendment 33 clarifies reporting
requirements for legislators who are leaving office.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that
legislators leaving office would be required to report back,
back to the date of the most recent annual report.
MS. ANDERSON agreed. In response to a question, she stated that
the language included in proposed AS 24.60.210(a)(2) of
Amendment 33 is not necessary, because it is duplicative
language.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to amend Amendment 33, to delete
proposed AS 24.60.210(a)(2). There being no objection,
Amendment 33 was amended.
MS. ANDERSON went on to say that because the disclosure
requirement was changed to reporting within 30 days of being
appointed, there is no longer an annual reporting requirement in
statute, and so she had been working with Mr. Wayne to draft
language to remedy this.
MR. WAYNE relayed that he has drafted an amendment which would
address this issue and apply [an annual reporting requirement]
under a more appropriate section of statute. In response to an
additional question, he explained that while that proposed
amendment and Amendment 33 "compliment each other," Amendment 33
can stand on its own.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection [to the motion to
adopt Amendment 33, as amended].
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there were no further objections to
Amendment 33, as amended, and announced that Amendment 33, as
amended, was adopted.
2:42:27 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 34, labeled 25-GH1059\O.46,
Wayne, 3-32-07, which read:
Page 14, line 10, following "interest":
Insert "or the date the legislator or legislative
employee first becomes subject to this chapter,
whichever comes first"
Page 14, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 18. AS 24.60.105 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) In addition to the filing requirements under
(a) and (b) of this section, the disclosures under (b)
of this section shall be made annually, in a report
filed with the committee within 30 days after the
first day of the regular legislative session."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 9:
Delete "Section 28"
Insert "Section 29"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 34"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 34.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
MR. WAYNE, referring to the first change proposed by Amendment
34, said that it addresses a potential situation in which a
legislator or legislative employee has a history that ought to
be made public but because of the new 30-day deadline isn't; the
change will ensure that disclosure in such a situation does
occur. Referring, then, to the second change proposed by
Amendment 34, he explained that it requires that the disclosures
made under subsection (b) of proposed AS 24.60.105 be made
annually.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question, stressed that
individuals need to disclose both that they are currently
serving on a board or commission and that they are about to
start serving on a board or commission.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there were no further objections, and
announced that Amendment 34 was adopted.
2:47:04 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 35, labeled 25-GH1059\O.44,
Bullard, 3/23/07, which read:
Page 4, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "in this paragraph, "domestic partner" has
the meaning given in AS 39.50.200(a);"
Page 4, line 8, following "commission":
Insert "[IN THIS PARAGRAPH, "DOMESTIC PARTNER"
HAS THE MEANING GIVEN IN AS 39.50.200(a)]"
Page 4, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 24.45.041(b), as amended by sec. 4 of
this Act, is amended to read:
(b) The registration form prescribed by the
commission must include
(1) the lobbyist's full name and complete
permanent residence and business address and telephone
number, as well as any temporary residential and
business address and telephone number in the state
capital during a legislative session;
(2) the full name and complete address of
each person by whom the lobbyist is retained or
employed;
(3) whether the person from whom the
lobbyist receives compensation employs the person
solely as a lobbyist or whether the person is a
regular employee performing other services for the
employer that include but are not limited to the
influencing of legislative or administrative action;
(4) the nature or form of the lobbyist's
compensation for engaging in lobbying, including
salary, fees, or reimbursement for expenses received
in consideration for, or directly in support of or in
connection with, the influencing of legislative or
administrative action;
(5) a general description of the subjects
or matters on which the registrant expects to lobby or
to engage in the influencing of legislative or
administrative action;
(6) the full name and complete address of
the person, if other than the registrant, who has
custody of the accounts, books, papers, bills,
receipts, and other documents required to be
maintained under this chapter;
(7) the identification of a legislator,
legislative employee, or public official to whom the
lobbyist is married or who is the domestic partner of
the lobbyist;
(8) a sworn affirmation by the lobbyist
that the lobbyist has completed the training course
administered by the commission under AS 24.45.031(a)
within the 12-month period preceding the date of
registration or registration renewal under this
chapter, except this paragraph does not apply to a
person who is a representational lobbyist as defined
under regulations of the commission."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 15:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 5, following line 19:
Insert new material to read:
"(e) The spouse or domestic partner of a
legislator may not engage in activity as a lobbyist.
This subsection does not prohibit the spouse or
domestic partner from acting as a volunteer lobbyist
under AS 24.45.161(a)(1) or a representational
lobbyist, as defined in regulation by the commission.
* Sec. 8. AS 24.45.171 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(15) "domestic partner" has the meaning
given in AS 39.50.200(a)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, following line 25:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 24.60.030(a), as amended by sec. 10
of this Act, is amended to read:
(a) A legislator or legislative employee may not
(1) solicit, agree to accept, or accept a
benefit other than official compensation for the
performance of public duties; this paragraph may not
be construed to prohibit lawful solicitation for and
acceptance of campaign contributions, solicitation or
acceptance of contributions for a charity event, as
defined in AS 24.60.080(c)(10), or the acceptance of a
lawful gratuity under AS 24.60.080;
(2) use public funds, facilities,
equipment, services, or another government asset or
resource for a nonlegislative purpose, for involvement
in or support of or opposition to partisan political
activity, or for the private benefit of either the
legislator, legislative employee, or another person;
this paragraph does not prohibit
(A) limited use of state property and
resources for personal purposes if the use does not
interfere with the performance of public duties and
either the cost or value related to the use is nominal
or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses
the state for the cost of the use;
(B) the use of mailing lists, computer
data, or other information lawfully obtained from a
government agency and available to the general public
for nonlegislative purposes;
(C) telephone or facsimile use that does
not carry a special charge;
(D) the legislative council,
notwithstanding AS 24.05.190, from designating a
public facility for use by legislators and legislative
employees for health or fitness purposes; when the
council designates a facility to be used by
legislators and legislative employees for health or
fitness purposes, it shall adopt guidelines governing
access to and use of the facility; the guidelines may
establish times in which use of the facility is
limited to specific groups;
(E) a legislator from using the
legislator's private office in the capital city during
a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately
before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative
session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does
not interfere with the performance of public duties
and if there is no cost to the state for the use of
the space and equipment, other than utility costs and
minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly
reimburses the state for the cost; an office is
considered a legislator's private office under this
subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital
city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or
not it is shared with others;
(F) a legislator from use of legislative
employees to prepare and send out seasonal greeting
cards;
(G) a legislator from using state resources
to transport computers or other office equipment owned
by the legislator but primarily used for a state
function;
(H) use by a legislator of photographs of
that legislator;
(I) reasonable use of the Internet by a
legislator or a legislative employee except if the use
is for election campaign purposes;
(J) a legislator or legislative employee
from soliciting, accepting, or receiving a gift on
behalf of a recognized, nonpolitical charitable
organization in a state facility;
(K) a legislator from sending any
communication in the form of a newsletter to the
legislator's constituents unless the communication is
(i) sent during the 30-day period
immediately preceding a state election; or
(ii) a communication expressly advocating
the election or defeat of a candidate or a newsletter
or material in a newsletter that is clearly only for
the private benefit of a legislator or a legislative
employee; or
(L) full participation in a charity event
approved in advance by the Alaska Legislative Council;
(3) knowingly seek, accept, use, allocate,
grant, or award public funds for a purpose other than
that approved by law, or make a false statement in
connection with a claim, request, or application for
compensation, reimbursement, or travel allowances from
public funds;
(4) require a legislative employee to
perform services for the private benefit of the
legislator or employee at any time, or allow a
legislative employee to perform services for the
private benefit of a legislator or employee on
government time; it is not a violation of this
paragraph if the services were performed in an unusual
or infrequent situation and the person's services were
reasonably necessary to permit the legislator or
legislative employee to perform official duties;
(5) use or authorize the use of state
funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another
government asset or resource for the purpose of
political fund raising or campaigning; this paragraph
does not prohibit
(A) limited use of state property and
resources for personal purposes if the use does not
interfere with the performance of public duties and
either the cost or value related to the use is nominal
or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses
the state for the cost of the use;
(B) the use of mailing lists, computer
data, or other information lawfully obtained from a
government agency and available to the general public
for nonlegislative purposes;
(C) telephone or facsimile use that does
not carry a special charge;
(D) storing or maintaining, consistent with
(b) of this section, election campaign records in a
legislator's office;
(E) a legislator from using the
legislator's private office in the capital city during
a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately
before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative
session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does
not interfere with the performance of public duties
and if there is no cost to the state for the use of
the space and equipment, other than utility costs and
minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly
reimburses the state for the cost; an office is
considered a legislator's private office under this
subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital
city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or
not it is shared with others; or
(F) use by a legislator of photographs of
that legislator;
(6) communicate directly with a spouse or
domestic partner of a legislator if the spouse or
domestic partner is registered as a lobbyist under
AS 24.45.041 and the communication concerns
legislative action; in this paragraph, "legislative
action" has the meaning given in AS 24.45.171."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 10, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 24.60.070(c), as amended by sec. 14
of this Act, is amended to read:
(c) When making a disclosure under (a) of this
section concerning a relationship with a lobbyist to
whom the legislator or legislative employee is married
or who is the legislator's or legislative employee's
domestic partner, the legislator or legislative
employee shall also disclose the name and address of
each employer of the lobbyist and the total monetary
value received by the lobbyist from the lobbyist's
employer. The legislator or legislative employee shall
report changes in the employer of the spouse or
domestic partner within 48 hours after the change. In
this subsection, "employer of the lobbyist" means the
person from whom the lobbyist received amounts or
things of value for engaging in lobbying on behalf of
the person."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 45. AS 24.45.121(e) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 28, following line 8:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 47. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. Sections 5, 11, 15, and 45 of
this Act take effect only if a court of competent
jurisdiction enters a final judgment on the merits
that is no longer subject to appeal or petition for
certiorari holding AS 24.45.121(e), as enacted by sec.
7 of this Act, to be unconstitutional.
* Sec. 48. If secs. 5, 11, 15, and 45 of this Act
take effect under sec. 47 of this Act, they take
effect on the day after the last day on which an
appeal of or petition for certiorari for the judgment
described in sec. 47 of this Act could have been
filed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 28, line 9:
Delete "Section 28"
Insert "Section 29"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 37"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 48 - 50"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 35.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that previously, the
committee adopted Amendment 2, which stated that the spouse or
domestic partner of a legislator may not be a lobbyist. He
explained that this may be held unconstitutional, as it is
beyond the legislature's jurisdiction to regulate a spouse or
domestic partner in this manner. Amendment 35 would simply
prohibit legislators from discussing matters of legislative
concern with the lobbyist. He said, "It is modeled on the
congressional model we discussed" and addresses the fact that
the legislature may not be able to prevent a person from
lobbying because doing so might be unconstitutional.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of Amendment 35. Representatives Coghill, Samuels, Lynn,
Holmes, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 35 failed by a vote of 1-6.
2:51:22 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 25, which had been tabled on
3/21/07; Amendment 25, labeled 25-GH1059\O.6, Wayne, 3/16/07,
read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "denying public employee retirement
pension benefits to certain legislators, legislative
directors, and public officers who commit certain
offenses, and adding to the duties of the Alaska
Retirement Management Board and to the list of matters
governed by the Administrative Procedure Act
concerning that denial;"
Page 1, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.25 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.25.212. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 14.25.009 - 14.25.220.
* Sec. 2. AS 14.25 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.25.532. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 14.25.310 - 14.25.590."
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 22.25 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 22.25.800. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under this chapter."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, following line 21:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 33. AS 37.10.220(a) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read:
(16) administer pension forfeitures
required under AS 37.10.310 using the procedures of
AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act).
* Sec. 34. AS 37.10 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 37.10.310. Pension forfeiture to preserve
public trust in government. (a) A public officer, as
defined in AS 39.52.960, a legislator, or a person
employed as a legislative director, as that term is
defined in AS 24.60.990, who is convicted of a federal
or state felony offense of bribery, receiving a bribe,
perjury, subornation of perjury, scheme to defraud, or
fraud may not receive a state pension benefit if the
offense was committed on or after the effective date
of this section and was in connection with the
person's official duties.
(b) Pension benefits and employee contributions
that accrue to a person before the date of the
person's commission of the offense described in (a) of
this section are not diminished or impaired by that
subsection.
(c) A state pension benefit under (a) of this
section does not include
(1) insurance, voluntary wage reductions,
involuntary wage reductions, or supplemental or health
benefits under AS 39.30.090 - 39.30.495 or former
AS 39.37.145;
(2) member or employee contributions under
AS 14.25.050, 14.25.055, 14.25.075, 14.25.340,
14.25.360(a), AS 22.25.011, AS 39.35.160,
39.35.165(f), 39.35.180, 39.35.730, 39.35.760(a), or
former AS 39.37.070.
(d) In a pension forfeiture matter under this
section the board may award to a spouse, dependent, or
former spouse of the person governed by the
limitations in (a) of this section some or all of the
amount that, but for the forfeiture under (a) of this
section, may otherwise be payable. In determining
whether to make an award under this subsection, the
board shall consider the totality of circumstances,
including
(1) the role, if any, of the person's
spouse, dependent, or former spouse in connection with
the illegal conduct for which the person was
criminally charged;
(2) the degree, if any, to which the
person's spouse, dependent, or former spouse profited
financially from the person's illegal conduct; and
(3) any restitution ordered by the court in
the criminal case and the amount of restitution, if
any, still owing.
* Sec. 35. AS 39.35 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 39.35.672. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 39.35.095 - 39.35.680.
* Sec. 36. AS 39.35 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 39.35.932. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 39.35.700 - 39.35.990."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, following line 26:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 48. AS 44.62.330(a) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read:
(47) the Alaska Retirement Management Board
for administration of pension forfeitures under
AS 37.10.310.
* Sec. 49. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY TO ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICERS'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM. The provisions of AS 37.10.310,
added by sec. 34 of this Act, apply to benefits under
former AS 39.37 (elected public officers' retirement
system)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 28, line 9:
Delete "Section 28"
Insert "Section 31"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 40"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 51 and 52"
CHAIR RAMRAS mentioned that Amendment 25 pertains to retirement
pension/benefit forfeiture, and that members' packets contain a
memorandum from Mr. Wayne [dated 3/23/07].
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to take from the table
Amendment 25. There being no objection, the motion to adopt
Amendment 25, which had been made on 3/21/07, was before the
committee.
MR. WAYNE recounted that in the first paragraph of his
memorandum he said that although it is not possible to predict
with certainty how the courts will decide a particular issue, he
thinks the court would probably resolve most of the
constitutional issues raised by Amendment 25 in favor of the
State, though one exception might pertain to state employees
covered by collective bargaining agreements. He elaborated:
I think that that would be a constitutional violation
to (indisc.) forfeiture on a state employee ... that's
covered by a collective bargaining agreement that's
[already] in effect when the language becomes law. In
the subsequent round of negotiations the union and the
State would be (indisc.) from agreeing to something in
a contract that's inconsistent with state law. And so
at that point, once the new agreement goes into
effect, state employees could ... constitutionally
have their pension rights forfeited, but until then,
(indisc.) probably be a violation.
MR. WAYNE said that there is a difference between taking away
someone's benefits that have already accrued and taking away
benefits that have not yet accrued or that accrued after the
date of the offense. Because "the line" is drawn from the date
of the offense, though, there is good chance of withstanding a
constitutional challenge, he remarked, because the court could
conclude that the importance of [maintaining] the public's trust
in government outweighs the importance of benefit rights.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he's been trying to keep criminal
issues out of HB 109, and suggested that Amendment 25 is "going
down that road" and so he will be objecting to it on those
grounds. He mentioned, though, that it raises a worthy topic of
discussion.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Samuels, Lynn,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 25.
Representatives Holmes and Coghill voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 25 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
2:56:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to Amendment 36, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 13, lines 12-25
Delete all materials and insert:
Sec. 24.60.100. Representation. A legislator or
legislative employee who represents another person for
compensation, unless that person is controlled by the
legislator or legislative employee, other than
compensation by the State of Alaska, before a
municipal board or commission shall disclose to the
committee the name of the person represented, the
subject matter of the representation, and the body
before which the representation takes place. The
disclosure shall be made by the deadlines set out in
AS 24.60.105. The committee shall maintain a public
record of a disclosure under this section and forward
the disclosure to the respective house for inclusion
in the journal. A legislator or legislative employee
may not represent another person for compensation,
unless that person is controlled by the legislator or
legislative employee, other than compensation by the
State of Alaska, before an agency, committee, or other
entity of the legislative or executive branches.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 36.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said:
What we tried to do here was find some middle ground,
... and it is my belief ... [that] you don't want a
legislator going before an agency or any other body
and throwing [his/her] ... weight around. People know
who we all are, ... and you get treated differently no
matter what you do.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out that under the first part of
Amendment 36, if a legislator or legislative employee represents
another person for compensation before a municipal board or
commission, the legislator or legislative employee shall
disclose to the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] the
name of the person represented, the subject matter of the
representation, and the body before which the representation
took place. Under the second part of Amendment 36, a legislator
or legislative employee may not represent another person for
compensation - other than by the State of Alaska - before an
agency, committee, or other entity of the legislative or
executive branch, unless the person being represented is
controlled by the legislator or legislative employee. Under
Amendment 36, a legislator or legislative employee could
represent a constituent before an agency as long as the
legislator or legislative employee was only being compensated by
the State of Alaska. He proffered that Amendment 36 would
address the concerns raised by the examples given previously
involving Representative Dahlstrom and Chair Ramras.
3:01:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said that although Amendment 36 fixes some
of the problems in Section 16 of the bill, she still has some
concerns. She set forth two hypothetical situations to
illustrate some actions that may be considered illegal under
Amendment 36, but which she opined are not unethical. For
example, a legislator [or legislative employee] who is also a
realtor is required to comply with professional requirements for
filing certain kinds of reports before that profession's
governing board; under Amendment 36, it would be illegal for
that person to have any contact with the applicable board,
including filing routine paperwork. She further suggested that
Amendment 36 would preclude a legislator and legislative
employee from having any communication with state agencies that
are connected with the person's employment.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS disagreed. He opined that under
Amendment 36, a person who wanted to go before a professional
board could do so for the purpose of representing
himself/herself. He relayed that he, as an employee of an
airline, has chosen not to contact the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) in the course of his
employment; furthermore, when his company held a contract with
the DOT&PF, he recused himself from administering that contact.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out, though, that a legislator who
is also a realtor could not go before the Real Estate Commission
to resolve an issue involving a client.
CHAIR RAMRAS sought clarification as to whether the prohibition
would extend to representing a client in an ongoing sale of real
estate, or whether it limits the legislator or legislative
employee from appearing before the Real Estate Commission on
matters perhaps not related to a current business relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether a real estate agent who
is also a legislator would be able to represent a client before
a broker and agent if there was a legal dispute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES opined that such representation by a real
estate agent who is also a legislator or legislative employee
would be prohibited.
MR. JONES said he thinks the only instance where such would be
prohibited would be if the matter came before a state agency,
not just a situation involving a meeting of private parties.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed that Mr. Jones' point is correct
when applied to just the private party and the realtor, but
argued still that such actions would be prohibited if a state
agency or board were involved.
MS. ANDERSON agreed.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill,
Samuels, Ramras, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 36.
Representatives Holmes and Gruenberg voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 36 to HB 109 passed by a vote of 5-2.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:12 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.
3:22:19 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS returned the committee's attention to Amendment 27
[text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt an amended version
of Amendment 27, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 4 -5:
Delete "restricting representation of others by
legislators and legislative employees;"
Page 13, lines 12 - 25:
Delete all material and insert:
Sec. 24.60.100. Representation. A
legislator or legislative employee who represents
another person for compensation, other than
compensation by the State of Alaska, before a
municipal, legislative, or executive branch agency,
board, or commission shall disclose to the committee
the name of the person represented, the subject matter
of the representation, and the body before which the
representation takes place. The disclosure shall be
made by the deadlines set out in AS 24.60.105. The
committee shall maintain a public record of a
disclosure under this section and forward the
disclosure to the respective house for inclusion in
the journal. A legislator or legislative employee may
not take [sic] represent another person for
compensation, other than compensation by the State of
Alaska before an agency, committee, or other entity of
the legislative branch.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that Section 16, even
as amended by Amendment 36, is still overbroad in that it
precludes routine communications integral to the everyday
business transactions that legislators and legislative employees
must engage in during the course of their non-legislative
employment.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his interpretation that under
Amendment 36, certain activity is banned, while under Amendment
27, as amended, such activity would be reportable.
Representative HOLMES agreed.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether deleting the term "executive branch"
from Amendment 27, as amended, would make it similar to
Amendment 36.
Representative HOLMES said no. She said that Amendment 27, as
amended, provides disclosure requirements for municipal,
legislative, and executive branch entities, whereas Amendment 36
contains a disclosure requirement for interactions with
municipal entities and a prohibition on interactions with the
executive branch.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS clarified that the prohibition outlined
in Amendment 36 applies unless a person is representing
himself/herself or a person he/she has control over.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that that covers receipt of
compensation for representation before an administrative agency.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that Amendment 27, as amended, would not
preclude a legislator or legislative employee who is an attorney
from employment, however he/she would have to disclose the name
of the person represented and the subject matter and the body
before which the representation takes place. He went on to say
that arguably, the legislator or legislative employee could also
have some influence over those commissions, boards, or other
entities due to his/her position as a legislator or legislative
employee.
3:27:43 PM
MR. JONES stated that one of the difficulties regarding this
issue is that Alaska law defines "representation" very broadly.
He referred to AS 24.60.990 and noted that representation is
defined as an action taken on behalf of another, whether for
compensation or not, including but not limited to meetings,
telephone calls, appearances or proceedings at meetings. And
although Amendment 27, as amended, uses the term "represent" in
its text, not the term "representation", he predicted that a
court would likely interpret "represent" by referencing the
definition of "representation".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether a legislator or
legislative employee could appear before a state board or
commission for compensation.
MR. JONES replied that such a person could not under Amendment
36. However, under Amendment 27, as amended, the legislator or
legislative employee could perform such activities for
compensation, but would have to disclose the activities.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the prohibitions of
Amendment 36 provide a brighter line than mere disclosure
requirements. He opined that there could be a real conflict of
interest if a person receiving pay as a state legislator also
received compensation for representing a person before a state
board or commission.
3:30:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 16 as amended by
Amendment 36 and opined that it "sweeps too broadly" in that it
would prohibit legislators and legislative employees engaged in
many professions from conducting routine business matters, such
as filing tax returns and asking questions or obtaining building
variances from applicable agencies.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that perhaps appropriate language could
be crafted from provisions that pertain specifically to the
medical and legal professions.
MS. MILES explained that the federal law which covers medical
practitioners prohibits those practitioners from making their
clients' names public. She said that in the legal profession,
certain cases, such as those involving minor children, are
sealed.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the committee could propose any
changes to accommodate Representative Holmes's concerns.
MS. MILES pointed out that the aforementioned prohibitions
pertain to representation for compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that there may need to be
changes made to the statutory definition of representation.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that there is a problem if
legislators [and legislative employees] use their influence to
gain advantages, such as not having to stand in line at the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that the first consideration is that
legislators and legislative employees should not receive
compensation, besides legislative pay, for legislative work. He
opined that a legislator or legislative employee who receives
compensation for non-legislative work should not use his or her
legislative status to influence an outcome.
3:41:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that what should be prohibited
is payment by a third person for legislative activities. He
also noted that it is improper to attempt to use one's
legislative influence outside the legislative process and
suggested that a solution would be to simply prohibit that kind
of behavior. He opined that the current [language of Section 16
as amended by Amendment 36] is both too broad and too narrow.
It prohibits some routine activities, such as going to the DMV,
because they could be done for compensation, but would allow
activities involving invocation of legislative influence if it
was being done on the legislator's [or legislative employee's]
own behalf, he said. The solution is to prohibit such
activities, regardless of whether they are being done for
compensation, he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES reminded the committee that in prohibiting
certain behavior, the legislature is characterizing that
behavior as unethical. She set forth her concern that routine
actions by legislators or legislative employees are prohibited
by [Section 16 as amended by Amendment 36] even though the
activities are not in and of themselves unethical. She again
referenced routine phone calls for informational purposes as an
example of prohibited activity.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS emphasized that it is important to avoid
even the perception of impropriety so that people have
confidence in government. He reiterated that even if no
impropriety is occurring, any perception of improper action or
influence must be avoided.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he has been treated more deferentially by
business groups and the state court system since he has been
elected as a legislator. He explained that his business makes
the bulk of its revenue between May and September. He noted
that his attendance at a special session during those months
could have a serious financial effect on his business. Despite
this, he said that his decision to serve in the legislature is a
voluntary one based on the privilege of holding public office.
He surmised that there is a price to be paid to represent the
State of Alaska. He said that prohibiting certain activities
provides a clearer, brighter line and perhaps better results for
the people of Alaska.
3:54:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed that legislators are treated
differently and experience disruption of normal life activities.
However, she said, she cannot agree with the broad provisions
that prohibit employees from certain routine activities. She
predicted that such a prohibition will be difficult to [enforce]
and will have an adverse impact on the ability of those covered
to earn a living.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that as currently drafted,
Amendment 36 would prohibit legislators who work for others from
engaging in certain activities.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there are many different employment
situations among the legislators and legislative employees.
Regardless of an individual's employment situation, it is not
fair that legislators and legislative employees are treated
differently by those with whom they interact; this deferential
treatment is particularly unfair if the legislator is before a
state agency, board, or commission.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that if this behavior is
unethical, then the prohibitions ought to also apply to a
business owner who is also a legislator or legislative employee.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS disagreed, citing that a business owner
is representing himself/herself, which, he opined, is vastly
different from being paid to represent someone else.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM relayed that her preference would be to
delete Section 16 from the bill, but because she does not have a
solution to the current problem she will not offer such a
change.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that Section 15 already says
that a "legislator may not, directly or by authorizing another
to act on the legislator's behalf, accept or agree to accept
compensation, except from the State of Alaska, for work
associated with legislative action, administrative action, or
political action" as currently defined by law.
CHAIR RAMRAS reiterated that his choice is to opt for
prohibition of certain activities because disclosure could leave
gaps.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 27, as amended.
Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 27, as amended, failed
by a vote of 2-5.
4:05:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 37,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 19, Lines 18-26:
Delete all materials
Insert:
(2) as to income or deferred income in excess of
$1,000 earned or received as compensation for personal
services, and as to dividend income or deferred
compensation in excess of $1,000 received from a
limited liability company as compensation or deferred
compensation for personal services, a statement
describing:
(A) name and address of the source of the income;
(B) the amount of the of the income;
(C) a brief statement describing whether the
income was earned by commission, by the job, by the
hour, or by some other method;
(D) the dates and approximate number of hours
worked to earn the income; and
(E) unless required by law to be kept
confidential, a description sufficient to make clear
to a person of ordinary understanding the nature of
each service performed and the ate the service was
performed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said Amendment 37 would take Section 26,
which applies to the legislative branch, and conform it to a
similar provision - Section 31 - pertaining to the executive
branch. Amendment 37 addresses issues related to disclosures of
income and deferred income for personal services. She noted
that the reference to "limited liability company" is made in
Amendment 37 only because such entities are not yet covered by
existing statute and regulation.
MS. MILES concurred, and said the APOC's job is easier when the
rules are the same for both the legislative and executive
branches. In response to questions, she said the APOC will make
every effort to make its form as simple as possible so that it
is clear what information is required, and confirmed that a
person's deferred income would be reported as such, but would
still be disclosed to the public as income.
4:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to amend Amendment 37, to
remove the duplicate words, "of the" in proposed paragraph
(2)(B), and to change the word "ate" in proposed paragraph
(2)(E) to the word, "date". There being no objection, the
amendment to Amendment 37 was adopted.
MS. MILES, in response to comments, clarified that [those
filing] legislative financial disclosures must file on behalf of
themselves, their domestic partner or spouse, and their
dependent children.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to amend Amendment 37, as
amended, to add a new subparagraph (B) that says, "the recipient
of the income or gift;", and to [reletter] the remaining
subparagraphs accordingly.
MS. MILES said the word gift is not appropriate in this part of
statute, because legislators and legislative employees report
gifts to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics under a
separate provision of statute. In response to a question, she
confirmed that the language would be fine without the words, "or
gift".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that the recommendation to
delete "or gift" from the language of the new proposed
subparagraph (B) was acceptable.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 37, as amended, was
further amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether the term "deferred
compensation" ought to be defined.
MR. JONES said he thinks that that term is generally understood
and would not need further definition.
MR. JONES, in response to a question, said that the section of
the bill that addresses executive branch disclosures already
includes similar language.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 37,
[as amended].
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no further objections,
announced that Amendment 37, as amended, was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS observed that the ethics of the judiciary
branch of government has not yet been discussed. He continued:
On our ethics committee, we have four legislators, we
have five citizens, [and] the chairman must be a
citizen. In the judicial branch, they have six
attorneys and three citizens: three attorneys who do
business before the bar, three judges [who] ... are
colleagues with the person who has a complaint against
them, and three citizens. And the question that I
asked in the budget subcommittee on the Commission on
Judicial Conduct was that if we had a legislative
ethics committee with six legislators and three
citizens, how do you think the public would see that.
And I did not offer an amendment - although I did have
one drafted - to change that, to put the citizens in
charge of complaints on the judiciary, rather than the
judiciary in charge of complaints on the judiciary,
because it strikes me as wrong. And there may be a
bill in the making ... to do just that.
4:17:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 109(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
109(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|