03/19/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR37 | |
| HB281 | |
| HB368 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2008
1:11 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
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 37
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to correct obsolete references to the office of secretary of
state by substituting references to the office of lieutenant
governor and to eliminate personal pronoun references in the
sections proposed to be amended.
- MOVED CSHJR 37(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act extending the statute of limitations for the filing of
complaints with the Alaska Public Offices Commission involving
state election campaigns."
- MOVED CSHB 281(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 368
"An Act modifying the limitations on political fund raising
during legislative sessions by candidates for governor or for
lieutenant governor, and amending the Legislative Ethics Act to
modify the limitation on political fund raising by legislators
and legislative employees during legislative sessions, to allow
legislators and legislative employees to accept certain gifts
from lobbyists within their immediate families, to clarify the
Legislative Ethics Act as it relates to legislative volunteers
and educational trainees, to reduce the frequency of publication
of summaries by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, to
revise procedures and penalties related to the late filing of
disclosures required by the Legislative Ethics Act, and to add a
definition to that Act."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 37
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: SEC. OF STATE REFERENCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUENBERG
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) STA, JUD
03/13/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/13/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/08 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/15/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/08 (H) STA RPT 4DP 1NR
03/17/08 (H) DP: JOHNSON, GRUENBERG, DOLL, ROSES
03/17/08 (H) NR: COGHILL
03/17/08 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/19/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 281
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN, GATTO
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, JUD
01/17/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/17/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/17/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/19/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/19/08 (H) Moved CSHB 281(STA) Out of Committee
01/19/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/22/08 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 1DP 3NR 2AM
01/22/08 (H) DP: LYNN
01/22/08 (H) NR: ROSES, COGHILL, DOLL
01/22/08 (H) AM: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN
01/22/08 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
01/25/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/25/08 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/01/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/01/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/06/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/06/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/08/08>
02/08/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/08/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 368
SHORT TITLE: ETHICS: LEGISLATIVE & GOV/LT GOV
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/26/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/26/08 (H) Moved CSHB 368(STA) Out of Committee
02/26/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/08 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 4NR
02/27/08 (H) DP: ROSES, GRUENBERG, LYNN
02/27/08 (H) NR: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, COGHILL, DOLL
03/19/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE SICA, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 281, Version N, on behalf of
Representative Lynn, joint prime sponsor; presented HB 368 on
behalf of Representative Lynn, chair of the House State Affairs
Standing committee, sponsor.
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Acting Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HB 281.
DENNIS "SKIP" COOK, Co-chair
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
281; answered questions during the hearing on HB 368.
BRENDA PAGE, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HB 281.
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 281.
LISA MARIOTTI, Staff
to Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HB 368.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:11:42 PM. Representatives Lynn,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras were present at the
call to order. Representative Samuels arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HJR 37 - CONST AM: SEC. OF STATE REFERENCES
1:12:05 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 37, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska to correct obsolete
references to the office of secretary of state by substituting
references to the office of lieutenant governor and to eliminate
personal pronoun references in the sections proposed to be
amended.
1:13:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 37, Version 25-LS1527\E, Chenoweth,
3/18/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version E
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as the sponsor of HJR 37,
relayed that the resolution cures an oversight that occurred in
1970, when the legislature changed the name of the office of
secretary of state to the office of lieutenant governor. At
that time, two sections were missed and so this resolution would
conform those sections. Version E also removes the provision in
the original resolution to eliminate personal pronoun
references, he explained, because gender neutral references are
instead being addressed by HJR 7.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HJR 37.
1:14:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to questions, indicated
that his attention was drawn to this matter by an identical bill
that died in committee during a prior legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that the proposed
constitutional amendment must be approved by the voters. He
then asked about the purpose of the change from secretary of
state to lieutenant governor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that it was a more modern
term.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the governor has the
authority to assign broad duties to the lieutenant governor.
1:16:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the committee
substitute for HJR 37, 25-LS1527\E, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHJR 37(JUD) was reported out of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 281 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS
1:17:30 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 281, "An Act extending the statute of limitations
for the filing of complaints with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission involving state election campaigns." [Before the
committee was CSHB 281(STA) as amended on 2/8/08.]
1:17:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as one of the joint prime sponsors
of HB 281, made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 281, Version 25-LS1115\N, Bullard, 3/18/08, as
the work draft. There being no objection, Version N was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN characterized HB 281 as the flagship bill
for ethics and suggested that it would be appropriate for it to
"sail" from this committee and on to the House Finance
Committee. He then summarized the main provisions of Version N
as follows: it extends the statute of limitations from one year
to five years for the review of complaints of alleged Alaska
Public Office Commission (APOC) violations or ethics committee
complaints; and requires six years for retention of records
relating to this act and when leaving office. Representative
Lynn said that the five-year statute of limitations was
supported by the APOC, the ethics committee and most
constituents; in fact, recent events have illustrated that the
one-year statute of limitations was inadequate. He noted that
HB 281 is not retroactive, and urged passage of the bill from
committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked for an explanation of the title change and
the differences between CSHB 281(STA) [as amended] and
Version N.
1:22:51 PM
MIKE SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee, on behalf of Representative
Lynn, joint prime sponsor of HB 281, that there were many good
changes made to CSHB 281(STA). First, the change proposed to AS
15.13.040(f) was deleted so as not to put the burden of
recordkeeping on campaign workers or small print shops, and the
title was "tightened." Next, language was added that allows a
person who has left state elected office to file records in
his/her final report.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether he could simply turn over
all his records to the APOC while he is still in office.
1:25:30 PM
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Acting Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), explained
that currently candidates and campaigns are required to keep
their records with them for one year. She opined that her
office would accept records in an electronic format as a
portable document format (PDF) file, but the ultimate
responsibility for the records falls to the candidate and the
campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS further asked whether receipts for
expenses were required.
MS. ELLINGSON said receipts or cancelled checks must be kept.
The requirements are similar to those for any records kept for
any type of financial transaction outside of a campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that a candidate could scan
receipts and invoices and provide the APOC with a disc
containing the records.
MS. ELLINGSON indicated that that would be an ideal situation,
as long as the records are in an electronic format.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed his concern that he would not
be able to locate a receipt from six years ago.
CHAIR RAMRAS observed that everyone has an obligation to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He expressed his concern about
setting a standard with the APOC that is greater than that with
the IRS. For his private sector business records, the IRS
requires storage of many records. However, he indicated that he
is in favor of the title change and the sponsor's other changes
to the bill. Representative Ramras then spoke briefly about
previous ethics legislation that was enacted and its effect on
municipal office candidates.
MR. SICA responded that IRS recordkeeping is based on a sliding
scale; in fact, records are to be kept from three to seven
years, and some should be kept indefinitely.
1:30:52 PM
DENNIS "SKIP" COOK, Co-chair, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that
the ethics committee was more concerned with the statute of
limitations and has not discussed the retention of records. He
opined that the records should be retained at least as long as
the statute of limitations, but not longer.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that the intent of keeping the
records available was to assist APOC and the ethics committee.
He said that he felt the records should be retained for at least
five years, and that six years would also be appropriate,
although he is not adamant about maintaining that longer time
period.
MS. ELLINGSON pointed out that the bill calls for a retention of
records in the event that they are needed. Her experience has
been that the APOC has required past records in three or four
cases over the last twenty years. She advised that a prudent
person would want to keep the records because of tax
implications on campaign accounts, and in the case of an
investigation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that he has stored all of his
campaign records as a matter of protection. He noted that the
bill would allow a complaint to be filed within five years and
so the records could be needed. He said that he is not
uncomfortable with this policy and admonished everybody to keep
records in the case of an allegation that may come five years
after the date of the alleged violation.
1:35:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM recalled the changes in her life when
she first decided to run for office; in fact, if she had known
all of the circumstances, she may have made a different
decision. She explained that office holders live in a fishbowl,
and with all of the restrictions on legislators, and
requirements for recordkeeping, it is an almost overwhelming
process to run for public office, particularly for a citizen
legislature. Representative Dahlstrom warned that these
circumstances may narrow the field of those who would run for
public office; regardless, legislators must have the highest
ethics.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether unsuccessful candidates for
office would be covered by HB 281 given that violations can
occur during a campaign.
MS. ELLINGSON advised that current law provides that if a
violation occurs, regardless of when, the candidate and campaign
are accountable. For example, if an illegal contribution is
made, the candidate and the contributor are culpable, regardless
of whether the candidate is elected. She described previous
investigations that involved searching a campaign's records back
three or four years.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to the added language on page 2, lines 7-
8, that read:
A person who has left state elected office may submit
the records required to be preserved under (a) of this
section to the commission electronically.
CHAIR RAMRAS then asked whether this addition allows a candidate
to electronically submit his or her records to APOC for storage.
MS. ELLINGSON said that her interpretation is that this
provision applies to a person who has left state office.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested the need for a conceptual amendment to
"level [the] playing field for candidates as well as elected
officials."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
1:43:29 PM
MR. SICA, returning to his explanation of the bill, said that
Section 2 now allows a "person," as opposed to a qualified
voter, to register a complaint. The language in Sections 3 and
4 of Version N is unchanged from that in CSHB 281(STA).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the language on page 3,
lines 4-14, which provides that 10 days are allowed to examine
the statements and reports filed under AS 24.45, and that [there
is] a duty to notify the person immediately if irregularities
are found. He asked whether the APOC could reasonably respond
to that 10-day deadline when year-end reports are filed.
MS. ELLINGSON stated that this requirement affects lobbying
reports that are submitted monthly and quarterly to the lobbyist
specialist.
MR. SICA reported that language in Sections 5 and 6 of Version N
was changed for conforming purposes, and that the language of
Section 7 of version N remains unchanged. In Section 8,
"registered voter" was deleted and "person" was inserted, and
unnecessary language was removed. Further, in Section 9,
subsection (c), now no longer contains the language, "or a
member of its staff". The language of Section 10 of Version N
is unchanged. Mr. Sica pointed out that Section 12 repeals AS
15.56.130; this change allows a complaint, which may achieve the
level of a criminal offense, to also have a five-year statute of
limitations. He explained that this would create consistency
for civil and criminal complaints and would allow the Department
of Law (DOL) to follow up on an allegation forwarded to it by
the APOC or the ethics committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed the committee's attention to
Section 10, which he characterized as the ethics enforcement
Act. He emphasized that under Section 10, only "a registered
Alaska voter" may bring about enforcement of the Legislative
Ethics Act, and opined that it should be broadened to a
"person." One reason to do so is because there are those who do
not register to vote for either religious convictions or other
reasons. This population should not be precluded from filing a
complaint. He concluded that this restriction is poor public
policy and, in fact, may be unconstitutional.
1:52:23 PM
BRENDA PAGE, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),
informed the committee that she is unsure of the reason that
"registered Alaska voter" remains in Section 10. She
acknowledged that this language preceded the bill and offered to
review the language for constitutional issues.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stressed that the tag line,
"Enforcement by private citizens", was in conflict with
"registered Alaska voter" and offered to make an amendment.
MS. ELLINGSON explained that the law under discussion was not
the executive branch ethics Act, but rather the public official
financial disclosure law, which came about via a citizens'
ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his belief that the
reference should be changed to conform to the remainder of the
bill.
MS. ELLINGSON agreed, and noted that there was little
improvement in this legislation from 1974 until about four or
five years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he prefers the version that
requires the person filing a complaint to state their name
instead of hiding behind an organization, such as a political
party, or a "made-up" organization.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed. She added that she prefers
"registered voter," and questioned why someone who was not
registered to vote would be interested in political situations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned attention to Section 12 and
the repeal of AS 15.56.130, and questioned how this change would
result in a five-year statute of limitations.
[Following was a brief discussion about contacting Legislative
Legal and Research Services.]
CHAIR RAMRAS ascertained that Representative Gruenberg's staff
would contact Legislative Legal and Research Services for that
information.
1:59:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Page to comment on whether it
is clear that the repeal of AS 15.56.130 would allow the general
criminal statute of limitations, AS 12.10.010, to apply to Title
15.
MS. PAGE indicated that she would need to defer this question to
the criminal division of the DOL.
MR. SICA remarked that Anne Carpeneti from the DOL had relayed
that the repeal of AS 15.56.130 would result in a five-year
statute of limitations as long as the committee states that that
is the intention.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that in the real world of a
trial lawyer, a statement on the record, after the repeal of a
statute, was very shaky. He said that a statute of limitations
is extremely important and that a voice in a committee meeting
could be lost in the sands of time.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN acknowledged that point.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 281.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, such
that on page 2, line 7, after "(c)", the phrase, "A candidate
who has run for office or" would be inserted.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected, and asked whether the intent
was for any candidate, successful or not.
CHAIR RAMRAS clarified that the intent of Conceptual Amendment 1
is to level the playing field for a candidate and a state
elected official so that both can avail themselves of the right
to electronically file their records.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:04:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2 such that on page 5, line 4, the words, "AS
15.56.130 is repealed." would be deleted and replaced with the
words, "A prosecution for an offense described in AS 15.05 - AS
15.60 (Alaska Election Code) may not be maintained unless it is
begun within five years after the date of the election in
connection with which the offense is alleged to have been
committed."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He opined that Conceptual
Amendment 2 pertains to criminal complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed, and said, "This is a
prosecution by the attorney general."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then asked about the scope of criminal
complaints that would arise from the civil section of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that an example would be
election fraud, which falls under the general Title 12 statute
of limitations of five years.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his reluctance to have a five-year
statute of limitations, even in the bill. He relayed that
although he wants people to be held accountable for criminal
actions, the cases addressed [by HB 281] are generally just
infractions that may result in civil penalties and civil action.
He removed his objection, but stated that he was unsure of his
continued support for the bill.
2:07:54 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that there were no other objections and
announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the commencement of
this statute of limitations is the election date, not the date
of the offense, as it would normally be under Title 12. He
stressed that his intent is not to change that aspect of the
provision but to merely change the length to five years.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the current language of
AS 39.50.100 came from a ballot initiative. He opined that
using the terms "an individual" or "a person" would be more
appropriate than using the term, "a registered Alaska voter."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3 such that on page 4, lines 29-30, the words
"registered [QUALIFIED] Alaska voter" are deleted and replaced
with the word, "person".
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated that he doesn't want to have
political parties bringing a civil action under AS 39.50.100
which is what using the term, "person" would allow. He
suggested changing the language to something along the lines,
"an individual Alaskan who would otherwise be qualified to
vote."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated his acceptance of such
language.
MS. ELLINGSON reminded the committee that AS 39.50.100 pertains
to the public official financial disclosure law, and that the
APOC would investigate a claim brought by anyone. [Under this
provision] the claimant could go forward and file [a complaint]
with the court system if they are unsatisfied by the APOC
investigation. According to her experience, she relayed, such
complaints are generally always filed by individuals rather than
organizations because the remedies can be quite harsh. She
mentioned a couple such complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he would be satisfied if the
language is changed such that this provision applies to an
individual human being.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed acceptance of that concept.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 3 such that the words, "a registered [QUALIFIED]
Alaska voter" would be deleted and replaced with the words, "An
individual citizen who would be qualified to register to vote."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified, "An individual citizen who
would be qualified to vote."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether there were any objections to
the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 3. There being none,
Conceptual Amendment 3 was amended.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether there were any objections to
Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended. There being none,
Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the word "Alaska" was retained.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered, "Conceptually, it would have
read, 'An individual citizen who would be qualified to vote'
and, I would have no problem if we took another amendment to
say, 'in Alaska'."
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4 such
that "in Alaska" or "an Alaskan" would be added [to the language
being added to page 4, lines 29-30]. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:14:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that Conceptual Amendment 2 altered
Section 12, and questioned whether the language on page 6, lines
1-3, that contains a reference to Section 12 needs to be altered
as well.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether the drafter, in incorporating
Conceptual Amendment 2, would address that point.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stressed that he does not intend to
make the statutes of limitations retroactive because that could
cause constitutional problems. He said he would simply ask for
the bill drafter to conform "this provision" as necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his acceptance of Representative
Gruenberg's position. He then questioned what effect the
applicability provisions of Section 13, specifically subsections
(a)(1) and (e)(1), would have on the proposed five-year statute
of limitations provided for in Sections 2 and 7.
MR. SICA indicated that the intent with the language in Section
13 is to merely have the statute of limitations provided for in
Sections 2 and 7 apply to those investigations currently allowed
under law.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that he may offer an amendment on
the House floor to change "person" back to "individual".
The committee took an at-ease from 2:19 p.m. to 2:21 p.m.
2:21:46 PM
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff to the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that the drafter
has explained to her that the aforementioned language in Section
13 of HB 281 will simply ensure that the current look-back
provisions pertaining to the current statute of limitations
being altered by Sections 2 and 7 will still apply; no new time
will be added to the proposed five-year statute of limitations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he'd had a
misunderstanding with regard to the change made via the adoption
of Conceptual Amendment 2; in adopting Conceptual Amendment 2,
none of the case law associated with the statute of limitations
provided for in AS 12.10.010 would apply, whereas simply
allowing the language of Section 12 to remain as is would still
provide for a five-year statute of limitations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee rescind its
action in adopting conceptual Amendment 2. There being no
objection, the committee rescinded its action in adopting
Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
2:24:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 281, Version 25-LS1115\N, Bullard,
3/18/08, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 281(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 368 - ETHICS: LEGISLATIVE & GOV/LT GOV
2:25:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 368, "An Act modifying the limitations on
political fund raising during legislative sessions by candidates
for governor or for lieutenant governor, and amending the
Legislative Ethics Act to modify the limitation on political
fund raising by legislators and legislative employees during
legislative sessions, to allow legislators and legislative
employees to accept certain gifts from lobbyists within their
immediate families, to clarify the Legislative Ethics Act as it
relates to legislative volunteers and educational trainees, to
reduce the frequency of publication of summaries by the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, to revise procedures and
penalties related to the late filing of disclosures required by
the Legislative Ethics Act, and to add a definition to that
Act." [Before the committee was CSHB 368(STA).]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as chair of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor, noted that HB 368 would
allow lobbyists to give gifts to their spouses.
2:27:30 PM
MIKE SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 368 on behalf of Representative Lynn,
chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor.
He explained that current law does not allow candidates for the
office of governor or lieutenant governor to engage in campaign
fund raising during a legislative session held in the capital
city. House Bill 368 would in part expand that prohibition to
include any municipality in which the legislative session is
convened.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether candidates for federal offices would
be affected.
MR. SICA answered that neither current law nor the bill address
candidates for federal offices. Again, the bill in part merely
addresses campaign fund raising by candidates for governor and
lieutenant governor when legislative sessions are held outside
of the capital city of Juneau.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Representative Lynn why the bill only applies
to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor and not to
candidates campaigning for federal offices who might also be the
governor or lieutenant governor.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the Alaska State Legislature
should only address Alaska issues, not federal issues. he said
he is not sure whether it would be constitutional for the state
to become involved in telling a candidate for federal office
what he/she may or may not do.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled other legislation that
attempts to limit campaign fund raising for members of the
legislature who are running for federal office. He asked for
time to research federal case history with regard to whether
doing so would be constitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that bills should be discussed
on their merit and not in light of current political situations.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that other legislation has been reactive in
nature.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned which statutes would best
address the changes proposed in HB 368.
2:31:45 PM
MR. SICA relayed although Section 1 was not recommended by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, it was included by the
sponsor because he felt that the limitations on campaign fund
raising by legislative candidates provided for via Section 2
should also apply to candidates for governor and lieutenant
governor. Section 2 of the bill prohibits legislators from
campaign fund raising during a legislative session in the
municipality in which the legislative session is held. Section
3 amends AS 24.60.080(a) to allow a legislator or legislative
employee to accept a gift worth $250 or more in value, in a
calendar year, or accept a gift of any monetary value from a
lobbyist, an immediate family member of a lobbyist or a person
acting on behalf of a lobbyist, if that gift is unconnected with
the recipient's legislative status and is from a member of the
legislator's or legislative employee's immediate family. He
noted that the term "immediate family" is defined in AS
24.60.990(a)(6) as meaning:
(A) the spouse or domestic partner of the person; or
(B) a parent, child, including a stepchild and an
adoptive child, and sibling of a person if the parent,
child, or sibling resides with the person, is
financially dependent on the person, or shares a
substantial financial interest with the person;
2:34:12 PM
MR. SICA explained that Sections 4 and 5 merely take the last
two sentences in existing in AS 24.60.080(h) and place them into
a proposed new subsection (l). This change was proposed by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics in order to make the
language easier to read. Section 6 provides that the publishing
of summaries of decisions and advisory opinions shall occur
annually, rather than semi-annually. Section 7 provides for a
fine of $100 per day, up to a maximum of $2,500, for a willful
late filing of a public disclosure. He noted that CSHB 368 uses
the term, "may impose", rather than the term, "shall impose" as
was used in the original bill; this change gives the ethics
committee the discretion to impose that larger fine. He also
noted that CSHB 368 no longer contains a proposed definition of
the term, "partisan political activity".
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked how the term, "wilful" is
defined.
MR. SICA said that he did not recall, but surmised that that is
something that would be determined by the ethics committee.
2:36:43 PM
DENNIS "SKIP" COOK, Co-chair, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that he
did not have a definition of the term, "willful". However, most
problems stem from an inadvertent failure to file a disclosure
in a timely fashion rather than knowingly failing to file in a
timely fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN added that most violations are due to
oversights or errors, and so the concept was that those who
willfully refuse to file a disclosure with the APOC could be
assessed the higher fine.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether, theoretically, she could
refuse to file the required disclosures and simply pay the
maximum fine every year instead.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, noting that there would be no other
consequences for failing to file a disclosure - aside from
negative publicity - characterized thumbing one's nose at the
law as very inappropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM questioned what would happen if a
legislator's religious beliefs mandated that he/she not file a
disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, remarking on the importance of following
one's religious beliefs, suggested that perhaps such a person
shouldn't be running for office to begin with.
2:40:20 PM
MR. COOK relayed that the ethics committee usually makes
recommendations for statutory penalties to the legislature, and
that penalties are directly assessed by the committee only under
this section. He opined that in the case of a legislator who
refuses to file reports, the legislature could impose further
sanctions.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that AS 24.60.010(1) in part says:
Sec. 24.60.010. Legislative findings and purpose.
The legislature finds that
(1) high moral and ethical standards among public
servants in the legislative branch of government are
essential to assure the trust, respect, and confidence
of the people of this state;
CHAIR RAMRAS then remarked on the fact that the governor
recently endorsed the lieutenant governor, who is in charge of
the Division of Elections, as a candidate for U.S. Congress, and
relayed that at some point he would be attempting to address
such situations via an amendment.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 368.
2:44:56 PM
LISA MARIOTTI, Staff to Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, relayed that a memorandum, dated 1/25/08,
from Legislative Legal and Research Services that was produced
for HB 305 explains that the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (FECA), as amended, preempts state law with regard to
election to federal office, and that this has been upheld by the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case addressing a Georgia
state law concerning campaign contributions for federal office.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that although activities of a
candidate [for federal office] can not be regulated by state
law, the activities of a state official can be regulated. He
suggested that a law could be created that prohibits one to run
for Congress while one holds an elected state position.
MS. MARIOTTI indicated that that is her understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG called members' attention to the
dissenting opinion by Judge Hill in the aforementioned case -
Teper V. Miller - and noted that it states that [the Georgia
state law did] not attempt to regulate the person as a candidate
for federal office, but rather as a holder of state office.
MS. MARIOTTI, in response to a request, reiterated her comments.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS reiterated his comments, adding that if a
person who holds state office is precluded by state law from
engaging in activities related to campaigning for federal
office, he/she can simply relinquish his/her state position.
2:51:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the concurring opinion by
Judge Carnes in the aforementioned case in part read [original
punctuation provided along with some formatting changes]:
I concur in the Court's holding that O.C.G.A. § 21-5-
35, which has the effect of limiting the time for
making contributions to some candidates for federal
office, is preempted by the Federal Election Campaign
Act, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. ("FECA"). However, I
would base that conclusion upon the express language
of the preemption clause in the act, 2 U.S.C. § 453,
which states unambiguously that the provisions of the
act and rules prescribed under it, "supersede and
preempt any provision of State law with respect to
election to Federal office." (emphasis added) A state
law regulating the time in which a category of
citizens can accept contributions to run for election
to federal office is a "State law with respect to
election to Federal office." It is as simple as that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this seems to him to pretty well
trump the dissenting opinion. He predicted that if either HB
305 or HB 368 were challenged in court, it would rule as the
majority did in Teper, and that either bill, if enacted, would
likely invite legal challenges in federal court, and then the
issue would be resolved, perhaps even by the U. S. Supreme
Court.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether, if the state cannot
regulate an individual citizen, it can prohibit a public office
holder from running for two offices at the same time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his recollection that when
Lyndon B. Johnson ran for Vice President, he also ran for re-
election to the U.S. Senate.
2:55:31 PM
MR. SICA, on the issue of the definition of "a willful
violation," noted that a memorandum dated 1/7/08 written by
Herman Walker, chair of the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, states that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
would make the determination of whether there has been a willful
omission or a blatant failure to file the required reports.
MR. COOK noted that proposed AS 15.13.072(g) and proposed AS
24.60.031(a)(1) both use the term "solicit or accept", but
proposed AS 24.60.031(a)(3) instead uses the term, "expend".
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that it makes sense for the bill
to make that distinction. For example, if a special session is
called on short notice, a candidate for office could have
already arranged for advertising.
2:59:53 PM
MR. COOK said he is unsure whether proposed AS 24.60.031(a)(3)
is meant to apply to all candidates, or just to those already
holding office.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Footnote 28 in the Teper
opinion, and offered his understanding that the key difference
between [HB 305] and the Georgia law is that the latter
prohibits the raising of money anywhere during the time of a
special session, whereas HB 305 prohibits fund raising only in
the capital city. He opined that the fact that a smaller
population will be affected by HB 305 may strengthen the
standing of the Alaska law if challenged. He then suggested
that a severability clause should be included in the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that CSHB 368(STA) would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|