Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
03/26/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB355 | |
| HB420 | |
| HB368 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 420 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 368 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2008
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
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 355
"An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of certain
persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money in
support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives and the
aggregate amounts of significant contributions or expenditures
made by those persons, groups, and nongroup entities."
- MOVED CSHB 355(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 420
"An Act relating to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, to
anatomical gifts, to donations to the anatomical gift awareness
fund, to a registry of anatomical gifts, and to organizations
that handle the procurement, distribution, or storage of all or
a part of an individual's body."
- MOVED HB 420 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."
- MOVED CSHB 368(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 355
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS: INITIATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHANSEN
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) JUD, FIN
02/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/13/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/22/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/22/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/03/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/03/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/17/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/26/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 420
SHORT TITLE: ANATOMICAL GIFTS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/13/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/08 (H) HES, JUD
03/18/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/08 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/18/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/08 (H) HES RPT 5DP
03/19/08 (H) DP: CISSNA, KELLER, GARDNER, ROSES,
WILSON
03/26/08 (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
03/19/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/26/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff
to Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Version E of HB 355, on behalf of
the sponsor, Representative Johansen.
GAIL FENUMIAI
Director
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 355.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 355.
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff
to Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 420, testified on
behalf of Representative Wilson, Chair of the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee, sponsor.
DEBORAH BEHR
Chief Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL);
Alaska Uniform Law Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 420.
BRUCE ZALNERAITIS, Chief Executive Officer
Life Alaska Donor Services (Life Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 420.
KIM MAGEE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 420.
SHERRY BADILLO MORENO, Volunteer
Life Alaska Donor Services (Life Alaska)
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 420.
JAY BUTLER, M.D., Chief Medical Officer
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 420.
MIKE GERAGHTY, Attorney
Alaska Uniform Law Commissioner
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified is support of HB 420.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 368.
DAN WAYNE, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 368.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:16:55 PM. Representatives Holmes,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras were present at
the call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 355 - DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS: INITIATIVES
1:17:53 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 355, "An Act requiring the disclosure of the
identity of certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities that
expend money in support of or in opposition to ballot
initiatives and the aggregate amounts of significant
contributions or expenditures made by those persons, groups, and
nongroup entities."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 355, Version 25-LS1263\E, Bullard,
3/20/08, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version E
was before the committee.
1:18:45 PM
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska
State Legislature, relayed that two changes were incorporated
into Version E. The first change, to Section 3, makes the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) - as opposed to the
director of the Division of Elections - responsible for
collecting and providing the information outlined therein. She
conveyed that the APOC is the more appropriate agency because it
is already set up to do what this provision outlines. The
second change alters proposed AS 15.13.110(g) so as to make the
deadlines consistent with other reporting requirements.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his concern, which centers on the different
treatment for disclosure by a candidate and for the ballot
initiative process. He explained that when a registered voter
applies for office, he/she is immediately considered a candidate
unless the person withdraws or is elected. However, for
reporting requirements, an initiative isn't considered an entity
until the signatures are all collected and the initiative is
certified by the lieutenant governor. He asked whether that
issue is addressed in Version E.
MS. CHRISTENSEN conveyed that Version E does not address his
concern. She offered that the sponsor felt that it is important
for the public to be made aware of expenditures of $500 or more.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered that his intention is to move HB 355.
However, he suggested that the sponsor address the initial
reporting requirements for ballot proposals either in HB 355 or
in future legislation should this bill not pass. He explained
the process to start a ballot initiative requires a person to
collect 100 signatures of registered voters and to submit a
cashier's check in the amount of $100 to the lieutenant governor
to have booklets issued. He related his understanding that the
ballot initiative is then in the public domain.
1:24:40 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director Central Office, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, explained that Representative
Ramras described what the division would consider as an
initiative application. She explained that once the application
has passed the requirements of statute, it becomes an initiative
petition. She said she was not sure if that is the point at
which the ballot initiative becomes an entity. She opined that
his question is one that is more of a legal nature.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his understanding that the
question of when an initiative is an entity is more of a policy
call. He further noted that if the legislature wants disclosure
during the application process that the legislature can require
reporting to disclose and donations or expenditures.
CHAIR RAMRAS stated that his reason for objecting to disclosure
is to support free speech. He surmised Representative Samuel's
concern is to require full disclosure of an initiative,
including the application process.
1:27:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to Chair Ramras, noted that
he has several amendments pending.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:28 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 25-LS1263\E.3, Bullard, 3/26/08, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "prohibiting certain expenditures made in
support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives;
and"
Page 1, line 11, following "that":
Insert "prohibiting expenditures originating from
outside the state in support of or in opposition to
ballot initiatives and"
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert new material to read:
"(c) It is the intent of the legislature that
this Act ensure that monetary expenditures and
contributions originating from outside the state not
dictate how Alaska ballot initiatives are framed and
understood.
* Sec. 4. AS 15.13.065(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except as provided in AS 15.13.074(j),
except for reports required by AS 15.13.040 and
15.13.110, and except for the requirements of
AS 15.13.050, 15.13.060, and 15.13.112 - 15.13.114,
the provisions of AS 15.13.010 - 15.13.116 do not
apply to limit the authority of a person to make
contributions to influence the outcome of a ballot
proposition. In this subsection, in addition to its
meaning in AS 15.60.010, "proposition" includes an
issue placed on a ballot to determine whether
(1) a constitutional convention shall be
called;
(2) a debt shall be contracted;
(3) an advisory question shall be approved
or rejected; or
(4) a municipality shall be incorporated.
* Sec. 5. AS 15.13.074 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) An individual who is a resident of another
state or a group or nongroup entity organized under
the laws of another state, resident in another state,
or whose participants are not residents of this state
may not make a contribution in support of or in
opposition to an initiative.
* Sec. 6. AS 15.13.084 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, an
individual who is a resident of another state or a
group or nongroup entity organized under the laws of
another state, resident in another state, or whose
participants are not residents of this state may not
make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to
an initiative."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 15.13.140(b) is amended to read:
(b) An independent expenditure for or against a
ballot proposition or question
(1) shall be reported in accordance with
AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.100 - 15.13.110 and other
requirements of this chapter; and
(2) may not be made if the expenditure is
prohibited by AS 15.13.084(b) or 15.13.145
[AS 15.13.145]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVES COGHILL and HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS explained that Amendment 1 would prohibit
expenditures by any outside interests from weighing in on a
ballot measure. He referred to memoranda in members' packets
from the legal drafter. He recapped that the memoranda identify
problems in barring a particular source, including a corporation
from making contributions. He opined that setting limits would
be more acceptable, but that requiring full disclosure has
allowed some jurisdictions to accomplish the goal of limiting
outside influences. He stated that the purpose of Amendment 1
is to limit funding to an organization that is formed to support
or oppose a ballot initiative. He posed a scenario such that
"Citizens in Favor of Ballot #3" could purchase advertisements
but that the entity would not be allowed to receive funding from
outside sources.
1:33:05 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether it is constitutional to
prohibit contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered that it might be problematic, but
he said he wished to start the discussion by raising the issue.
He said he realizes that it is also difficult to discern when an
"entity" is considered an out-of-state entity. He offered an
example of ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., that has offices in
state and out-of-state.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether out-of-state entities can be
prohibited from contributing money for the collection of
signatures for a ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew Amendment 1.
1:35:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 25-LS1263\E.4, Bullard, 3/26/08, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "restricting contributions made in support
of or in opposition to ballot initiatives; and"
Page 1, line 11, following "that":
Insert "limiting the amount of contributions made
in support of or in opposition to ballot initiatives
and"
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert new material to read:
"(c) It is the intent of the legislature that
this Act ensure that contributions made in support of
or in opposition to ballot initiatives are restricted
in the same manner as other political contributions.
* Sec. 4. AS 15.13.065(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except for reports required by AS 15.13.040
and 15.13.110 and except for the requirements of
AS 15.13.050, 15.13.060, and 15.13.112 - 15.13.114,
the provisions of AS 15.13.010 - 15.13.116 do not
apply to limit the authority of a person to make
contributions to influence the outcome of a ballot
proposition. In this subsection, [IN ADDITION TO ITS
MEANING IN AS 15.60.010,] "proposition" means a
referendum, a constitutional amendment submitted at an
election to the public for vote, and [INCLUDES] an
issue placed on a ballot to determine whether
(1) a constitutional convention shall be
called;
(2) a debt shall be contracted;
(3) an advisory question shall be approved
or rejected; or
(4) a municipality shall be incorporated.
* Sec. 5. AS 15.13.070(b) is amended to read:
(b) An individual may contribute not more than
(1) $500 a [PER] year to a nongroup entity
for the purpose of influencing the nomination or
election of a candidate, to a candidate, to an
individual who conducts a write-in campaign as a
candidate, or to a group that is not a political
party;
(2) $5,000 a [PER] year to a political
party; or
(3) $500 a year to an individual, group, or
nongroup entity for the purpose of influencing an
initiative.
* Sec. 6. AS 15.13.070(f) is amended to read:
(f) A nongroup entity may contribute not more
than $1,000 a year to another nongroup entity for the
purpose of influencing an initiative or the nomination
or election of a candidate, to a candidate, to an
individual who conducts a write-in campaign as a
candidate, to a group, or to a political party."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS explained that he obtained two memoranda
from the Division of Legal and Research Services and each one
cited different U.S. Supreme Court cases. He explained that the
attorneys outline that generally restricting particular sources
could be problematic. The difference between how an "individual
candidate" and a "ballot measure" are treated is that the U.S.
Supreme Court has found that limiting contributions to
individuals avoids the appearance of corruption. However, once
an idea is "debated", limiting a particular source of money is
not the same as it would be for an individual candidate.
Amendment 2 addresses this issue by requesting full disclosure
and limits. Thus, an entity would be subject to the same limits
as for candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that the minute someone spends a
dollar to garner a signature, the public has a right to know the
source of the money being spent to influence a ballot
initiative. He stressed that disclosure is important even
though the ballot initiative process is at the initial stage of
collecting signatures.
1:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES argued, however, that an exception to the
reporting requirement for $500 contributions exists for
individual campaigns such that the candidate can donate
unlimited amounts to his/her own campaign. She inquired as to
whether a similar exception exists for the individual who
initiates a ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that the intent of Amendment 2 is
to require the same limits for candidates and ballot
initiatives. He surmised that the person collecting signatures
and the person forwarding the "idea" should be held to the
reporting requirement under the $500 limit.
1:39:09 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding of the rationale behind
the $1 per signature payment for collecting signatures. He
recalled the importance providing payment to people collecting
signatures and while he said he did not recollect the specific
reason for doing so, that the payment is currently authorized in
statute. He opined that Amendment 2 would make it very
difficult to finance the collection of signatures. He opined
that the collection of signatures is entirely different than
advocating or opposing a particular ballot initiative. He asked
whether Amendment 2 would apply to both the effort to collect
signatures as well as the promotion of an initiative itself.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS answered that it would apply in both
instances. He highlighted that if a candidate paid campaign
workers to hang flyers on doors then the candidate is required
to disclose the source of the expenditure, the amount paid, and
the payee. Not only is he subject to disclosure as a candidate,
but he also would be subject to the same disclosure in the event
he withdrew his candidacy, he noted.
CHAIR RAMRAS highlighted that this amendment would affect the
Fairbanks North Star Borough's (FNSB) efforts since it spent
$150,000 to collect signatures for a ballot initiative that
would raise property taxes. He surmised that under Amendment 2,
the FNSB would be limited to $500 in total participation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to page 2, in proposed Section 5.
She said she was not sure that the FNSB could actually
contribute at all. She opined that her quick view of this
section is that the FNSB or a corporation couldn't contribute to
an individual campaign either.
1:42:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated his intention is for a group that
establishes a committee and begins a ballot initiative to submit
to disclosure and report the source of donations and report its
expenditures. He posed a scenario in which the FNSB begins a
ballot initiative and forms a group named "People for Beautiful
Flowers Coalition." If that group receives money from the FNSB,
it must also disclose the source of any funds from third
parties.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether individuals can self-fund
their own initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS answered that he did not think they would
be prohibited from doing so. He referred to page 2, subsection
(g), which requires disclosure of expenditures exceeding $500.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to whether a person can self-fund a
ballot initiative to place it on the ballot and once it is on
the ballot, whether the person can also fund to advocate or
oppose the ballot initiative.
1:47:16 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), answered that an individual could use his/her own
resources to support or oppose an initiative. He pointed out
that the proposed legislative intent on page 2, subsection (b),
and Amendment [2] would not operate to restrict the activity.
Thus, an individual could self-fund an initiative or could self-
fund efforts to support or oppose an initiative. In further
response to Chair Ramras, Mr. Bullard offered that if the
individual was the one who collected the signatures as one of
the initiative committee sponsors using his/her own funds, not
contributing them to an individual, group, or non group entity,
that the individual "would be in the clear."
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if a third party, such as Representative
Holmes, wanted to contribute $500 to the effort, to an
initiative, since the entity is not yet established.
MR. BULLARD answered that he was not entirely sure. He said he
thought that a third party, such as Representative Holmes, could
contribute $500 to the individual who is collecting the
signatures, such as Mr. Ramras, even though the entity is not
yet established.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that current law allows for three prime
sponsors to start a ballot initiative. He inquired as to
whether a third party could contribute to each of the three
prime sponsors.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether she could, as a
third party, contribute to all three prime sponsors at $500
each.
MR. BULLARD answered that he thought that the third party, such
as Representative Holmes as a third party, would be limited to
contribute only $500 per year to any one of the sponsors since
the sponsors constitute a legislative initiative committee,
which is considered a group. He offered that the easiest way to
understand Amendment 2 is to realize that this amendment matches
what is currently provided for candidates under election
statutes under AS 15.13 and this bill would make it identical
for ballot initiatives.
1:50:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether corporations would
be able to either contribute to a committee and, if not, whether
corporations can fund their own commercials.
MR. BULLARD referred to page 2 of Amendment 2, in proposed
AS 15.13.070(f), and explained that this subsection would limit
the corporation to $1,000 contribution.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to whether a corporation is
considered a non-group entity.
MR. BULLARD referred to proposed AS 15.13.070, which is also
modified by proposed Section 6.
CHAIR RAMRAS inquired as to the intent of Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered that his goal for both Amendment
6 and this bill is to "know where the money comes from." He
said, "I want to limit the amount of money that flows into the
initiative process." He further stated that the process should
be transparent.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew Amendment 2.
1:53:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3
labeled 25-LS1263\E.2, Bullard, 3/25/08, which read:
Page 3, lines 12 - 18:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 15.45.770. Registration and reporting. (a)
In addition to those persons required to register
before making an expenditure in support of or in
opposition to a ballot initiative under
AS 15.13.050(a), an individual making expenditures
exceeding $500 in a calendar year in support of or in
opposition to an initiative shall register with the
commission.
(b) A person making expenditures in support of
or in opposition to an initiative and registered under
AS 15.13.050(a) and an individual registered under (a)
of this section shall file reports as required by
AS 15.13.040 and AS 15.13.110."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
MS. CHRISTENSEN explained that Amendment 3 will remove redundant
language from Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to Chair Ramras, stated that
he could not imagine collecting signatures for a ballot
initiative in instances in which a person is opposed to the
initiative. He further stressed his desire for an open and
transparent process.
1:56:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that elected officials also have
two phases to its campaign, since many candidates have primary
opponents. The primary process involves extensive reporting, as
well, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Amendment 3 is
constitutional.
MR. BULLARD answered that he believes that Amendment 3 is
constitutional. However, he stated that he has not written an
opinion to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether Amendment 3 is
affected by McIntyre v. the Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S.
335(1995).
MR. BULLARD believe that the $500 limit for individuals
precludes any constitutional problem that McIntyre decision
might raise, because McIntyre related to an anonymous person
distributing leaflets about a school board election. He pointed
out that ballot initiatives present a much larger situation.
Distributing leaflets is a local concern, which is different
than the speech associated with ballot initiatives, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Amendment 3 uses both the
terms "person" and "individual." He inquired as to whether the
terms should be made the same.
MR. BULLARD stated that under current statute, AS 15.13.050,
persons, other than individuals - which consist of corporations,
groups, and non groups - are required to report prior to making
expenditures in support of or in opposition to a ballot
initiative. Amendment 3 merely adds in individuals making
expenditures that exceed $500.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether "individuals" is
included within the definition of "persons" and if "individuals"
are currently required to register.
2:00:18 PM
MR. BULLARD answered that they are not required to register. He
stated that Amendment 3 reflects AS 15.13.050, which provides
that a person other than an individual must register.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES stated that proposed subsection (a) of the
bill seems to add a new requirement for individuals. She asked
if this means that if a corporation or a non group entity makes
independent expenditures in excess of $500 that those entities
are not required to register under Amendment 3. She posed a
scenario in which a corporation expended $500 or more and
surmised that the corporation would not need to register or
report.
MR. BULLARD answered that the registration requirements already
exist and he referred to AS 15.13.050, which would require
Representative Holmes' hypothetical corporation to register. He
stated that Amendment 3 doesn't change that requirement.
2:02:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES withdrew her objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after first determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 355.
2:02:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for HB
355, Version 25-LS1263\E, Bullard, 3/20/08, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 355(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS urged the sponsor to recognize the two distinct
processes addressed in the bill that protect the rights of
democracy and yet still meet the rights of full disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that the initiative process to
obtain the necessary signatures is as important to the public
and the process, as are the bumper stickers that are purchased
once the initiative is authorized to be on the ballot. He
offered a hypothetical example, in which ExxonMobil Corporation
is working to obtain signatures for a ballot initiative. He
opined that the public has a right to know if the ExxonMobil
Corporation is pushing for an initiative through its funding of
the signature collection process.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES urged the bill's sponsor to work to ensure
that HB 355 does not contain a loophole that would allow
corporations to spend money and avoid reporting in a way that an
individual cannot.
CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that he does not like HB 355, but he said
he felt that the majority of the committee wanted to see the
bill moved.
[CSHB 355(JUD) was reported from committee.]
HB 420 - ANATOMICAL GIFTS
2:05:11 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 420, "An Act relating to the Uniform Anatomical
Gift Act, to anatomical gifts, to donations to the anatomical
gift awareness fund, to a registry of anatomical gifts, and to
organizations that handle the procurement, distribution, or
storage of all or a part of an individual's body."
2:05:46 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff to Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska
State Legislature, stated on behalf of Representative Wilson,
chair of the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee, sponsor, that HB 420 would update the Alaska
Statutes regarding organ donation. She stated that the Uniform
Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) is model legislation that serves to
harmonize organ and tissue donation laws in all 50 states. The
model legislation has served this function for over 40 years.
Alaska statutes that govern organ donation are based on the
UAGA. However, the statutes are based on the last significant
update in 1997. She stated that HB 420 brings Alaska's
statutes in line with the latest version, the 2008 revised UAGA.
She offered that the Department of Law (DOL), the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), the Office of the State
Medical Examiner, Life Alaska Donor Services and a
representative of the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) were involved in the development of
the language and so far all are satisfied with the result.
Currently, 180 Alaskans are in need of life saving transplants
and await the availability of a donated organ and hundreds more
await tissue transplants. The bill is a realignment of the
statutes and a sectional analysis is in members' packets.
2:08:47 PM
DEBORAH BEHR, Chief, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL); Alaska Uniform Law Commissioner, National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), explained that she
is pleased to recommend the adoption of the Uniform Anatomical
Gift Act (UAGA).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the bill
is intended to retain uniformity of the current statutes.
MS. BEHR pointed out that this bill would place Alaska in line
with 20 other states that have adopted the UAGA. She noted that
16 additional legislatures have bills pending that would adopt
the UAGA. It is complementary with the laws currently in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether passing HB 420 would
destroy the uniformity of the act.
MS. BEHR consulted with the national organization and this bill
is consistent with what other states are doing. She stressed
the importance in the uniformity of the laws with other states
since an organ donor may be in one state, the recipient in
another, and families residing in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 15 lines 21, in
proposed AS 13.52.253, which he read: "Except as provided by
13.52.055 ..." He inquired as to whether the uniform law
commissioners have considered whether this would destroy the
uniform act.
MS. BEHR answered that AS 13.52.253 is a provision [having to do
with health care decisions during pregnancy] that is unique to
Alaska law. However, the uniform law commissioners believe that
certain decisions can be reserved by the state. Thus, the
decision itself does not destroy the uniformity of how organs
are donated. She highlighted that the commission does not delve
into the basic decisions such as pregnancy, which would be
deferred to the local jurisdiction.
2:12:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to what percentage of gifts go
to recipients that need a major organ such as a heart or kidney
as opposed gifts for cosmetic or elective surgery.
BRUCE ZALNERAITIS, Chief Executive Officer, Life Alaska Donor
Services (Life Alaska), offered his understanding that an organ
donor would, on average, assist four or five recipients and one
tissue donor assists up to 50 tissue recipients. He stated that
Alaska averages 200 donors a year, of which 25 are organ and
tissue donors combined, and the remainder are tissue donors that
do not donate organs. In response to Representative Lynn, Mr.
Zalneraitis explained that organ donors donate a vascular organ
such as a kidney, liver, heart, lungs, pancreas, or sometimes
the small intestine. He stated that organs are vascular and
have a blood supply at the time of donation. A tissue donor
would donate such items as cornea, skin, orthopedic tissues, and
vessels of the leg. Tissue donors donate tissues after the
circulation has ceased for up to 24 hours following the
cessation of the heart, whereas organs are donated while the
heart is still beating, he stated.
2:15:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to whether any part of aborted
fetuses is used.
MR. ZALNERAITIS answered that his organization does not engage
in any research from fetuses and nothing is donated before
normal birth.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to whether Life Alaska charges a
fee for its services.
MR. ZALNERAITIS answered that the fees are charged in the same
manner as donated blood, which is a fee charged to the recipient
for processing. He also explained that fees are charged for
tissue transplants related to the processing charges to safely
acquire, preserve, and send the tissue to the recipient center.
In further response to Representative Lynn, Mr. Zalneraitis
confirmed that the processing fees for organ and tissue donation
vary. He noted that organs have the highest acquisition fee.
2:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered that this is issue is very dear
to him since his own grandson was a donor when he died. He
related that his grandson was kept alive for a day and a half in
order for him to be a donor. He found the issue of donations
between states created the biggest problem for his family.
MR. ZALNERAITIS stated that in the case of organ transplants a
limited time exists to reestablish blood flow of the organ in
the recipient. For example, a heart is viable for 6 hours, a
liver is viable for 18 hours, and kidney is viable for
approximately 24 to 30 hours from the interruption of blood flow
in the donor, he stated. He noted that the time is limited for
Alaskan donors and that often the recipient is in the operating
room when the heart will arrive at a hospital such as the
University of Washington [Medical Center] in Seattle,
Washington.
2:18:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to whether the rules of
procedure are currently "out of sync" as compared to those
proposed under HB 420.
MS. BEHR stated that HB 420 will dramatically improve the donor
process because it establishes procedures. She stated that a
young child likely did not sign a release and the parents must
do that on behalf of the child. This bill will set out a
procedure to clearly inform the doctor of the family's wishes to
donate the organ or tissue, she stated. She related her
understanding that the UAGA has saved lives in other states.
MR. ZALNERAITIS, in response to Chair Ramras, explained that
organ donors in Alaskans are sent to Seattle, which is where
Alaska recipients receive most of their transplants. He stated
that of the 180 waiting, approximately 120 are kidney patients
awaiting transplants at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Swedish
Medical Center, and University of Washington hospitals. He
offered that Alaska patients sometimes receive organs from
Washington, Idaho, or Montana donor. In further response to
Chair Ramras, Mr. Zalneraitis stated that most Alaskans awaiting
kidney donations stay in Alaska, on dialysis. However, patients
awaiting a lung or heart transplant are frequently unstable
patients and may be admitted to a hospital in Washington or are
housed nearby awaiting the call that the donor is available.
Life Alaska has about 25 donors per year, who donate
approximately 100 organs to recipients.
2:22:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that she is aware of several
people in her community awaiting transplants, including a 10
year old boy named Sean who has been living in Seattle with his
mother and sister awaiting a heart transplant.
KIM MAGEE stated that she is a recipient of a simultaneous
kidney and pancreas donations. She explained that she was a
diabetic for 38 years and developed kidney disease, which
resulted in kidney failure. Ms. Magee stated that she was on a
waiting list for 8 months, which is not a long time to wait for
a kidney, she opined. She was residing in Alaska when she
received the call that a kidney and pancreas from a Washington
state donor was available. She said within a few hours of
receiving the call, she was on a plane headed to Seattle. She
also wished to point out that she received excellent medical
care while in Alaska. Ms. Magee stated that organ donations
save lives.
2:27:25 PM
SHERRY BADILLO MORENO, Volunteer, Life Alaska, stated that her
17 year old daughter died in 2003 while driving to work. She
said her daughter was less than one mile from home when she lost
control of her truck and hit two trees and died. She stated
that her daughter was a senior at Colony High School, involved
in the football program, was a nationally published poet, who
spoke of the brevity of life in her poetry. She related some
touching personal information about her daughter and her
accomplishments. She said that her daughter lives on through
her tissue donations that helped 48 people. She related that
her daughter died immediately so she was not eligible as an
organ donor. However, her heart valve, skin, tissue, and bone
were donated to recipients. She characterized tissue donation
and organ donation as the "right thing to do."
2:33:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 13, line 16, in
proposed subsection (f). He inquired as to whether a minor has
a constitutional right to determine what to do with their own
body.
MS. BEHR answered that when a minor applies for a driver's
license, that the minor needs parental consent. As a part of
that a form, the bottom of the card allows for consent to organ
donation. A parent is not involved in that decision making
process. However, subsection (f), is designed to allow parents
to make final decisions and revoke or amend consent for
instances in which a minor in the custody of his/her parents has
given consent for organ donation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether that is
constitutional because it seems to him that the minor has a
right to determine what to do with his/her own body and that the
state should provide a method to effectuate it regardless of
whether the child obtains a driver's license. He opined that
this is an important constitutional question that needs to be
addressed, although he offered that he did not need an immediate
answer to his question. He referred to page 14 lines 5-7, in
proposed subsection (i), which bans the attending physician at
the death of a donor from participating in the removal of
organs. He said that in many rural areas with only one doctor
this may pose problems and offered that this subsection may need
an Alaskan exception.
MR. ZALNERAITIS answered that when a death occurs, it is Life
Alaska's responsibility to arrange transportation to those rural
areas. He stated that in no circumstance would Life Alaska want
or expect a physician who was involved in the care of the
patient and the declaration of death to participate in the
donation procedure. He stated the donation procedures would
instead be carried out by Life Alaska's team and their
colleagues in Seattle and that Life Alaska would arrange for the
necessary transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether vagaries of
Alaska weather and the need for quick harvesting of donor organs
enters into the process such that the bill may need to be "a bit
looser" to provide for medical necessity.
MR. ZALNERAITIS said that the practicality of organ donation and
the reality of medical conditions to allow for organ donation
would require that any patient be transferred to a hospital that
has the capability to provide services to maintain the donor
prior to a transplant that are not available in rural areas. He
pointed out that if it was not possible to do maintain the
donor's life, that the person could be a tissue donor.
2:40:14 PM
JAY BUTLER, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
concurred with Mr. Zalneraitis. Dr. Butler elaborated that the
process of organ and tissue harvesting is highly technical and
specialized. He stated that primary care physicians in rural
areas do not have training or equipment to do so and he thought
that it would raise questions about the standard of care and
whether it could be achieved in those settings.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his strong support for HB 420.
He stated that he just wanted to ensure that the bill addresses
Alaska's situation since Alaska is so large with few physicians.
He offered his goal is to avoid having the matter come back to
the legislature in order to accommodate medical technological
advances.
DR. BUTLER opined that he did not see that happening in the near
future.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized his comments on the
minor's right to choose as an attempt to be helpful.
2:42:00 PM
MIKE GERAGHTY, Attorney, Alaska Uniform Law Commissioner,
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL), explained that the original act was passed in 1968 and
was enacted by all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He
stated that HB 420 incorporates changes in the revised UAGA,
which was just promulgated by the NCCUSL in 2006. Since then
the revised act has been adopted in at least 22 states, which
represents very fast action on the part of those states.
MR. GERAGHTY highlighted changes in the revised act. The first
person consent to make a donation of organ and tissue has been
substantially strengthened to bar others from interfering or
attempting to revoke the gift. By the same token, if a person
has entered into a refusal, the act also protects that person's
right not to make a gift. He pointed out that absent first
person consent, in which the deceased has neither consented nor
refused to make a gift, the revised act facilitates gifts by
family members and health care agents by expanding those who can
act to make a gift on a person's behalf to include health care
agent. This bill also clarifies the manner in which that
consent must be contained and outlines the circumstances. Gifts
on donor registries and state issued identification cards are
specifically authorized under HB 420. Registries are encouraged
and operation standards are provided since many stated did not
have donor registries. He pointed out that the state adopted a
uniform state registry a few years ago that has been very
successful. This bill provides for cooperation and coordination
between procurement organizations and medical examiners
specifically with regard to procurement from potential donors
under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner.
MR. GERAGHTY concluded that HB 420 harmonizes federal law with
current practices including the use of advanced medical
directives, such as do not resuscitate orders. He stated that
the revised act has been endorsed by the American Medical
Association (AMA), the American Bar Association (ABA), the
American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Association of
Tissue Banks, the American Society of Cataract and Refractive
Surgery, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the
federal Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Organ
Transplantation, the Cornea Society, and the Eye Bank
Association of America. He strongly encouraged the committee to
act on HB 420.
2:47:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 420.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed an interest in having HB 420
held over so that he could research the matter of the minor, but
he deferred to Chair Ramras.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed his preference for moving HB 420 out of
committee.
2:48:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 420 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 420 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 368 - ETHICS: LEGISLATIVE & GOV/LT GOV
[Contains brief mention that HB 368 is intended to clean up some
of the provisions of HB 109.]
2:49:08 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).]
2:49:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 368, Version 25-LS1326\O, Wayne, 3/20/08,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version O
was before the committee.
2:50:25 PM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), stated
that HB 368 is a clean up bill from last year, HB 109, which was
an all encompassing ethics bill. Additionally, some
recommendations by ethics committee members are incorporated
into HB 368. She reviewed the changes in Version O by section.
She stated that in Section 1, the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics recommended not to allow campaign fund
raising during a legislative session regardless of the location
of the fundraiser. She noted that Section 2 of the bill refers
to gifts. Last year, a provision was added to HB 109 that would
prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts to legislative staff.
However, the change created an inadvertent consequence in that
it also prohibited spouses from giving gifts to staff. Thus,
spouses were prohibited from giving gifts to their significant
others for birthdays or anniversaries. The Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics recommends that gifts should be allowed from
immediate family members to legislative staff.
MS. ANDERSON advised that Sections 3 and 4 of the bill are not
changed. Section [6] requires that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics publish summaries of its decisions and
advisory opinions annually instead of semi-annually, which
reflects current practice and was recommended by the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. She also pointed out that the
advisory opinions are placed in the newsletter immediately after
issuance and are placed in a searchable database on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics' website. She further advised
that complaint decisions are also placed in the advisory
newsletter and will soon be posted on the website, as well. She
highlighted that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics also
notifies the press of any decision or opinion as part of its
internal policy and its rules of procedure.
MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the summaries of decisions and
advisory opinions are submitted to the House Chief Clerk and the
Senate Secretary annually, which then becomes part of the
legislative journal. Section [7] of the bill pertains to the
fine structure. Currently, the committee can impose a fine for
late filing of disclosures. The Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics recommends adding language that would separate out and
make a distinction between "inadvertent" and "willful" late
filings. Currently the fine imposed for late filings is $2 per
day, with a maximum of $100 for each disclosure. The Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics recommends limiting the fine for
inadvertent late filing to $25 and would impose a fine for
willful late filing in the amount of $100 for each day, not to
exceed $2,500. She related that a former legislator refused to
file his/her disclosures, eventually filed his/her disclosures,
and was fined. However, the former legislator refused to pay
the fine and since the fine consisted of two $100 fines, the
attorney general's office declined to prosecute. The Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics stresses the importance of
filing final disclosures. Thus, the fine structure was changed
to encourage timely filing of disclosures after leaving office
or leaving employment. Ms. Anderson highlighted that her
research of other states showed that their fines ranged between
$5,000 and $10,000 for late filings, so the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics felt that $100 per day fine was reasonable.
She noted that she worked with staff on an amendment, which she
could address later on for the committee.
2:57:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related her understanding that under
current law the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics could not
take any action with respect to a former legislator. She
related her own experience with a late filing and offered her
view that it was her personal responsibility to pay the fine,
which she did.
MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the newspapers did run an article
to publicize the late filing in that instance. She surmised
that Representative Dahlstrom probably was referring to an APOC
late filing rather than a case that came before the Ethics
Committee for late disclosure filing. She characterized the
three-tier fine structure as meeting the needs of legislators
and staff. She pointed out that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics reviews extenuating circumstances.
CHAIR RAMRAS related that his campaign finance manager is
receiving treatment for cancer and he said he appreciates the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' willingness to consider
extenuating circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to lines 1-6 in proposed AS
15.13.072(g). He referred to "municipality" and inquired as to
how this subsection would apply if the regular or special
session of the legislature convened in an area that was not a
"municipality."
MS. ANDERSON offered her recollection of past discussions. She
posed a scenario in which a special session is held in Girdwood,
that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would not allow
fundraising to occur in Anchorage. The Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics would view the provision to include the
entire area.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to whether municipalities
would include boroughs, such as the Fairbanks North Star
Borough. He opined that only one municipality exists and it is
the Municipality of Anchorage. He further inquired as to how it
is defined.
3:02:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the Alaska Bar
Association (ABA) disciplines attorneys. The ABA can issue a
public reprimand, he noted. He suggested that the committee
consider providing the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
similar power in situations in which the activity is considered
wilful conduct or refusal. In response to Ms. Anderson,
Representative Gruenberg explained that the public reprimand is
one that is provided to the attorney and also a notice is placed
in newspapers of general circulation around the state. He
stated that he would be prepared to offer such an amendment.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the committee has discussed this
matter and has in its rules of procedure that if willful conduct
of that type occurs that the conduct would be listed in the in
the advisor's newsletter. She noted that the advisor's
newsletter did list information on the legislator who refused to
pay his/her fine. She pointed out that the advisor's newsletter
is also posted to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics'
website.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated that he would offer the
amendment at the appropriate time, similar to the ABA
disciplinary action.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would strongly object to such an
amendment. He opined that the fine would be enough. He stated
that disciplining members should remain with the body. He
further stated that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
has enough authority. However, he stated that he wants the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to perform its functions
well.
CHAIR RAMRAS reminded members of the fourth estate which is
quite capable of undermining the reputation of members in good
standing.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN answered that the person is no longer part
of the body so the concern shouldn't apply and would not make
any difference.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to page 2, in proposed AS
15.13.072(g), and inquired as to whether "municipality" would
also encompass the cities and boroughs.
3:07:48 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
explained that the general definition of municipality means a
political subdivision incorporated under the laws of the state,
a home rule or general law city, a home rule or general law
borough or a unified municipality.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after first determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 368.
3:08:36 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-
LS1326\O.1, Wayne, 3/26/08, which read:
Page 1, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "who are members of their immediate
families"
Page 2, line 30, following "(B)":
Insert "a contribution to a charity event from
any person at any time, and"
Page 3, line 7:
Delete "or"
Page 3, line 10, following "family":
Insert ";
(D) a gift delivered on the premises of a
state facility and accepted on behalf of a recognized
nonpolitical charitable organization; or
(E) a compassionate gift under
AS 24.60.075"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to Chair Ramras, offered that the
change proposed in Amendment 1 would place all of the exceptions
for a lobbyist in one provision of statutes for easier access.
She explained that AS 24.60.030(a)(2)(K) and AS 24.60.080(c)(10)
currently contain the language to allow contributions to a
charity event from an person at any time, such that it allows
for the Fahrenkamp Classic to be held. She noted that all of
the changes contained in the Amendment 1 are existing law. This
amendment would place them in the appropriate section of statute
for easier access.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:12:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which was handwritten, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 5, line 3, add the following sentence: "In
addition to any fine that may be imposed, if the
committee finds that the late filing was willful, it
may issue a private or public reprimand."
Representative Gruenberg opined that the committee should also
have the authority, in addition to any fine imposed should have
the ability to issue a private or public reprimand. He conveyed
that a private reprimand, similar to the ABA rules, means simply
a letter to the person involved. However, a public reprimand
would be same as it is for the ABA, that a notice would be
placed in the newspaper. He offered, in response to
Representative Coghill's comments, that it seems to him that the
person's reputation is important, that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics would not invoke this provision often and
only in egregious cases. However, he stressed his belief that
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics should have the
authority to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt an amendment to Amendment 2,
as follows, to authorize the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics to impose corporal punishment on any member that does not
file its paperwork in a timely fashion.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that his sarcasm is intended to convey
his sense that corporal punishment is equally inappropriate as
any committee, such as the Ethics Committee, holding the
authority to impose public disciplinary sanctions to this body.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 2.
3:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed CS for HB
368, labeled 25-LS1326\O, Wayne, 3/20/08, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 368(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 3:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|