Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/06/1999 01:22 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE May 6, 1999 1:22 p.m MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Joe Green Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Jeannette James Representative Lisa Murkowski Representative Eric Croft Representative Beth Kerttula MEMBERS ABSENT COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE BILL NO. 225 "An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11 Relating to substance abuse treatment for offenders in the criminal justice system. - MOVED HCR 11 OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 42(JUD) "An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED SCS SB 42(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 192 "An Act relating to reciting the pledge of allegiance by public school students." - MOVED NEW CSHB 192(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3879 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Sponsor of HB 225. PETER TORKELSON, Legislative Assistant for Representative Cowdery Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3879 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 225. MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant for Representative Cowdery Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3879 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 225. TERRY CRAMER, Attorney Legislative Legal Counsel Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward Street, Suite 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105 Telephone: (907) 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 225. SUSIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics PO Box 101468 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-1468 Telephone: (907) 269-0150 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed HB 225 from the view of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying Alaska Public Offices Commission Department of Administration PO Box 110222 Juneau, Alaska 9811-0222 Telephone: (907) 465-4854 POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed possible concerns of the APOC. DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Former Representative PO Box 200671 Anchorage, Alaska 99520 Telephone: (907) 333-6248 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 225. DONALD DAPCEVICH, Executive Director Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Office of the Commissioner Department of Health and Social Services PO Box 110608 Juneau, Alaska 99801-0608 Telephone: (907) 465-8920 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 11. REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 104 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2199 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HCR 11. JAMES CRAWFORD, Assistant Revisor Legislative Legal Counsel Legislative Legal and Research Services Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward Street, Suite 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105 Telephone: (907) 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 42. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-56, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:22 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, Murkowski, Croft and Kerttula. Representative James arrived at 1:51 p.m. HB 225-CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business is HB 225, "An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and providing for an effective date." Number 0077 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY, Sponsor of HB 225, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that the purpose of HB 225 is to clarify some legal issues of ethics. He requested that his staff, Peter Torkelson, come forward to present HB 225. PETER TORKELSON, Legislative Assistant for Representative Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, began by addressing Section 1 of HB 225. He stated that the original ethics law included Section 12, Chapter 48, SLA 1996, as a self-executing body of law to take effect should AS 15.13.074(c) be found invalid by a court. The recent case did find that statute invalid. In 1998, SB 105 amended AS 15.13.074(c). However, SB 105 neglected to also amend session law. Therefore, the effect of the court decision by causing the self-execution of the session law would be to repeal the change done last year in SB 105. This legislation, HB 225, would correct that oversight in Section 1. He explained that the material change is in the underlying text; it merely adds 15 days after an election as when the funds can be received. MR. TORKELSON turned to Section 2 of HB 225 which addresses a number of gray areas that have been brought forth through the implementation of the ethics law. There are gray areas regarding the use of photographs and preparation of greeting cards. Number 0239 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood Section 1 to specify that there is a limited amount of time to accept contributions after an election. He requested that Mr. Torkelson review Section 1 again. MR. TORKELSON explained that the original law included language specifying, "later than the 45th day". Last year, SB 105 was changed with the new underlined language which reads, "after the earlier of December 31 of the year of the election or the 60th day" which was passed and signed into law. Now the court has held AS 15.13.074(c) invalid, therefore sec.12, ch. 48, SLA 1996 will self-execute upon the finalization of that decision. That self-execution will have the effect of returning the language, "later than the 45th day" because the legislature neglected to also amend the session law when AS 15.13.074(c) was amended. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood then that the original initiative language read, "later than the 45th day" and subsequently a law was passed with that language. Then last year the language was amended as Mr. Torkelson specified. Due to the court case, the language reverts back to the initiative sponsored language. MR. TORKELSON indicated agreement with Representative Croft's understanding. Number 0405 MR. TORKELSON returned to Section 2 which addresses many issues. He referred to page 2, line 24, subparagraph (A) which utilizes the word "limited". The Joint Select Committee on Legislative Ethics (Ethics Committee) interpreted the use of "limited" in subparagraph (A) to trickle down and apply to subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E). By inserting "unlimited" in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) in HB 225, there is clarity that the word "limited" only applies to subparagraph (A). Mr. Torkelson noted that change occurs in Section 2, paragraph (2) and paragraph (5). He pointed out that new subparagraphs (F), (G), (H), (I), and (J) address specific instances of questionable areas. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if a legislator could have his/her staff write Christmas cards. MR. TORKELSON said he believed that was what the language meant. CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that staff could be utilized to write cards to a legislator's constituents, not to family or friends unless they live in the legislator's district. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that the language does not say that. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY interjected that it was not the intention. He recognized that many legislators send greeting cards to their constituents. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the language, "to send out seasonal greeting cards;" would allow a legislator's staff to address, stamp, put together the Christmas card, and send out the card. She inquired as to how far in the preparation of the card would the legislator be allowed to utilize his/her employee. Number 0650 MR. TORKELSON said that if it could be shown that the preparation of a greeting card was used for a nonlegislative purpose, that would fall under the language in subparagraph (A), which in part reads "limited use of state property and resources for personal purposes if the use does not interfere with the performance of public duties...". That language illustrates the many gray areas. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that the language, "(F) a legislator from unlimited use of legislative employees to send out seasonal greeting cards;" would allow cards to be sent only to the legislator's campaign contributors. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY responded that a legislator would have to make that decision. He did not know how one, except the legislator, could track who was sent a card. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that he thought if he were to send out greeting cards to a group of lobbyists who made contributions, those lobbyists would have to be in the district. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that he was speaking to two different issues. He asked if he could give his staff his contributor's list and request his staff to send all those on the list greeting cards. He said that was different than if he could send greeting cards to all the lobbyists or to only the Democrats in his district. Representative Croft interpreted the "unlimited" language to allow all those things listed, although those things would have been questionable before. Perhaps, it would be appropriate to further define what is and is not allowable. Some of the things mentioned, Representative Croft would consider inappropriate. He agreed with Representative Cowdery that this should be clear, but he was unsure as to whether stating the unlimited use of greeting cards is where we should be. Number 0847 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that he has sent almost 1,000 greeting cards every year. Representative Rokeberg said that he has an opinion from the Ethics Committee that such is allowable. He specified that he sends greeting cards to contributors and noncontributors alike, but not personal family greeting cards. Representative Rokeberg said that what is being done in HB 225 is no more than what is currently allowed. To categorize what is allowable and what is not allowable results in an infinite discussion, which is inappropriate. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if Representative Rokeberg meant that he personally prepares the greeting cards. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that his staff prepares his greeting cards. Representative Rokeberg suggested inserting the language, "preparation and sending out". He explained that he has the cards produced and provides the stamps. His staff label the cards, adhere the stamps, and mail the greeting cards. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if Mr. Torkelson wanted to make comments to the specific areas being enumerated with some examples that would justify inclusion. MR. TORKELSON commented that the discussion illustrates the intent of the legislation; "Who makes the decision?, ... Whose judgement is it? Is it the Ethics Committee, is it ours, is it someone else's? ... We don't know so lets get it out in the sun, let's talk about it, let's lay it out in law." Although "unlimited" could encompass all those things, he believed it to be a fairly distinct term. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that "unlimited" is clear and allows legislators to do whatever they want. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented that he believed that everybody he has met in this legislature are all fairly ethical people. He said that he has made honest errors and perhaps, so have others. He indicated that the decision regarding what is ethical or not should be left to the legislature and placed in law. Number 1047 MR. TORKELSON said that he has noticed in trying to formulate arguments and discussion, that implicit in these arguments is that people have the say at the ballot. He stated, "We'd rather have them do it in a public process than have the Ethics Committee do it." Mr. Torkelson emphasized that this only defines what areas the Ethics Committee has jurisdiction. MR. TORKELSON continued his presentation. He directed the committee to subparagraph (G) which simply states that if an item is utilized for state purposes in that legislator's office, the state can pay to move that item to Juneau. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that computers are often the item to which this subparagraph would refer. MR. TORKELSON agreed and noted that a printer or specialized computer equipment would also fall under subparagraph (G). CHAIRMAN KOTT said, it seems to him, that computers can currently be shipped at the state's expense. The legislator would be liable for the taxes on that reimbursement. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted that last year he had his own computer, this year he has his own color copier that is tied in to use for state business. He also noted that he has other items that he personally owns that are utilized in his office for state business. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed with Chairman Kott that if all those items were shipped back to Anchorage, that cost could be reimbursed. It would merely show up on one's tax forms later. The distinction is whether it is taxable or nontaxable in these areas. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if LAA pays for this and for the insurance. MR. TORKELSON believed that if an item is shipped with everything in an office, then whoever handles that would be responsible for the contents of the packages. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the Legislative Affairs Agency is currently responsible for shipping a legislator's personal computer. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that the legislator would be responsible for shipping his/her own computer, but the legislator would be reimbursed for the shipping cost for the computer or any household goods. However, that legislator would pay the tax on those. He suspected that there is probably much intermingling. Number 1348 MR. TORKELSON continued with subparagraph (H) which simply states that "you own your image." He moved on to subparagraph (I) which speaks to the use of the Internet. He said that the point here is that no state body has the right to probe into the way a legislator has used the Internet. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern with the use of campaign websites on the Internet, which subparagraph (I) would seem to allow. She clarified that she was referring to the creation of a campaign website. MR. TORKELSON agreed it would potentially allow that. He clarified that subparagraph (I) disallows someone to come and ask. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that it is two different things. She said, "I just want to be clear, this would allow you to have a campaign website up on your state-owned computer, with your state time on the Internet." MR. TORKELSON clarified, "On you website or on the state computer, I'm not sure because that's--then that's actually possessed on the state computer and I'm not real familiar with that, but if you accessed or maintained your campaign website through a state computer on the Internet; this language would allow that." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to how subparagraph (I) is different from page 2, subparagraph (C) which says, "unlimited telephone, Internet, or facsimile use that does not carry a special charge;". CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that there is a clarifying amendment for that. MR. TORKELSON acknowledged that there is an overlap, but there is a slight difference. The one that effects legislative employees also says, "incurs special charges". Mr. Torkelson indicated that since this was drafted, it has been realized that a special charge cannot be incurred to a phone line through the Internet due to how IP addresses work. Therefore, there is an amendment which would clarify the language. CHAIRMAN KOTT explained that the amendment would essentially delete "Internet" on page 2. "It moves over and delineates between your employee and the legislator, under [subparagraph] ... (I) on page 3." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood then that a legislator can do it if it requires a special charge, but staff cannot. MR. TORKELSON explained that this illustrates an anomaly of the way phone services work in comparison to the way Internet services work. Technically, this would allow a legislator to incur a special charge. However, he eluded to the difficulty in doing so. When one dials zero, charges are implicitly accepted while when one is on the Internet, no charges are accepted. CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that most of the subscription charges are paid in advance. Number 1622 MR. TORKELSON continued with subparagraph (J). He pointed out that the Legislative Golf Tournament is ethically suspect under the current law for raising funds in a state building for a nonstate cause. "This clarifies that. You can raise funds for the YMCA or the United Way or enumerable other organizations." CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that the golf tournament funds are raised off the premises, but the State Capitol Building is utilized to recover those funds generated off the premises. There probably is a nexus there. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "If I'm a legislator and I can solicit a ... state lottery type things, that I received a gift from that on behalf of a recognized, nonpolitical charitable contribution. I'm saying ... you all give your bucks up and I'm going to get 10 percent of that. Doesn't that qualify me to receive that gift?" REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said that was not the intent. In that case, it would be for profit. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN restated, "Each guy here will give me $100 because what we're going to do is give this to the Salvation Army, but I'm going to take 10 percent of it. I'm receiving a gift on behalf of a charitable organization." Would this language allow that? CHAIRMAN KOTT said that he did not believe so because part of it, 10 percent, would be accepted on behalf of the legislator. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated that he would be receiving this gift on behalf of this lottery. He expressed concern that the language is a loop hole. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that the understanding would be that if the legislator received a gift on behalf of a nonprofit organization, then the legislator would have to fulfill the other end of the bargain - to distribute or give whatever was received on behalf of the charitable organization to the charitable organization. Otherwise, Chairman Kott felt there could be an argument of theft. Number 1776 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it would not be a gift, but an employment contract. It would not be allowable, it would be a business activity. He said, "Your 10 percent's not a gift to you. It's a compensational fee." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "If I collect $1,000 here and what they're going to do then is give me back $100. ... Unless you're saying that's a verbal employment contract." CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if this would allow him to use the telephone [a state telephone] to call to a lobbyist and solicit a gift of $500 so that he could send it to the Gastineau Humane Society, a nonprofit organization. MS. TORKELSON replied yes. He indicated this would be allowed assuming that the organization qualifies as a charitable, non-political organization. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that has both legitimate and troubling connotations. He said the Chugach Optional School in his district was trying to get new computers and he said he would help. The school registered as at least a tax-exempt charity. Once he began calling around to different people to ask for donations, he got the sense that this was a little troubling. Representative Croft indicated that action seemed, to him, to be on the "appropriate side of the line". He said being clear about what can and cannot be done and having it be a good judgement call is important. Number 1920 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that after session last year she celebrated her fiftieth wedding anniversary here in Juneau, and then also had another party when she returned home. She indicated that she sent out invitations asking that contributions be made to the Boys and Girls Club that was just forming in North Pole. She did receive some contributions and wondered whether or not that was allowed. MR. TORKELSON said this bill would allow that. The point of this bill is that you would not have to ask. There would not be that question. There would not be that "gray cloud." CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if "nonpolitical" could be defined for his own edification. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it is against the law to be a charity and to be political. CHAIRMAN KOTT wondered about grants that are sent to charities. By virtue of receipt of those grant monies, wouldn't the charity be political? REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that with a 501(c)(3) designation the entity cannot be political. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that if it is stated that the organization is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, then "you've insulated yourself that way." Number 2032 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA specified that there are 501(c)(3) charitable organizations that also have separate political organizations such as choice organizations. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered about churches, specifically the Catholic church. MR. TORKELSON replied that he does not know how a Catholic church is set up. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT does not know if the Catholic church is 501(c)(3) or not, but he believes it does fit within the context of a non-political, charitable organization. MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant for Representative Cowdery, stated he had an experience with respect to this issues. He had a request to hold some political activity meetings at his Catholic church. He explained that he was told, by the Anchorage Archbishop, those meetings could not be held there because it would jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the church. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he believes that, under this section, a Catholic church would be recognized as a nonpolitical, charitable organization. Therefore, a fund-raising for the church could be done out of his office using legislative employees. CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that he believed Representative Croft to be correct. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would avoid using the 501(c)(3) definition because it is of a federal tax code recognition of a nonprofit organization. He could conceive of having a recognized nonpolitical, charitable organization that is not necessarily registered. He provided the example of a fundraiser for a dying cancer patient. This person would not be registered as a 501(c)(3), but a case could be made that the charity effort would be recognizable because of its cause to qualify. CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "I guess when you get into that aspect, then you're dealing with dying. What about birth?" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that maybe his example is on the edge. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Whatever we do, I think the sponsor was right. We want to be clear and that brings up another aspect of this that I'm sure we'll discuss when we get down to it, but recognized nonpolitical, charitable organization - I'm not sure it would be a recognized organization." He wondered how much they want to broaden that. MR. TORKELSON explained that the use of the word "nonpolitical" was chosen to be sure that political parties were ruled out. Therefore, from the sponsor's perspective that language is important. Number 2259 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to page 4, line 19, of HB 225 which reads: (C) unlimited telephone or facsimile use that does not carry a special charge. She wondered if this would allow a campaign phone bank in an office. MR. TORKELSON said that "unlimited telephone use" would be unlimited use of your telephone. He said, "If you wanted to pay to install a bank of telephone lines, that's a whole other situation." He indicated that the language would potentially allow a legislator to have a campaign phone bank in his/her office. MR. PIGNALBERI pointed out that legislators would have to go to the Rules committee to add any telephones to his/her office. He did not think that was very likely. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA surmised then that the statute would allow it. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented, "In that regard, we have three lines anyway. And you can do a lot of mischief on three lines." Number 2312 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the unlimited use of the telephone would allow a legislator to solicit campaign contributions on his/her telephone. TERRY CRAMER, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, stated: You could use under the use of public stuff statute 030, your telephone, but this bill does not amend AS 24.60.031 which restricts ... raising money during sessions. So, you still have in place a law that says a legislator or legislative employee may not, on a day when either house of the legislature is in session, fund raise. So, that restriction would still apply. So, if you were in session, you couldn't use your phones for that. If you were not in session, you could under this bill. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if a legislator in his office when the legislature was not in session could legally make phone calls a month before the primary election? MS. CRAMER stated that she believes so. Number 2399 MR. TORKELSON made the point again that he would be legal, but that "his opponent would be armed." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that means that a legislator should not go to his office during any campaign period because his opponent would have the right to say that he was improperly using state property. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that the purpose of the ethics code was to have some standards. He indicated that clarifying those standards is appropriate. Although the entire ethics code could be eliminated, he did not believe that would be proper. He understands and likes the argument that the ethics code should be clear and avoid weird traps where one cannot tell what is allowed and what is not. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, We clearly wouldn't want to say in that other statute, "You can't fund raise if you're a legislator." ... You have to. What we said is two things. Don't "fund raise" in session, however you do it, and then don't use state property to do it. And between those two, obviously out of session, you go home or go to your campaign headquarters. Those two together made some sense. When you drop out the one,... TAPE 99-56, SIDE B Number 0005 MR. TORKELSON said in this case it is the use of a phone or the fax, which is admittedly a state asset and an advantage. However, it is not an uncommon advantage. The legislator's opponent has phones at his/her disposal everywhere. "So in making it illegal you're implying that someone is going to check; you are implying that someone is going to listen; you are implying that someone has a right to show if it was illegal." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied no he is not. He clarified that he is saying that there is a standard that it is inappropriate. However it is policed, we [the legislature] need to say it is inappropriate. Whether one is caught or not is another question. It is appropriate for the legislature to have standards and it is appropriate for the legislature to say one can't use state money, state resources, or state-funded phones for campaign calls. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Cramer the current law says one cannot use a state-funded phone to campaign or raise campaign contributions. MS. CRAMER answered, "Yes, because of the section that this bill would amend. It says in 030 (a)(5) you may not use state stuff for political campaigning or fund raising." Although it does define the Ethics Committee's jurisdiction, there is no where else in statute that restricts a legislator's use of state property. This is the only place that she knew of that would address whether or not a legislator may use the state phone system, for example. CHAIRMAN KOTT understood then that a legislator would be allowed, on a limited basis, to use state property and resources for personal purposes if it doesn't interfere with his/her duties. He explained his understanding that a legislator can, in his/her office and use the phone system for non-state business. For example, a legislator could run his/her business out of his/her office as long as he/she doesn't campaign. The legislator has to justify, in his own mind, what would constitute limited use. On the other hand, it is not acceptable to make phone calls to solicit contributions or to invite any political activity. MS. CRAMER indicated that her sense of the ethics code is that it was drafted with much stronger prohibitions as to political campaigning kinds of activities than what one might call normal life kinds of activities. Number 0157 MR. TORKELSON referred to page 4, line 21, subparagraph (D) regarding unlimited storage or maintenance of election campaign records in a legislator's office. Whether that record is a diskette containing a list of the legislator's contributors or some leftover leaflets that were handed out, the idea is that a legislator is allowed to keep such items in his/her office. Storage is really not a vast resource that many legislators have at their disposal. CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that the key here is to place such records on a computer so that it requires a password and thus others cannot access those records. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to the definition of "maintenance." She asked whether it would be possible to update and maintain the contributor list. MR. TORKELSON agreed that maintaining could be, perhaps, updating a contact list or keeping a Rolodex up-to-date. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the examples that Mr. Torkelson mentioned were properly under the heading of limited storing or maintaining. However, when the word "unlimited" is used, a legislator could store all of his/her campaign stuff in the office. A legislator could have his/her staff update the contributor list and redo the data base. Is that correct? MR. TORKELSON pointed out that subparagraph (D) specifies that the "unlimited storage or maintenance ..., consistent with (b) of this section". He informed the committee that subsection (b) reads as follows: "A legislative employee may not, on government time, assist in a political party or candidate activities, campaigning or fundraising. A legislator may not require an employee to perform an act in violation of this subsection." Therefore, he didn't believe that employees were allowed to do that. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if such could be performed after hours. MR. TORKELSON responded no. MS. CRAMER answered that after hours was acceptable, as long as it was clear that it was not working hours. In that particular paragraph, she said that the insertion of "unlimited" doesn't change the substance of what was there before. There was no limit that this would make unlimited now. Number 0316 SUSIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage, noted that last year's re-write, the amendment, included this. She clarified that what is being referenced is APOC campaign records not flyers, signs and so forth. Ms. Cramer's comment is true, there is no net effect with this change because it is already unlimited. In response to Representative Croft, Ms. Barnett said that this paragraph does not address signs. MR. TORKELSON continued with subparagraph (E) on page 4, line 24. The language "unlimited use of" is inserted. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he understood that the Ethics Committee had taken the language "limited use of" in subparagraph (A) on page 2, line 24, and inferred that to the subsequent subparagraphs. He asked if such was the case with the page 4 examples [subparagraphs]. MR. TORKELSON deferred to Ms. Barnett. MR. TORKELSON referred to page 5, subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H) which essentially restate ones heard earlier. Subparagraph (I) on page 5, line 8, is in response to a situation last year. Last year many members worked on a number of different ballot propositions throughout the legislative session. Upon returning to their districts, they felt it was appropriate to try to get those propositions passed. However, there was the realization that such action may or may not be legal. He recalled that the Ethics Committee decided that a legislator could work to get a ballot proposition passed. Therefore, this bill would simply codify that decision. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to what happens if the legislator opposes a ballot proposition; this specifically refers to support. MR. TORKELSON answered that the intent was to include both sides. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that this would refer to the sponsor or co-sponsor of the ballot proposition or initiative. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why this would be limited to just a sponsor or co-sponsor of a ballot proposition. She noted that she hasn't read the Ethics Committee's decision. CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that may be the reason for the language. Number 0537 MS. BARNETT noted that she would like to go through the bill as a package, which may make the pieces make more sense. Although the full Ethics Committee has not had a chance to review the bill, Shirley McCoy has been provided with an analysis of the bill and Ms. McCoy does agree with the forthcoming comments. Before going into the details of HB 225, Ms. Barnett mentioned that the ethics code was amended last year after hours and hours of work in the House State Affairs Standing Committee. Those changes just became effective over four months ago. The code was changed to be significantly less restrictive to legislators and, to a lesser degree, to legislative employees. In the last four months the Ethics Committee has been providing training and informal advice based on the changes to the code, which she said appears to be working. Ms. Barnett commented that ethics is about standards; it is inherently gray. The ethics code allows for a person to ask for an advisory opinion to clarify any issue or for informal advice. It is difficult to write a code that addresses every issue. MS. BARNETT referred the committee to Section 2, page 2, line 28, where the word "unlimited" was inserted. That change has no net effect whatsoever because currently the use of publicly available mailing lists is unlimited. She then turned to the change in subparagraph (C), line 31. Ms. Barnett disagreed with Mr. Torkelson's earlier statement that the Ethics Committee has been applying "limited use" to every other section. However, she does believe the Ethics Committee has been applying it ["limited use"] to the current law with regard to the use of telephone and fax. She believed that telephone use, legally and technically, is unlimited today. However, that wasn't the intent. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Barnett if she was happy with the word "unlimited" there. MS. BARNETT answered she didn't know, although she didn't believe that is what the legislature intended. She surmised that the legislature may want to place some parameters around telephone use for legislative employees, however that is up to the legislature. Ms. Barnett informed the committee that other pieces in the law, already allow unlimited use [of the telephone and fax] in the inner office, as long as it doesn't interfere with the performance of public duty and there is no cost or the cost is promptly reimbursed. A legislator can campaign and solicit as long as no other part of the law is applicable, as Ms. Cramer said. However, a legislator can't solicit campaign funds during session. Therefore, she is not sure that the legislature wants the word "unlimited" in the code. She encouraged the Ethics Committee to provide some clarifiers with regard to phone use. MS. BARNETT pointed out that there is a significant change in subparagraph (C), which is the concept that legislators and legislative employees can have unlimited use of the Internet. The Legislative Counsel has a policy which legislators and employees are to follow. That policy states, in general, that a legislator or employee may not use state-provided access to the Internet for nongovernmental purposes or for the private benefit of the legislator, employee or another person. The counsel policy notes the exceptions in the ethics code which allow use for personal purposes, if the use does not interfere with the performance of public duties and the cost of the use is nominal. The policy further states that no person shall use the legislative computers and systems in violation of any state or federal law to promote commercial venture, political campaigns, to transmit obscene material and more. That policy is based on the ethics code. If HB 225 were to pass, the Ethics Committee would no longer have jurisdiction over misuse of the Internet. However, Legislative Counsel would have a policy and perhaps, they would become the investigative body concerning misuse of the Internet by employees. She also indicated the counsel could play an enforcement role. Currently, if a complaint were filed, misuse of state resources would go through the Ethics Committee. If a legislator were to use the Internet for political campaigning, fund raising, gambling, pornographic purposes, commercial activities or other legal or illegal activities that are nonlegislative, what would be the consequence? Legislative Counsel may take some comfort that disciplining employees isn't a traditional role, but she guessed that the counsel would not see their role as disciplining colleagues. That is why there is an Ethics Committee. She explained that removing the limits on Internet use means that legislators could only be prosecuted for felony uses of the Internet because legislators have legislative immunity during session, as specified in Article II of the constitution. She added that this unlimited use of the Internet means that one legislator could send ten photos of his/her grandchildren to 40 or 50 people, which could severely bog down or crash the system. Therefore, she suggested obtaining some help from data processing. Furthermore, the Ethics Committee could, if asked, come up with some uses that don't interfere with the performance of duty and thus raise the comfort level. Number 0914 MS. BARNETT referred to the change in subparagraph (D) on page 3, line 2. That subparagraph refers to unlimited use by legislators and legislative employees of a public facility, which is intended to be the use of the Capital School gym or similar facilities. That may or may not have an affect for purposes of the ethics code. However, subparagraph (D) would have a confusing effect on Legislative Counsel down below in that section, which is directed to adopt guidelines to govern access and use. The policy would legally have to say "unlimited" and that would be the end of the policy. She didn't believe there is an intent there to do that. The change in subparagraph(E) on page 3, line 9, relating to legislators' use of resources in his/her inner office is also confusing. Subparagraph (E) adds the words "unlimited use of", but that is not really accurate because there are limits set out in the same subparagraph. Those limits specify that the use must not interfere with the performance of public duties, and have no cost or the cost is reimbursed. Those are very reasonable limits about which no one has complained. She noted that this is a new section effective in January and it seems to be working. The change from five to ten days in subparagraph (E) doesn't seem significant because legislators usually want to leave town as quickly as possible. MS BARNETT referred to the change in subparagraph (F) on page 3, line 19, which allows unlimited use of employees to send out seasonal cards. She commented that Representative Rokeberg was correct in that subparagraph (F) does follow the committee's own advice. She noted that this [subparagraph] is not limited to constituents because some committee chairs have contacts all over the state on various issues. She clarified that the Ethics Committee would view sending out seasonal cards to mean from production through stamping and "out the door." However, there are some additional LAA guidelines if a legislator uses his/her office allowance. Number 1034 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the issue of greeting cards and asked if he can only send them to Democrats and not Republicans in his district. He also asked if he could send greeting cards just to contributors. MS. BARNETT answered yes to both questions. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if he can have staff send greeting cards to constituents as well as to personal contacts such as his grandparents. MS. BARNETT replied that these are all tough for her to answer yes to. She specified that this is not a formal advisory opinion. Ms. Barnett said that this would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Generally, the Ethics Committee said that [greeting cards] are communication; the purpose is to further communication from a legislator. Therefore, she would have to answer yes, although she is not sure whether an advisory opinion from the Ethics Committee would agree. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether he could send out holiday cards that said vote for Eric Croft. MS. BARNETT replied that he would be able to under this bill. She agreed with Representative Croft that under the current law, such would probably cross the line because it has a campaign purpose. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered about Halloween cards right before the election in November which said vote Eric Croft. MS. BARNETT agreed under this bill he would be able to do so. MS. BARNETT continued and referred to the change in subparagraph (G) on page 3, line 21, which specifies that personal computers used for state functions can be moved as state equipment. Subparagraph (G) is a change to the ethics code and to Legislative Counsel's policy which is a separate and very detailed policy restricting moving equipment that is not state-owned. She noted that the Ethics Committee relies on that policy. Ms. Barnett pointed out that there are insurance issues here as well as the question of, in the proposed language, what "used for a state function" means. "If somebody sent one e-mail to all the legislators saying, 'Hey, my bill is coming up tomorrow.' does that qualify and now you get to move the computer." She didn't believe this to be a bad idea if the computer is being used primarily and predominantly for legislative business. However, there is more than the ethics code here because LAA will have an additional cost and there is some liability. Furthermore, legislators have a separate policy and payment plan for moving household goods. As long as a legislator is under the limit, he/she can move that computer with his/her household goods. Number 1234 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that if a legislator ships his/her own things home, that is taxable. She noted her understanding that the House and the Senate have not had the ability to purchase computers for legislators. If a legislator needs to have a computer in his/her office, he/she must buy their own. Representative James finds it cumbersome and troublesome to pick up her computer and take it home and ship it with her other things. She related her personal experiences with moving equipment and commented that an alternative would be for the legislature to buy computers for the legislators. MS. BARNETT agreed this is an area that could be clarified and she offered to help work on it. MS. BARNETT said she is unclear about the change in subparagraph (H) on page 3, line 24, concerning unlimited use of photographs. She assumed it refers to photos taken with state equipment, by state-paid staff, using film paid for by the state. She further assumed that those photos can be used in one's personal re-election campaign. She agreed that legislators could use such photos for a legislative newsletter or a legislative questionnaire. However, such photos currently cannot be used for campaign purposes; HB 225 would change that. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the problem is the difficulty in keeping track of which photos are campaign photos, that can be used in a newsletter, and which photos were taken by the legislator's staff for use in a campaign. Most people have photos filed and it is hard to tell which was taken where and by whom. MS. BARNETT clarified that she read it [subparagraph (H)] to allow the legislator to reuse the photos in a re-election campaign. CHAIRMAN KOTT posed the a scenario in which a legislator, with his/her own camera in Juneau, has his/her staff take a photo of the legislator in action. Would it be acceptable for that legislator to use the photo in some campaign material, so long as the staff was on his/her lunch hour. MS. BARNETT replied she is hesitant to answer. However, she noted that the de minimis clause allows a certain level. She explained: If you [a legislator] intended to do it ... for personal purpose. If you [a legislator] intended however to use your staff and to do it for political purpose, then the other clause saying you can't use your staff that way - on government time - would disallow it. Now if you asked me during the lunch hour, I think probably you could if ... you didn't require them. Ms. Barnett said that she would prefer more time to think about that answer. Number 1554 MS. BARNETT continued with the change in subparagraph (I) on page 3, line 26. Subparagraph (I) refers specifically to legislators, with no mention of employees, having unlimited use of the Internet. Although it does seem repetitive, she understood that the committee is going to try to fix those double mentioned words. MS. BARNETT then turned to the change in subparagraph (J) on page 3, line 27, which is a change in how resources are used. She understood subparagraph (J) to allow legislators to solicit and accept contributions for charitable or nonpolitical organizations in the Capitol Building. Currently, state resources can only be used for charitable fund raising [and] if the legislature has a formally recognized relationship with the organization such as with NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures). She mentioned that Legislative Counsel recently approved the use of the Capitol Building for the golf tournament. The Ethics Committee relies on Legislative Counsel to set out a formal relationship, which reflects the intent of the legislature. She didn't believe it is the Ethics Committee job to say yes, state resources can be used for this group or can't be used for that group. The legislature should say that. She informed Chairman Kott that currently he can solicit lobbyists for charitable organizations by telephone. She pointed out that the language in subparagraph (J) is from the ethics code, but it is in the gift section. Last year, that was added in order to allow people [legislators] to solicit on behalf of a charitable organization because it isn't a gift. Number 1701 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the current rule is on [selling] the Nenana Ice Classic tickets in the Capitol. MS. BARNETT answered hypothetically, there isn't any formal relationship by the legislature and so there shouldn't be solicitations for the Nenana Ice Classic in the Capitol Building on state time. CHAIRMAN KOTT posed a situation in which he called someone in Anchorage, who may be a manager at Wal-Mart, and ask that person for a $200 gift for the Juneau Humane Society. He asked if, under the current laws, he could make such a call from the phone in his office? MS. BARNETT answered that a legislator can solicit a charitable donation from his inner office as long as it doesn't interfere with the performance of public duty and all the other parts of the law. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked what if he was soliciting for an organization which isn't a charitable organization such as the Anchorage Christian School's silent auction. MS. BARNETT explained that a legislator could accept a gift or contribution on behalf of a recognized nonpolitical 501(c)(3) or a locally recognized group that meets the standards. She reiterated that a legislator couldn't use state resources outside of his inner office for that. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Barnett if legislators can currently do this without using state resources; what, materially, does subparagraph (J) add? MS. BARNETT answered that she believes that subparagraph (J) adds the ability for a legislator to walk around the building soliciting for his/her favorite charitable organization. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it still doesn't allow him to use his staff, which was the main distinction under the old law. MS. BARNETT explained that under the old law this was dealt with specifically in terms of accepting gifts and [the Ethics Committee] said it wasn't gift. Then a new section was added that allowed legislators to do what he/she want in his/her inner office as long as it didn't interfere [with public business]. This additional change says that the legislator can do it anywhere. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood then that Representative James could walk around and sell her Nenana Ice Classic tickets, she just can't have her staff do it. MS. BARNETT answered under this proposed change that is correct. CHAIRMAN KOTT mentioned that a staff member was injured and there was an effort to give leave. He asked if he could ask his staff to solicit leave time from others and would that be considered part of official duties of a staff person. MS. BARNETT replied no, she didn't think so. Leave time is difficult because it doesn't fall into one category. It has its own separate statute. It is an anonymous gift and in the case mentioned, the receipt of the leave is unrelated to the recipient's legislative status because there is a separate category. She agreed that would have a nonlegislative purpose and not what a legislator should be using his/her state resources for. Ms. Barnett said there could be discussion about the use of limited, but it [solicitation of leave] would probably not be an appropriate use. CHAIRMAN KOTT surmised then that it would also not be appropriate, under the aforementioned circumstances, to use a computer to solicit the same [leave] from other offices. MS. BARNETT agreed, but reiterated that it is a difficult situation because state leave is a separate category. Technically, it does not have a legislative purpose. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it is not enacting legislation, but under AS 24.60.030 (a) we [legislators] can use public funds, facilities, equipment and services. Furthermore, [legislators] can make limited use of state property or resources for personal purposes, which this probably is, if it doesn't interfere with the performance of public duties and the cost is nominal. It seems like those discussions and e-mails have been of nominal cost and limited use. MS. BARNETT indicated that the committee would be better served with hypothetical situations. For example, when the all users address on the computer is used the system is slowed, and therefore there may be some interference. Again when people use the all users address, she tries to send them a note expressing the need to be sure the message has to do with legislative purpose, based on the information that DP has given her. In response to Representative Croft, Ms. Barnett agreed that to a certain limited extent, those activities don't interfere. MS. BARNETT continued with subparagraph (C) on page 4, line 19. The insertion of "unlimited" would seem to emphasize that a legislator could use his/her outer or inner office for a phone bank as long as the employees are not on state time or as Ms. Cramer said, not during a legislative session. TAPE 99-57, SIDE A MS. BARNETT addressed Representative Murkowski's question with regard to the definition of the word "maintaining." Ms. Barnett explained that currently, maintaining means a legislator filling in APOC records. A legislator completing those records at his/her desk would not get into trouble. Number 0046 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if he can store a campaign file at his desk for his personal use, under the current law. MS. BARNETT replied yes, there is a current part of the law that allows a legislator to retain campaign information from elections that have been concluded. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the reforms that were made in SB 105 [legislation passed last year] and asked if those reforms were completely stricken by the court, or just portions of it. He recalled that SB 105 included a provision which allowed a legislator to maintain a certain amount of campaign material; is that still in the law? MS. CRAMER explained that the court was looking at language that's in the election code only, not at AS 24.60. Therefore, the court's ruling to the election code doesn't necessarily carry over into how the Ethics Committee would interpret or be instructed to interpret what was written in AS 24.60. She further explained that the court's reasoning, under the election code, was that the legislature amended it so that the restriction applied to both legislator incumbent candidates and nonincumbent candidates. Because the legislature tied those two groups together, the court said, "Well we can't constitutionally apply this prohibition as to nonincumbents," there's no public purpose for limiting them [nonincumbents]. The legislature meant these two to rise and fall together, so the legislator restriction falls too. The same prohibition has existed for several years in AS 24.60 without any tie to nonlegislators. Therefore, she didn't think the reasoning in the court decision would strike down this section. However, the court did seem to say that such a restriction, when applied to legislators, had a public purpose. Ms. Cramer didn't believe the legislators are out from under the ethics code unless the legislature chooses to amend it. She also emphasized that nothing in AS 24.60 was effected in one way or another by the court decision. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented he could put an old poster up. MS. CRAMER agreed. Number 0356 MS. BARNETT referred to subsection [AS 24.60] (b) which states that "a legislator may post, in the legislator's private office, communications related to an election that has been concluded." CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, does that mean he can put a campaign sign up? MS. BARNETT replied yes, if your election has been concluded and you're not going to use it in the next one. MS. BARNETT pointed out that the emphasis was on concluded and that there is no intention to use the item for the next campaign. She further stated, "So I would say, that if you're intending to use it no, then you can't post it, but it would protect you I think to a fairly large extent for having campaign materials in your office." Number 0451 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled that the intent of that legislation, SB 105, "was if someone has a full-sized picture of themselves and they're not going to use that again ... or they may have a specific statement ... that's really what that was intended to do, not necessarily a campaign sign." CHAIRMAN KOTT asked again if he could put up a campaign sign, if he decides not to use it again. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked if you frame it, you certainly can. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I happen to have some signs that have changed the name of my campaign, so the bug on the sign - I can't use some of those signs again even though the sign itself looks the same, the bug's different. So I would contend that you could use that sign (indisc.--simult speech) couldn't use that sign." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that whether or not an item was a keepsake, or something one wanted to display for other than campaign purposes would determine whether it could be housed in the legislator's office. MS. BARNETT said that is correct. She believed the law would protect what Representative Rokeberg was referring to. She reiterated that if it is from a past campaign, then it could go in the inner office. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he thought Representative James was referring to SB 105. Number 635 MS. BARNETT directed the committee to the change in subparagraph (F) on page 5, line 3. She said, "This seems to me that it would require the committee to say that any seasonal greeting cards, including the Halloween card, that might perhaps be paid for out of state funds and processed by state staff could actually include a 're-elect me' note and even a donation envelope." Although she didn't believe that's the legislature's intent, the Ethics Committee would have to read it that way. MS. BARNETT referred to page 5, line 7, subparagraph (H) which seems to endorse the concept that a legislator could have a campaign website using the state system and a state computer. She believed that the public and the opponents would find that very difficult to accept as a legislative standard. Number 702 MS. BARNETT continued with page 5, line 8, subparagraph (I) which allows the use of state resources including state property to support, and again no mention of opposition, ballot propositions with the exception of staff not being allowed to raise funds. Currently, the Ethics Committee has advisory opinions on this subject. Those opinions generally allow activities in support or opposition to ballot propositions, but do not allow state facilities to be used for fund raising in relation to those activities. Ms. Barnett further noted, "And then we also said that we could not use state resources in the gathering of signatures for initiative petitions." She pointed out that this language refers to sponsors and co-sponsors of a ballot proposition not legislators. Ms. Barnett said, "So, if my neighbor Bob is sponsoring petitions would this language allow - and hypothetically I were a legislator - could I now say, 'Bob, come on in you can use all of these state resources, they're all available to you, go for it,' if he was a sponsor, or co-sponsor of the proposition." She also pointed out that state election laws, AS 15.13.145 regarding the use of state money to influence the outcome of a campaign, may apply here at least in concept. This question could be posed to APOC. MS. BARNETT concluded by saying that the changes to the ethics code in HB 225 would have an immediate effective date. She added, "I just don't know why the need for speeding on changes into the Legislative Ethics Code." Number 834 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether, under the old law, SB 105, and under HB 225, could he have an anti-billboard party at the LIO (Legislative Information Office) or in his office. "Could I have done it before and can I do it now?" Representative Croft clarified that the party would be to raise money against the billboard initiative. MS. BARNETT replied, "You couldn't do it now, it would appear you could do it under this bill." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if he could have the fund raiser at the LIO, as long as he didn't use the staff to raise the funds. MS. BARNETT deferred to the sponsor of HB 225 as to whether that's the intent. Number 924 BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, noted that most of her comments will be directed toward Section 1. She explained that the contingency section of the original law overwrote what was current law and expanded the time period for raising funds to 18 months before the election date for state and municipal elections. Ms. Miles further stated: Last year the legislature amended the time period for accepting contributions after the election - expanded that 15 days from 45 days to 60 days and that had the commission's approval. They felt that a little more time was reasonable and particularly because, for those people at the general election, their contribution time stops at December 31 so everything's reported in the same year. We're happy to see this in the legislation because it clears up one of our gray areas, we have been asking the Department of Law for an opinion on that because we couldn't figure it out either. MS. MILES turned to page 5, line 8, subparagraph (I). She was concerned that subparagraph (I) may conflict with the campaign finance law, Section 145 of AS 15.13. That law prohibits state funds from being spent to support or oppose a candidate or a ballot proposition unless those funds have been specifically appropriated by law for that reason. Ms. Miles noted that the commission hasn't seen HB 225 yet, and therefore it's just a question at this point. Number 1064 DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Former Representative, informed the commission that he worked on the initial ethics legislation, although he is not familiar with the more current interpretations. He remarked that, in general, the intent of the sponsor is good to clarify issues. With regard to personal use, he noted that he has some of the same concerns that have already been mentioned. MR. FINKELSTEIN informed the committee that he would speak to the political use of state resources and how it affects the concept of fair elections. He said the key is a fair race between incumbents and challengers, although he acknowledged that the system naturally favors incumbents. Therefore, the legislature must determine how to maintain a fair playing field. "Some of these issues are not so bad when you consider them in isolation, but you have to consider that your opponent doesn't have them in the next election. When they [an opponent] use a phone bank they're going to pay for the phone bank, they're going to pay for the phones, in fact the law requires that they pay for those phones, or it would be a contribution they get from someone." Mr. Finkelstein recalled witnessing an entire state Senate office perform a 30,000-piece Christmas card mailing for six weeks. Such a mailing from an opponent would require the opponent to spend a lot of money, while the incumbent's activities are paid for by the state. He indicated that the situation is the same for Internet access costs and photograph costs. Mr. Finkelstein clarified, "I'm not saying on any of these that you aren't addressing legitimate issues, because you've made a very good point on a series of them. But I think when you consider them in totality, you don't want a system where you start with $5,000 worth of your campaign costs paid for by the state, and they start with zero of those because they're already having a tough time running against you." MR. FINKELSTEIN referred to subparagraph (I) on page 5. From discussions with the sponsor and reading the language, Mr. Finkelstein believed the use of the terms sponsor and co-sponsor makes a lot of sense, if the definition of a ballot proposition is a constitutional amendment. However, those terms don't fit propositions in terms of an initiative or a referendum because there are no co-sponsors. Those individuals [sponsors of a proposition] would be a relatively isolated set of individuals who are almost never legislators. Mr. Finkelstein said: So, I think it would be a different idea just in the context of constitutional amendments. In those cases it is the legislature that proposes them, the idea came from the legislature and the people make the decision. When it comes to initiatives it's again an issue of fair elections. If the one side has state resources, state office, state staff helping fight for or against an initiative, the other side doesn't, it's not really a fair election and I think the point was made that that's the provision of the campaign finance law. The idea is to keep the state resources from being used to decide elections. Number 1398 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with regard to Mr. Finkelstein's example involving holiday greeting cards. He stated that the idea, with HB 225, is try to make a bright line in what is a gray area. He discussed difficulties with the ethics law and commented that there is no such thing as a citizen legislator. He asked Mr. Finkelstein if establishing a clear definition would help legislators perform their job better. MR. FINKELSTEIN indicated agreement. Although legislators are concerned that the ethics law will be used against them, legislators become familiar with the ethics code as it is refined through amendments and interpretations and thus a common understanding develops. In a recent election accusations were made regarding ethical challenges and issues. In such cases, the legislator relies on the ethics code as a response. Of course, legislators want to try to fit into the rules in order to use whatever advantage they can to ensure they're complying; that is a common campaign theme now. He agreed with Representative Rokeberg in that there have to be standards and if there are standards, then there is a defense. MR. FINKELSTEIN returned to his point about greeting cards. He clarified that he wasn't saying that sending out Christmas cards is a bad idea. He admitted that he had sent out Christmas cards and his goal was political. Mr. Finkelstein reiterated: It's just a tough call because if you can use state funds, state resources, state staff to do it - and we even agree it's okay - to all your constituents. Well, what about your Senate district, if you're in the House, is that okay. And what about when you get to be statewide. While it sounds theoretical, I've seen it happen. So I'm not suggesting the answer and I'm certainly agreeing with you; you've got to have those clear standards. But I think without a limit there will be some people out there who will abuse it and it will reflect badly on the whole code. Number 1677 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "So if there's a clear standard of allowing unlimited use, there's no need to interpret ... about sending out holiday greeting cards. Let's just legalize it here and be done with it." MR. FINKELSTEIN reiterated that he was trying to achieve a political objective and so was everyone else. He further reiterated that when it gets to the bigger levels, such as the 30,000-piece Christmas card mailing mentioned earlier, one must remember that there's an opponent who may also do the Christmas card mailing. However, that opponent can't send out 30,000 pieces with state help. Everyone must remember that elections are supposed to be fair and it shouldn't be set it up in a way that provides too much advantage for the incumbent. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Finkelstein if there should be a prohibition on political activity via the telephone. MR. FINKELSTEIN commented that he prefers the standard that allowed phone use by a legislator in his/her office when it involves no particular costs to the state. However, fund-raising calls by staff members are a different issue, which he believed is a problem. Number 1799 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised then that he, as a legislator, could make a local phone call soliciting [funds], but his staff could not. MR. FINKELSTEIN commented that the key with this would be a clear rule that everyone could follow. If the rule is that there's no long distance charges, then Representative Rokeberg's call would be okay. If the rule is long distance charges are acceptable, but have to be reimbursed in a certain way, that's okay too. However, if the incumbent couldn't use his/her phone for those purposes then they would have a disadvantage. Therefore, he believed fair elections require that the incumbent be able to make those calls. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her frustration with the ethics laws because she believes she knows what's ethical. With regard to creating a level playing field between the incumbent and the challenger, one cannot deny that it's not possible for various reasons. For example, the incumbent has already been elected once and has voters. Representative James specified, "We ought not to be spending state resources for personal benefit, that's simple." However, she pointed out that those legislators who have a business at home cannot come to Juneau for four months and not do business over the phone, or in writing, or over the fax. However, she noted that she tries to minimize that as much as possible. She said, "I find listing those things out specifically that you can and can't do very, very troublesome." Therefore, she asked Mr. Finkelstein if there are some simple statements that can be made which fully define ethical behavior without being specific. 1990 MR. FINKELSTEIN commented that often those who are most concerned about ethics are those that are the most ethical. Therefore, there are many legislators who could do without an ethics code. He said that some standard [with regard to personal use] needs to be in the code. He believed that the efforts made by the legislature in recent years to try to amend that law have been aimed at achieving that goal. He further believed, in general, that the efforts have been consistent with what the committee is trying to achieve and what the ethics law was all about. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that everyone that is employed has a feeling with regard to how much of one's personal life can be brought to the job. She also pointed out that it seems like we're always paying for history, which irritates her. Somebody did something absolutely terrible 20 years ago, and therefore there has to be a law so nobody can do that anymore. Representative James believed that legislators try to behave themselves which, from her experience, seems to be the social norm. Therefore, one doesn't have to write it down to know that it is or is not accepted. MR. FINKELSTEIN remarked that if he were to pick a model person, it would be Representative James; none of this address her. In conclusion, Mr. Finkelstein recalled a well-known saying that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. 2183 CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public testimony on HB 225 to take up HCR 11. HCR 11 - SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR OFFENDERS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11, Relating to substance abuse treatment for offenders in the criminal justice system. Number 2219 DONALD DAPCEVICH, Executive Director, Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services, came before the committee to present HCR 11. He noted that the responsibility of the advisory board is to plan and evaluate prevention and treatment services for alcohol and other drug dependencies. He explained that the board went to 1,000 key-informant Alaskans and asked whether they feel that those who have problems with addictions should be treated prior to being released from prison. That question elicited the most response from the survey. The consistent response was that nine out of ten key-informant Alaskans felt that those inmates with addictions should be treated prior to release. As a result, it became part of the board's planning activities. The board began to review an outcome-based plan for alcoholism treatment and prevention. Previously, the focus had been with regard to how well treatment is achieved. MR. DAPCEVICH explained that upon review of the board's mission, the board discovered that it also has to review the cost, to society, of not doing good prevention and treatment. The board looked to the corrections system because many of those in the corrections system are there for committing crimes under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or they have problems with addiction that contributed to their offenses. Therefore, the board is focusing on making sure that there are treatment opportunities in prison. More importantly, the board is reviewing whether those who participate in treatment programs while in prison recidivate less, which is the true societal cost. Mr. Dapcevich announced that the board wants to partner with the legislature to make sure that this happens. He clarified that this is not a call for resources, but rather a call for consistent response and to not discontinue the good work that is being done. This is also a call to look at new ideas and better ways to do things. He cited an example of such re-engineering as the partnership between the Department of Corrections, the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse [Department of Health and Social Services], and the Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse [Department of Health and Social Services] which formed a continuum of treatment for women in prison. That treatment was provided by using federal resources, mental health trust authority resources, and by tweaking the institution to make it work better. It also linked the treatment in the community for the women who were coming out of prison in order to address the FAS issue. Number 2416 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee as the sponsor of HCR 11. He commented that this resolution is a small piece. He expressed the need for more flexible sentencing. Furthermore, he would like to see those who have alcohol involved in their crime to have their release contingent upon completing a program. He said he would also like to see successful probationary release. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES addressed Mr. Dapcevich's statement regarding this not being an issue of resources, however everything costs money. Representative James announced that she is supportive of prevention, but it seems that this is something that should be organized and operated outside... TAPE 99-57, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued, "... and we add new programs in that costs more and we can't take people off the streets. It seems to me like this is a prime case where charitable organizations, given the access to the prison system, could do a better job than if it was orchestrated by the state with state funds." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON concurred with Representative James' comments. He noted that each of Alaska's prisons has a fairly successful Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program as well as a Narcotics Anonymous (NA) program. Representative Dyson sensed, from Mr. Dapcevich, that it would be helpful if there was a bit of tracking in order to illustrate how successful we [these programs] are. He agreed that empowering the nonprofits in this area would be worthwhile. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he, as is Representative Dyson, is a member of the corrections subcommittee. Representative Rokeberg inquired as to the objective of HCR 11. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, "I think it's a policy statement that says, if we don't deal with the alcohol component of many people's offenses, we will not get at the heart of their problem and essence of what we need to do to reduce recidivism." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that passing HCR 11 could be used to illustrate that the legislature didn't allocate enough resources to do this policy call. He asked why this is being done by a resolution. Number 0100 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he didn't see where the resolution says the legislature hasn't appropriated the appropriate amount of resources. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the second "Further Resolve" and asked, "Does that mean Mr. Dapcevich has got to give up then some of his money so we can put it in to corrections? I don't think he wants to do that. So, I'm not sure I'm following the drift here." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she was willing to pass HCR 11 out. However, she suggested that the "Further Resolve" at the top of page 2 should include language indicating that consideration would be given or access would be given to private nonprofit agencies to assist in this. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON reiterated that the nonprofits are already present, particularly NA and AA, and are doing a good job. The language in the resolution does not preclude the expansion of the use of nonprofits. CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that the resolution does not say the State of Alaska, it says Alaska. He agreed that private sector involvement is critical in dealing with alcohol abuse and trying to return Alaska's criminal population to be healthy and upstanding citizens. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move HCR 11 out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, HCR 11 was moved out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. SB 42 - 1999 REVISOR'S BILL CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is CS for Senate Bill No. 42(STA), "An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an effective date." Number 0230 JAMES CRAWFORD, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, informed the committee that the only difference between SB 42 and the bill that passed from this committee on February 24, 1999, is that SB 42 has an extra section, Section 9. He explained that Section 9 corrects a cross-reference to another statute that was amended and subsequently renumbered last year. Section 9 corrects the numbering to that section. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move SB 41 out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, SB 41 was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 3:50 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 5:07 p.m. HB 192 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business is House Bill No. 192, "An Act relating to reciting the pledge of allegiance by public school students." He announced that the committee needed to rescind its action in passing out HB 192, yesterday. He explained that one of the amendments that the committee adopted was a bit problematic. He further explained, "That amendment ... basically says that the school district must notify all persons, and that was the area dealing with those particular evaluations. We didn't want someone who didn't participate to be negatively affected, because of their lack of participation." The current language could be construed to refer to every Alaskan, which he didn't think was the intent. Therefore, he suggested inserting one word, "affected" after "all" on page 1, line 14. Number 0337 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to rescind the committee's previous action of passing out HB 192 [CSHB 192(JUD)]. There being no objection, HB 192 was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to make the following conceptual amendment: Page 1, line 14, after "all" Insert "affected" There being no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted. Number 0367 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to move CSHB 192 out of committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no objection, [the new amended] CSHB 192(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. HB 225 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would now revisit House Bill No. 225, "An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics; and providing for an effective date." Number 0460 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1: Page 2, line 31: Delete ",Internet," Page 3, line 26 & Page 5, line 7 Delete: "unlimited use by a legislator of the Internet; or" Insert: "unlimited use of the Internet, except for election campaign purposes, by a legislator or a legislative employee if the use does not carry a special charge" CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for the purpose of discussion. PETER TORKELSON, Researcher for Representative John Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, stated that Amendment 1 addresses the concerns regarding a legislator's use of the Internet, presumably from his/her state computer, to promote an election campaign. This language removes that concern, and still moves out from underneath the unknowns and the questionables. MR. TORKELSON pointed out that the Internet issue appears in two places and thus has some overlap. This, Amendment 1, collapses all references to the Internet into one section. By removing the word "Internet" from line 31 on page 2, subparagraph (C) only addresses the telephone and facsimile. Amendment 1 replaces existing language on page 3, line 26, and on page 5, line 7, with the following language: "unlimited use of the Internet, except for election campaign purposes, by a legislator or a legislative employee if the use does not carry a special charge." That change eliminates the different standards, as related to an employee versus a legislator, of a special charge. Therefore, a legislator or a legislative employee can use the Internet for what he/she likes as long as it's not for election campaign purposes and there's no special charge involved. Number 0561 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "So you can still pull pornography off?" MR. TORKELSON acknowledged that there may be some types of obscene material that one could download. He indicated that there are laws that are not superseded by this; this is only the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee. There are laws that would still apply to child pornography, for instance. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA) has rules and regulations that govern the use of the computers and systems within the purview of the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he knew that, but was concerned that this may affect or supersede Legislative Affairs' rules. He said, "The limited use for personal reasons is an appropriate standard." Furthermore, policing Internet use is difficult. There are many purposes for which [a legislator] shouldn't use his/her state computer. Although not all pornography on the Internet is illegal, it is all improper to access from a state computer. Number 0639 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would be happy to offer a conceptual amendment to the amendment that would insert the regulatory oversight of Legislative Affairs. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that he would be happy to offer an amendment that deleted "unlimited" and inserted "limited" because he believed that to be what is meant. He specified, "We want you to use your Internet, provided by the state, for basically state legislative purposes, and if you're going to use it (indisc.) it better be limited or you're going to get in trouble." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with Representative Croft. However, the legislature has a protocol set forth by Data Processing, which is basically approved by Legislative Council. He believed that, in essence, that's our regulatory scheme. Representative Rokeberg expressed the need to ensure that this statute doesn't override those rules and regulations. Therefore, the amendment could be amended to include that in order to overcome many of those problems. "As new technology changes, that would allow any provisions of the rules and regulations used to be promulgated on a more regulatory basis by ourselves and how we guarantee to use it." Number 0719 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant for Representative Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the Legislative Council policies will still govern because the language in HB 225 speaks only to the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee. There are still federal laws, other state laws and the internal policing functions of the legislature, including the Legislative Council and the Rules Committee. Therefore, it's not like there is some carte blanche, with regard to the use of the Internet. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stressed that the point is whether we want to sanction or not sanction in this legislation. He understood Mr. Pignalberi to say that Legislative Council makes a legislator's ethical standards. However, Representative Croft believed that the committee [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] that was set up by the law ought to have that jurisdiction. He informed the committee that his original understanding was that this legislation was to clarify the standards. However, upon more review it seems that it's [HB 225] not clarifying standards but rather leaving them wide open and taking away jurisdiction from the Ethics Committee. He indicated the need for a lot more time to actually achieve clarification. "If we're going to try and rush it out tonight this is just the wrong approach." Number 0801 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she sympathized with some of the comments made by Representative Croft and Representative Rokeberg. Although she noted that she is a real supporter of computer use, Representative James acknowledged that she is not convinced that saying unlimited use of the Internet is appropriate. She indicated that the general public may read that in the statute and wonder how a legislator has time to pull things off the Internet. Representative James said, "It just -- it doesn't sound right, whether how effective it is or not, it just doesn't sound right ... ." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that she believed the way to avoid this is to just say limited use of the Internet, as suggested by Representative Croft. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out, "It is limited, because it has all these other rules. It isn't unlimited. It's already limited by it's very nature of all the other rules, so why say it's unlimited when it really, it is limited." Number 0955 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was not sure what type of Internet use [the legislature] is trying to prohibit other than that related to a campaign election. He assumed that this language would allow him [a legislator] to look at his personal stock and bond portfolio, in his office on a state computer, during the course of the business day. Representative Rokeberg didn't think that should be prohibited. On the other hand, would this allow an employee or a legislator to use the Internet after office hours for any purpose? He didn't think that was a bad thing either. He questioned how the legislature would prescribe the uses of the Internet. Even with his suggested regulatory scheme, it becomes very difficult. If the legislature limits the use, then that must be codified. He believed that the legislature already has [implements] limited use, although it's ill-defined. "So, what do we do?" MR. PIGNALBERI indicated, "I think Representative Cowdery, out of respect for the committee's time and effort, this bill would accede to an amendment that deleted the word 'unlimited'." CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "Representative Croft would that resolve your difficulty?" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested, "How about just the two letters 'un'." MR. PIGNALBERI said that he believed the deletion of the word "unlimited" would seem to be a compromise because just "use" would be left. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the provision regarding "our" regulatory policy should be included. MR. PIGNALBERI interjected that he believed that it's there anyway. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated agreement. Number 1118 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated: Actually I think Internet use is getting really close to just thinking. I mean e-mail and thinking and using the net. I mean and it's something that at some point is probably no costs or negligible costs, and it's almost into free speech the way that I think about it, but the one thing that it comes against to me, ... and I just want to be sure that we've retained some oversight on it if it interferes with our performance of public duties. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that he believed a lot of that's part of the regulatory scheme that is in place with Data Processing and Legislative Council. He commented that legislators, as employers, should have some responsibility over their staff. If an employee is on the Internet doing unofficial things all day, that legislator ought to be looking for somebody else. "If we're [legislators] doing that and not doing the people's business then we face the same wrath at election time." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA realized that. However, she said: I would feel more comfortable with this if we changed it to (indisc.-shuffling papers) that as long as it doesn't interfere with the performance of public duties along with it. It's picking up the language that, I think, inadvertently just drops out if we don't keep it here. In statutory construction, one of the problems is, that if you've got it in the previous section and it's real clear that you can't have it there and you drop it out here, you going to conceivably run the risk of having it interpreted that you don't mean that here. ... I mean, I am absolutely for as free a use as possible of the Internet, it's just if your sitting there all day long." CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "I think I tend to agree with you. With that language, then anything after the normal course of a business day we'd be able to utilize the Internet and not suffer any consequences, basically." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out, "Not only that I think people use their e-mails just as they do -- instead of calls from children I get e-mails from my nephew. It's that sort of thing too that, I think, none of us have any concern about. It's that nominal use that doesn't interfere with our job." Number 1271 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt the amendment to the amendment, deleting the word "unlimited." CHAIRMAN KOTT withdrew his objection. Number 1300 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to adopt another amendment to the amendment that says, "and does not interfere with the performance of public duties." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to rescind his motion on Amendment 1. CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that Amendment 1, as written with the exception of the word "unlimited," is now before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 as amended. CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for the purpose of Representative Kerttula to offer a friendly amendment to Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to adopt the following language, at the end of the sentence, "and does not interfere with the performance of public duties." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He commented that he didn't know how friendly Representative Kerttula's amendment is, because he believed that language would just revert to the existing circumstances. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that there is some merit to what Representative Kerttula said. She expressed the need to have Representative Kerttula's suggested language if the legislature does care whether this use interferes with the performance of public duties. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested then that the committee might want to consider inserting "unlimited," just for the purposes of discussion. CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out, "I think we all recognize that we're already limited, and by taking out 'unlimited' you could connote either way, I suspect, whether it's limited or unlimited, and we don't have anything in there except 'use'." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that the sponsor of the legislation didn't intend for this to force a legislator to look over his/her shoulder every time he/she does something. He pointed out, "That's the problem here, so we're not really making any headway are we. Then what is the limitation, so then you have to go find what the limitation is unless it's defined." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that this has made it clear since "unlimited" is taken out. With this change, the language restricts the use of the Internet in that it can't interfere with the performance of a legislator's public duties. She said, "It's the problem we'll run up against, that if you ignore that now you're going to have a situation where you could have someone argue you could literally be on it all day long." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT inquired as to the intention of the Chair. Is the committee going to tackle all of the amendment work tonight and forward the bill out of committee? CHAIRMAN KOTT answered yes, if that is the wish of the committee. He believed that there are only a few areas of contention. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he had 11 areas that need major change. He pointed out that HB 225 was only introduced yesterday and it was characterized as clarifying legislation, which he didn't believe was a correct characterization. Representative Croft said, "It's a bill to pop any limits in the areas it discusses at all. It puts in -- part of ethical is looking over your shoulder, Representative Rokeberg, and questioning what you doing. We can't get rid of our requirement by simply making it -- we can, it's just not in my view a very good idea." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed the committee that he was going to make a motion to remove Sections 2 through 4, which would retain only the part of HB 225 that makes sense to him. He discussed the difficulty in tackling this substantial issue in a hurried fashion. Number 1616 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed with Representative Croft. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to whether the bill sponsor viewed Representative Kerttula's amendment as friendly. MR. PIGNALBERI responded that the friendly amendment to the amendment can be accepted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced then that the amendment to the amendment is adopted. Therefore, Amendment 1 as amended is before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt an amendment that reinserts "limited" where it originally said "unlimited" rather than just leaving the word "use." He emphasized that "limited" should be inserted in almost every situation in [HB 225]. Number 1772 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood Representative Croft's argument in one respect. However, upon review of page 5, line 7 in the full context, she didn't think it is inconsistent to necessarily say that it's not unlimited. Representative James didn't see that there is much difference between having "use" or "limited use." She suggested leaving it as is. MR. PIGNALBERI said that "use" seems to fit. He considered "use" to be a compromise between "limited" and "unlimited." However, he deferred to the committee's pleasure. Mr. Pignalberi believed the committee is probably debating something with minor significance in relation to the full concept. CHAIRMAN KOTT labeled Representative Croft's amendment as "Amendment 2 to Amendment 1." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "If you put in 'limited use [of the Internet], except for election campaign purposes' what does that say; for election campaign purposes it's not limited?" MR. PIGNALBERI said, "The antecedent phrase is that this paragraph does not prohibit limited use of the Internet with the exception being for election campaign purposes (indisc.)." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated, "Now I don't know what limited use is, frankly, I think we've probably taken a step backwards from where we are in terms of what we are today, in my opinion, if we adopt 'limited use'. We have a limited use standard in rules right now." Number 1988 CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that the legislature currently has a limited use standard. MR. PIGNALBERI referred the committee to page 2, line 12 [line 24], subparagraph (A). The next several paragraphs refer to "use," which was recommended as a compromise. He pointed out that the current statue just has "use" there, "limited" or "unlimited" are not in those subparagraphs. Therefore, the precedent is there in this statute for both, but most often "use" is used. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed the need to insert the concept that use of the Internet can only occur if the cost is nominal or the legislator has to reimburse that cost. Otherwise, he felt that this language is looser than the current law. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY pointed out that the state is already paying for Internet use and one can't purchase anything on the Internet without a credit card or something else. Therefore, Representative Cowdery didn't know how it could cost the state. Number 2127 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood that a bulk line is purchased and when that line is outgrown we have to spend a lot of money to buy a new one. He likened it to a garbage dump, which doesn't cost anything for a while. However, the cost isn't really zero because a new dump will have to be built soon. Representative Croft indicated agreement that the majority of Internet use would carry a nominal cost, but this legislation is about to open that use up. Therefore, if there is an identifiable cost, one ought to pay it even if it's not a significant charge. Number 2271 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he understood that this amendment contained the language "does not carry a special charge." "Doesn't that obviate your concerns about non-nominal charges." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated: ... You're right, Representative Rokeberg. In that sense, though, it's different and not in a positive way from this other section, so I can't even do it if it carries a special charge, even if I offer to reimburse it. This says I just can't do it. The other section says either it's nominal cost, right, not much, or it charges -- it costs, and you agree to pay it back ... . Now we've got a thing that says you may use the Internet, except for election purposes, if the use does not carry a special charge. If I walk into LAA and say, this carries a special charge, I'm willing to pay it. Their going to say, no it's illegal. So, we may need Amendment 3 to Amendment 1 that says 'or we agree to pay it.' CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that if the use carried a special charge, then it [Internet] is not being used on a limited basis. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA disputed that notion. She pointed out that sending animated greetings or photos could carry a special charge. Furthermore, the committee must refer to the broad standard to ensure that nothing is dropped from that standard in this bill. TAPE 99-58, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there are some things that do carry it, and one pays for it. He isn't sure this amendment allows one to do that. For example, if he purchased a compact disk (CD) at a CD store, it carries a special charge even if it is a limited use and he only does it once a month. He stated: This says ... you may do it if the use does not carry a special charge. Well, it does. That's means I cannot? If there's a charge on the account of Representative Rokeberg for checking stocks - ... for every month, it's $5 or something - that carries a special charge, but he pays it. Under the old law, that would be fine, because the legislator reimburses the state or doesn't need to, (indisc.). Here, because it carries a special charge, it's just prohibited. So, in that sense, I think Representative Rokeberg was right: It's tighter than the old law. Number 0081 CHAIRMAN KOTT said maybe the language is ambiguous. He added, "I don't think we ought to be on there [the Internet] incurring any kind of charges to the state, regardless if we reimburse them for Internet purposes." He noted that every time he is on the Internet and there is a charge, a credit card is asked for up-front. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that it is appropriate to say "if the use does not carry a special charge incurred by the state." Number 158 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would offer that as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether that was a friendly amendment to his own Amendment 2 to Amendment 1, or a friendly amendment to Amendment 1. [There was no response.] CHAIRMAN KOTT said that brings them back to the amendment again. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked about the fact that technically there could be a nominal charge to the state. Right now, it might be restricting that, unless the person is allowed to reimburse the state. She said she was thinking of sending pictures or something extra, for example. Number 0250 MR. PIGNALBERI noted that the staff probably use the system more than legislators do. He indicated that staff probably receive a message from Data Processing about once a week advising Internet users about e-mail issues. He didn't believe there is the worry that Representative Kerttula is alluding to, that sometimes they will clog the system, as there are built-in management techniques to protect against that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that Alaskans wouldn't mind if an elected representative used a computer in a manner that didn't interfere with work, including use of the Internet. But the more that is allowed, the more the usage could go up and a point could be reached where the capacity is stretched. However, there is no necessary incurred cost until the point is reached where the server cannot handle the traffic. He agreed with Representative Croft in terms of the data line capacity, but he also agreed with Mr. Pignalberi that this is more of an administrative issue. Right now, there is a nominal cost, but it cannot be charged back because it cannot be separated out. He pointed out the potential problem of starting a pattern of use among legislators and staff, which could result in reaching full capacity. What would happen at that point? Number 0442 MR. PIGNALBERI noted that nobody from Data Processing (DP) was present. Based on his own discussions with DP on similar issues, they have the ability to monitor and do volume control. They [DP] can tell whether someone is on the state network four hours a day or twenty hours a week, he said. If the time comes when the system is clogged, resulting in a costly upgrade, DP could implement controls. MR. TORKELSON told members that he'd thought about this in preparing for the bill. While sending photos of a child may clog the system, which is certainly undesirable, he drew an analogy of someone bringing friends and relatives to the Capitol building and clogging the hallways. It is bad form, inappropriate and inconvenient, but should it be unethical? Personally, he didn't believe such action to be unethical. He indicated that this bill did not intend for such to be unethical. Administrative controls can deal with it, and individual users can be told to use the Internet less, just as security personnel could tell people they are blocking the hallway for fire safety purposes. Number 0563 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said her problem with that analogy is it costs the state nothing to bring one's relatives to the Capitol building, unless they somehow come at the state's expense while the other situation does cost the state. The amendment, as it is, says, "you can't do it if it carries a special charge incurred by the state." Therefore, people simply wouldn't be allowed to do that because this goes back and amends this overall statute, which is fairly broad. She added, "So, what Representative Croft and I have been getting at is: Do you just want to stop letting somebody do that? I mean, that's going to be the law. ... If you have a special charge, you wouldn't be able to do it. Or do you want to allow somebody to be able to reimburse?" REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated the following wasn't an amendment yet. However, she proposed the following language: use of the Internet, except for election campaign purposes by a legislator or legislative employee, if the use ... (1) does not carry a special charge incurred by the state, unless the charge is nominal or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses the state, then (2) does not interfere with the performance of public duties. Number 0666 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that although Representative Kerttula's language is more language than necessary, she had no problem with it. However, she did have a problem with the aforementioned examples such as the example of sending the picture. She stated, "I don't think that's [sending a photo via e-mail] an ethical thing to do. I wouldn't do it." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she was probably right. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued, saying she didn't know why they need to do something that allows it and what is being added does allow it. She expressed the belief that this is the ethics part of the law. Representative James said: And even if things are ethical, it is still possible, with management decisions and others rules and regulations we have to live by, to ... make it even more restrictive than this. I think that's always an option. This is just whether or not, if you do this, that you're subjecting yourself ... to the Ethics Committee. ... It can't be more than this, but it could be less than this. So, ... I think we're just getting too entailed in what we're putting in here, and forgetting that we should be just dealing with a narrow mention of what is ethical and what's not. Number 0753 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he knows exactly what is ethical and what is not, which the majority of the people and the legislature agreed with: Limited use of state property or resources for personal purposes is acceptable, if it doesn't interfere with the performance of public duties, and either the cost or value related to these is nominal, or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses the state for the cost of the use. That passed, was voted on by the majority of the people, and was signed by the governor. He acknowledged that the Internet is a use of state property or resources. "If it's for personal purposes, you've got to meet these two things, and you always did." He was not sure why that simply phrased concept is being confused with a statute. CHAIRMAN KOTT expressed belief that perhaps "limited or unlimited" should be removed. He asked Representative Croft what "limited" means to him, indicating concern that it may have a different meaning to different people. He noted that they are narrowing the scope relating to the Internet, which he believes is the sponsor's intent. He indicated that Internet usage is a substantive issue dealt with on a regular basis by everyone who is on a computer. Number 0916 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there are at least two answers to that. Firstly, the Ethics Committee is set up with members of the legislature in order to have a rational view of how things are really done, "so we can all express ... how that is most accurately characterized as 'limited.'" Secondly, there will always be, in any division of conduct, behaviors that clearly are "guilty" or "innocent" as well as behaviors that are near the line. He stated: Your task, as a law-abiding citizen and one who wants to be ethical is if you're getting close, to wonder about it, to ask for an informal opinion. If you're doing it once a day, ... almost everybody in the world says that's limited. If you're doing it all day, it's not. And when you get to a lot of use of state facilities, you either ought to get an idea of whether your belief is out of whack with an unofficial opinion, or go home and use it ... at home. Like I said a couple of times, this was characterized to me as "clarifying." ... I think there are some inherent places where you've just got to ... second-guess yourself a little .... It's part of being an ethical person in real life, too. But, in addition, this is, in many areas, not clarifying. Number 1021 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if it would be appropriate to go on to the other amendments, and then return to Amendment 1. He expressed hope that some of the other amendments may help. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that he was going to have eight or nine other amendments. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said they could be simple and leave all these specifics out, but then there would be too many things for the Ethics Committee to deal with. She referred to Representative Croft's mention of not using state resources unless there is a nominal charge or the person pays for it, and it doesn't interfere with the legislator's work. She asked if it is necessary to list every item, saying she didn't believe it was necessary to make that long statement every single time. Representative James added that she has a little more concern about the use of the Internet than most other people seem to have. She explained her belief that legislators should not be spending a lot of time on the Internet because they should be performing the public's work. She suggested that people can check their stocks and surf the Net at home, not in the office. CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that some people's business is working the stocks. Although he subscribes to "AOL" at home, with the system here, he cannot hook up his personal computer to the telephone line at work. He asked whether he should run home every 20 minutes and take 20 minutes of the peoples' time getting home and back seven or eight times a day. "I'd think they would rather have me checking the Internet here ten times a day and wasting 20 minutes total." Number 1221 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested rather than using the language "limited" or "unlimited," the language "reasonable use by legislators of the Internet" could be used. Even though it has no definition, there is a committee that looks at that. That committee [the Ethics Committee] may determine that constantly being on the Internet doing trading may not be reasonable, whereas checking what is happening in Iran which affects world oil prices - which affects the state - is reasonable. He concluded, "If we're elected to come down here and pass laws to affect the state, we should be able to understand what the heck 'reasonable' means." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he likes "reasonable." CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that it had been challenged in the courts a number of times, but it sounds reasonable. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that "limited" or "unlimited" would certainly be subject to challenge. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed that is even more subject to challenge. He proposed that with Amendment 1 "(I) would read, 'reasonable use by a legislator of the Internet; or (J)'." Number 1355 CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that Amendment 1 deletes the word "Internet" on page 2, line 31. On page 3, under (I), the word "unlimited" would be deleted and replaced with "reasonable". He asked if there was any objection to that. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered "Conceptual Amendment 1A," after "legislator", to add "or legislative employee, except for election campaign purposes,". REPRESENTATIVE GREEN accepted that as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI proposed, "except if the use is for." CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that Conceptual Amendment 1A would read, "Reasonable use by a legislator or a legislative employee, except if the use is for campaign purposes." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "except for election campaign purposes." CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was any objection. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 1A was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG then asked, "What about page 5?" CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that page 5, line 7 would need the same language. Number 1573 CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott, read Conceptual Amendment 1A, "Reasonable use by a legislator or legislative employee, except if the use ... is for election campaign purposes." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that it is reasonable use of the Internet. MR. WINCHELL reread Amendment 1A as follows, "Reasonable use of the Internet by a legislator or legislative employee, except if the use is for election campaign purposes." Number 1600 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read: Page 4, line 19: Delete ",unlimited," CHAIRMAN KOTT and REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned attention to Amendment 1A, asking whether it is in both places. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated, "But you also need to insert this at line 7, page 5." She noted that it is the same phrase. CHAIRMAN KOTT concurred. He then returned the committee's attention to Amendment 2. MR. TORKELSON explained that Amendment 2 was intended to address the concerns on page 4, line 19, regarding adding the word "unlimited" in front of "telephone or facsimile use". This is the campaign section under which the phone bank issue was brought up. He pointed out that by removing the word "unlimited", Amendment 2 would return to the current law. He said it would hopefully address and alleviate those concerns. He didn't believe this would allow a phone-bank-type situation to occur. CHAIRMAN asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2. Number 1658 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected and proposed a friendly amendment to delete the word "unlimited" everywhere that it appears in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG disagreed. [A cacophony of discussion ensued.] REPRESENTATIVE CROFT removed his objection to Amendment 2, saying he would put in "reasonable" on his own amendment. CHAIRMAN KOTT, hearing no further objection, announced that Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1755 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read: Page 5, line 8 Delete I Replace with new I: use of state property and resources, including staff time, by a legislator to support or oppose a constitutional amendment, except that staff may not be used to raise funds to [sic] with regard to the amendment. Page 1 , following line 13, insert new bill section: sec 2. AS 15.13.145(a) is amended to read: (a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) of this section or in A.S.24.60.030(a)(5)I [sic] REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected [inaudible on tape]. MR. PIGNALBERI explained that Amendment 3 basically deletes paragraph (I), on page 5, line 8, and inserts the following language that, in context, would read, "this paragraph does not prohibit use of state property and resources, including staff time by a legislator, to support or oppose a constitutional amendment, except that staff may not be used to raise funds with regard to the amendment." He further explained that the words "constitutional amendment" were used instead of "ballot proposition," because of Mr. Finkelstein's suggestion. Mr. Pignalberi didn't believe that damaged the bill. He indicated that we [the bill sponsor and staff] believe that with Amendment 3, one would not be able to use staff time and resources for an initiative process, which had been a concern. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "Are you going to drop that 'to' after 'funds'?" He noted that it is a typographical error in the written amendment. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is a technical change. Number 1863 MR. PIGNALBERI turned to the second half of Amendment 3. He informed the committee that he believed Brooke Miles, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices Commission, raised another concern. Ms. Miles indicated that perhaps this could be construed to conflict with another section of the statute that prohibited fund-raising activities. Therefore, Amendment 3 would insert a new Section 2 in the bill on page 2, following line 13. That new Section 2 says, "'AS 15.13.145(a) is amended to read,' and then when we insert the new language into AS 15.13.145, and it reads as is there." He noted that the remaining sections would have to be renumbered. He also noted, "And this is the fix recommended by Terry Cramer." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated his understanding that the "I" after (a)(5) shouldn't be there in the final line of Amendment 3. MR. PIGNALBERI responded that the "I" is necessary because it refers to the paragraph being put in right above, in the first part of this amendment. CHAIRMAN KOTT, after perusal, said it refers to page 5, line 8, and it is correct. He asked if there was any objection. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT affirmed his objection. He asked whether Ms. Barnett was still on teleconference, which was affirmed by Ms. Barnett. He stated: The difficulty was that this provision, before and as amended, you can use state property and resources, including staff time, to do this, but you can't use staff for a fund raiser. And I asked: Can I hold a fund raiser? Then I said billboard in the LIO. And I think the answer was: Not under current law, but you could here. And then, now, it would be a constitutional amendment. So, no or yes on (3) last time. I could hold a fund raiser in the LIO. And that was problematic. You said, old law, I couldn't; now, I could. And I still have that problem, then, ... with this amended language. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Barnett whether that is correct. MS. BARNETT replied that she doesn't have the amendment, so she is having a little trouble following this. She then stated: If you're talking about on page 5, the (I) section, and that under current -- that ... the way I read it, and let's say now it reads 'constitutional amendment', that a legislator could have a fund raising party in an LIO ... in support of the constitutional amendment -- that would be correct, so long as staff isn't used in that process. The current approach is that neither legislators nor legislative employees can conduct fund-raising activities in the state capitol, or in their district office. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked where that prohibition is. MS. BARNETT replied, "That's under the general prohibition, and then further into our advisory opinions, when we were asked to further delineate in the two advisory opinions. And we went further and said, 'Yes, staff and legislators can participate in initiative activities about propositions, but cannot fund raise." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to AS 24.60.030(5), which states that one cannot: (5) use or authorize the use of state funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for the purpose of political fund raising or campaigning; this paragraph does not prohibit ... REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued, "But now this new bill is going to add, 'except it's okay to do this,' and that will allow a fund raiser at the LIO for the next constitutional amendment." MS. BARNETT replied that it would appear that way to her. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT concurred. Number 2124 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked who the approving authority would be for that fund raiser to be held in the LIO. He said he can't imagine anybody doing that. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY replied it would be the presiding officer or the Rules chairman. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the statute would provide it. CHAIRMAN KOTT added that the property manager would be responsible. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about a ballot initiative that overturns the statutory action by the legislature, "that we can't lobby for one way or another." He said, "Is that prohibited at all? I wouldn't think so; it's a free speech issue. If I'm against the billboard initiative, I should be able to use my office to lobby against it." MS. BARNETT responded, "You currently would be allowed to do that. It's a fund-raising issue, using state resources and state facilities. But yes, we would allow you to do that now." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that's the purpose of the amendment. MR. PIGNALBERI answered no. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believes there has been discussion about this issue and there is a belief that any lobbying on the part of a legislator or staff on a ballot initiative and/or constitutional amendment was prohibited under the ethics law. Was there some gray area about that? Is there some history on this issue? Number 2209 MS. BARNETT pointed out that there were two advisory opinions. The one in 1997 was concerning the initiative process and the second one in 1998 was about the same response, but it was concerned with the constitutional amendment. She further explained: In both of those, that the sort of the conclusion again was that you can work in support or in opposition and you just can't do the fund-raising part and you can use state resources in support or opposition. ... We did add, an initiative petition, that you couldn't ... use all these state resources to solicit signatures on a petition. Our legal advice was that that is the people's business, but once you reached that threshold of getting the right number to have a formal initiative, then you could do what you wanted so long as it didn't include fund raising. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT understood then that most of this is allowed under current ethic laws. However, he understood that now it would be opened up to include not only what's already legal but also the objectional part, which is holding a fund raiser in an LIO. He emphasized, "We've got it already; I don't see why we need a new (I), ... and that's why I objected to Amendment 3." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that the committee is talking about the opinion of the [Ethics] committee. He suggested it [an Ethic's Committee opinion] has a weight of authority but it's not statutory until (indisc.--fading). He asked if the goal is to elevate this issue for statutory clarity. Number 2312 MR. PIGNALBERI agreed that the purpose is for clarity. He explained that the only purpose for the second half of this amendment was to try to respond to APOC's concern that there may be a conflict between the language in the bill and the language in that part of the statute. He noted that we [the bill sponsor] does not necessarily share that concern. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "You also do allow them the fund raising in the premises by the legislator, but that's another effect of this amendment, [The first half of the amendment] so that would be a change of policy." MR. PIGNALBERI added that the staff may not be used to raise funds with regard to the amendment, however. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that is a change in policy of prohibiting it. MR. PIGNALBERI asked if that is a change from the current statute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied no. MR. PIGNALBERI pointed out that it's not otherwise spelled out. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that omitting the legislator doesn't necessarily make it legal for a legislator to do it either. He asked what the effect of the amendment is, does that allow the legislator to raise money? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS replied yes in unison. Number 2369 MR. PIGNALBERI specified, "This proposal does not prohibit the things listed in this paragraph." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that currently the law states that you [a legislator] can use your time to support or oppose a constitutional amendment or a ballot proposition, either one. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER affirmed that it was correct. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES confirmed that, "You can do that on state property with state resources." However, a legislator can't use his/her staff to raise funds. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT added that a legislator can't use his/her office to raise funds, either. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that it doesn't say so. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the new amendment would open that up and allow a legislator to have a fund raiser in his/her office, although such would not be allowed under the current law. MR. PIGNALBERI said he didn't have that interpretation. He understood Representative Croft to mean that's in the existing statute, although it's not part of the bill. He asked whether his understanding was correct. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to the location of the existing statute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that it's two advisory opinions. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Pignalberi if he had those opinions. MR. PIGNALBERI replied no, but noted that Ms. Barnett does. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG added, "This would raise the idea here by the sponsor ... to raise this statutory dictum, but..." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT interjected, "If we meant to codify the ethics opinion, we didn't do a very good job of it. If that's what we meant to do, then we're missing the (indisc.--simult. speech)." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected, "I agree because we missed the ballot proposition and with the caveat that you couldn't gather signatures, however." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, "We want to get the wording right if we're going to take all the opinions and put them into statute." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed. Number 2452 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she was still confused. She understood that currently legislators are able to use state property and resources, including staff time, to support or oppose a constitutional amendment or an initiative ballot proposition. However, legislators can't raise the funds on state property or with state resources. She then asked if legislators can raise funds elsewhere. If legislators can raise funds elsewhere, can they have staff help if the staff is not on the payroll. TAPE 99-58, SIDE B Number 0001 [Began midspeech because of tape change.] MS. BARNETT continued, "...Representative James that - that yes, you -- there is no restriction on your time away from the state facility, nor on your staff's personal time so long as you're not requiring them to do it, there is some other..." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood then that a legislator would not be restricted as long as he/she [is fund raising] off the premises and not requiring staff to raise funds, and not requiring staff on their work time to do such. She agreed that should be allowed. Representative James understood the other part of this to refer to the ability to use state property and resources, including staff time, to oppose or support those [a constitutional amendment or an initiative ballot proposition]. She assumed that it would be acceptable then to send out letters, make telephone calls, et cetera and use the state property and resources for that. She asked, "Is it the same for a constitutional amendment as it is for the ballot proposition?" MS. BARNETT reiterated that there are two advisory opinions, which she believes fit very comfortably within the ethics code - the opinions did not go outside of the ethics code - and deal with the initiative process and constitutional amendment. She noted that she has often questioned what exactly is meant by ballot proposition. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered it is something, something that would be a change of law, on the ballot by petition. She did not know if an advisory vote would be a ballot proposition because it is simply an advisory vote. MS. BARNETT responded yes in terms of the initiative-petition process and the constitutional amendment process. Number 0080 MR. PIGNALBERI noted he had asked Legal Services if there is a distinction between a ballot proposition and an initiative. Legislative counsel provided a statute [definition] whereby an "initiative" is subsumed in the definition of "ballot proposition." Therefore, we [the sponsor] chose to use "constitutional amendment" in this amendment to make a distinction between something on the ballot that is not an initiative. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested a brief at-ease. CHAIRMAN KOTT called a brief at-ease at 6:37 p.m. The committee came back to order at 6:39 p.m. Number 0104 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained, for the benefit of the television audience, that he had requested the chairman's opinion as to whether he would accept a division of the question with Amendment 3. The chairman ruled that he (Representative Rokeberg) could move to divide the question. He explained that Amendment 3 would be divided at the beginning of the reference to page 2, following line 13. He requested that the top section of Amendment 3 be designated as [Amendment] 3A and the lower section as [Amendment] 3B. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected to the division of the question. He noted that there could be a ruling as to whether it is divisible or not, and if it is divisible the committee can object and have a vote on whether it is divided. Representative Croft questioned: Your purpose, Representative Rokeberg, is to keep one that would be part 3B to refer to a part 3A that we still don't know and are gonna have a conceptual amendment for? I mean, this is just a savings clause for referring back to an 'I' that I heard or believe we might have a conceptual amendment on, and I don't want to vote on an exception to something that isn't there before us. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his purpose will be to offer a conceptual amendment as 3A and then make a motion on 3B which would be consistent with it, because (I) would be replaced by the conceptual amendment. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that is his difficulty; Representative Rokeberg is moving to divide the question and then put in an unknown quantity and keep the part that says, "except for an unknown quantity". He believed that is poor practice. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented the unknown quality is the conceptual amendment reflecting the advisory opinion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he has not seen this opinion and the committee is about to take a bill introduced yesterday and put a conceptual amendment on opinions we [the committee] has not seen. He objected to the whole thing. Representative Croft stated that the committee ought to adjourn and do this in the right way. CHAIRMAN KOTT questioned if Ms. Barnett has a copy of those opinions. Number 0190 MS. BARNETT affirmed that she does have the opinion and could read the conclusion at this time, and then begin faxing it. She stated: There are two opinions and the combination of the two - they're very similar - is that the committee finds ... "a legislator or legislative employee may engage in activity in support of or opposition to a proposed amendment" then you would put in there "or an initiative petition" -- oh sorry, "proposed amendment to the state constitution or an initiative petition and may use governmental resources including paid staff time to support or oppose the proposed amendment. However, state facilities may not be used by legislators or legislative employees for activities related to contributions. Any legislative employee may not, on government time, solicit, accept, or receive contributions in support of or opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment." Then the other part that would be an addition would be that "a legislative employee may not, on government timing ... offer an initiative petition for signature and neither a legislator nor a legislative employee may use legislative space to gather signatures on an initiative petition, or to solicit contributions in support of or opposition to an initiative." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT and CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that it is good language. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented it is a little long though. MS. BARNETT agreed that the language could be shortened. Number 0267 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, given Ms. Barnett's recitation, if that was the sponsor's intention. MR. PIGNALBERI replied that is exactly what this was supposed to accomplish. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that would be the conceptual amendment, Amendment 3A: to incorporate the concepts as articulated by Ms. Barnett - to adopt the advisory opinions of the Ethics Committee into statute. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT emphasized the need to wait for the fax in order to develop appropriate language. He suggested that the committee could postpone this and move on. "I'm worried that we're gonna, at the end of this, try and move something with conceptual amendments as described by phone (indisc.--talked over)..." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that it is 6:45 and Representative Croft is being dilatory. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT disputed that comment and said he is doing his job. CHAIRMAN KOTT assured the committee that it will have a copy of the bill with the substantive amendments before the committee moves the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT thanked the chairman. Number 0321 MR. PIGNALBERI reiterated that the second half of Amendment 3 was included because of the aforementioned concern expressed by Ms. Miles. Although they were not even sure there was a conflict, the language was included in an attempt to be accommodating. Therefore, Mr. Pignalberi indicated that the second half of Amendment 3 could be eliminated. If the language from the second half of Amendment 3 is agreed to be necessary, it could be inserted in the next committee, the House Rules Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated his agreement with that. CHAIRMAN KOTT deferred to the pleasure of the committee. However, he pointed out that the motion before the committee is to divide the question. From Ms. Barnett's language and the opinions that we will receive, Chairman Kott believed that the committee could consolidate that into something similar to what Ms. Barnett suggested. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "And given the chair's assurance that we're gonna see that before it goes out, that's fine, so I'll withdraw my objection to the division of the question." CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated the motion is then divisible. Number 0388 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I would move Amendment 3A which includes the conceptual amendment of the two advisory opinions of the board as articulated by Miss Barnett." There being no objection, it was so ordered. Therefore, Amendment 3A was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3B. CHAIRMAN KOTT questioned if there is objection. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted there was the concern expressed regarding the fact that the committee does not really know what Amendment 3A says. Therefore, he questioned whether Amendment 3B would possibly get the committee into hot water. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the committee has already agreed to Amendment 3A. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the committee has agreed to Amendment 3A conceptually. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated, "Then 'B' might not be what we want." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT and REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said the committee would get to see it. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested, then, a conceptual Amendment 3B. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed. Number 0435 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to amend Amendment 3B by making it conceptual in nature to allow the drafter the flexibility to do the proper draft. MR. PIGNALBERI commented, "So would I understand that, Mr. Chairman, then to be that ... we'd have a conceptual 'B' to fit conceptual 'A' if it is necessary." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated his agreement with Mr. Pignalberi's statement. There being no further discussion or objection, Conceptual Amendment 3B was adopted. Number 0475 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said: I propose Amendment Number 4 on page 3, line 3: a series of amendments to remove the word "unlimited". Now this one I think is maybe less controversial than some. We had testimony before that it's - it's gonna be limited by guidelines that are done by Leg Council [Legislative Council], and so this is one of the sillier of the "unlimiteds" because it's limited right there in that sentence, and Susie Barnett and others said this -- I mean, that we know the use of the public facility is gonna be limited. That is there's gonna be closing times, and there's gonna be other restrictions, clothing restrictions I imagine, something, and so unlimited use by legislators and legislative employees is just not what we mean there. [Page 3, line 3, read: "designating a public facility for unlimited use by legislators and legislative".] REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood Representative Croft's concern there. However, this is in the ethics law and if this allows unlimited use, then the Ethics Committee is not going to come down on anybody for using that facility. There will be other proscription which says how it can be used, and the Ethics Committee has nothing to do with this. She noted it doesn't necessarily mean that it is unlimited use because there will be another place where it will be restricted. What it does say is that if the language "limited" is included, that would give the Ethics Committee an opportunity to criticize that it is not the right amount of limit. Therefore, to keep the Ethics Committee from making a decision regarding what that limit is - it will be made somewhere else - the language should be "unlimited." Number 0554 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would make the argument that the language return to the current statute: "facility for use by legislators and legislative employees". MR. PIGNALBERI explained that this was just one of the efforts to identify several areas that have been subject to the gray decisions by the Ethics Committee. He said: We're just trying to get rid of the "gotcha" situation, where you don't know how these things will be interpreted. But if you put the "unlimited" in there, then the other laws - other restrictions - we have will apply, but not the Ethics Committee ones. But this is not -- with this particular paragraph, what it applies to for the health facility. This is not worth breaking our pick on, so to speak for the sake (indisc.) if the committee feels that's (indisc.). That's the only one in here that's like that. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted, then, the motion is to delete the word "unlimited". REPRESENTATIVE JAMES maintained her objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Green, Murkowski, Croft, Kerttula and Kott voted in favor of adopting Amendment 4. Representatives Rokeberg and James voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 was adopted by a vote of 5-2. Number 0640 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt conceptual Amendment 5: Page 3, line 20, after "to" Insert "prepare and" Page 5, line 4, after "to" Insert "prepare and" He said this would allow the preparation and sending of greeting cards. CHAIRMAN KOTT said this conforms to what Ms. Barnett said is the opinion of the Ethics Committee. MS. BARNETT stated that when she reviewed it that it has been the informal advice that has been generated since then, but their [the Ethics Committee's] opinion was regarding the sending. Therefore, this would be clarification. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Barnett if there were no limits then. He wanted to know the breadth and context of this opinion. MS. BARNETT replied that the question was put before the Ethics Committee at a January 1996 full committee meeting. She said, "The question was, 'Is addressing mailing holiday cards on behalf of a legislator considered a legislative duty?' ... They [The Ethics Committee] passed a motion that the committee may provide the following informal advice addressing mailing holiday cards on behalf of a legislator is considered a legislative duty." NUMBER 0770 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he feels that is an appropriate opinion, but this is not an appropriate section. He said, "I mean, I still think this with the 'unlimited' word, the unlimited word here, allows my fictitious 'Vote Eric' Halloween card right before the election." He believed that although this was portrayed as summarizing current [law], it is expanding it a great deal and inappropriately. He acknowledged that getting a legislator's postcards together and getting his/her Christmas cards together, may be an appropriate legislative duty. However, he was fairly sure that his hypothetical situation would be rejected by the Ethics Committee, although it would be allowed by this language. He felt that was improper. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that although it may be allowed by this, he believed there is another section of law that says that a legislator cannot use employees for campaign purposes. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT read from the bill and said that an exception has been made to the general prohibition on doing bad things. It can authorize certain bad things, it also includes some okay things. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she does not think that sending out a Halloween card and asking for a vote is a seasonal greeting card. She identified that as a campaign issue. NUMBER 0852 MS. BARNETT referred to page 5, line 3, of HB 225 and said this is where it would allow for that. She pointed out that these provisions are referring to political fund raising and campaigning. Therefore, by including that, you have allowed for sending out the Halloween card Representative Croft spoke of. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that people watching this are probably amazed that legislators can do this to begin with. She thinks this is going way too far. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected to Representative Kerttula's comment, which he took personally. He reiterated that he has an advisory opinion that such is acceptable, and therefore he does not think it is inappropriate at all. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that is not what she said. She reiterated that people will be amazed. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she is amazed. She stated that, as a freshmen legislator, she would never think to have her staff prepare her Christmas cards. NUMBER 0940 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG specified that his staff does not do his personal Christmas cards. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected that she has two lists. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she has never had to have two lists before. She is not entirely in that position yet. She feels that sending out a seasonal greeting card is personal and is not a legislative thing. She stated that she would make that separation and would not ask her staff to do that. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he suspects the public is watching this debacle unfold. He said that the public has to recognize that the committee is only substantiating an opinion by a group of public members, the Ethics Committee, who are charged with making those opinions. He pointed out that this is something that has already been established for the legislature; the committee is merely placing it in the full force of law in the statute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that it is a common practice in all businesses and organizations to send out holiday greeting cards, particularly at Christmas time. It is common for a business executive to have their paid-for employed secretary send out business-related greeting cards. Representative Rokeberg stressed that legislators are the lowest paid state employees, but legislators have one thing and that is staff to help out. NUMBER 1055 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the businesses pay for that, but this is a state employee and that is the difference. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG begged to differ. He said that legislators are public servants who are elected by the people and need to communicate with the people. All the legislators have to compensate for their "miserly, (indisc.) pay is to have a few staff members." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said: Sending out greeting cards with a cute picture of the family cannot accurately be characterized as an important legislative communication with the district; a newsletter may be another. This we all know is campaigning that we're allowed to do. ... I agree with Representative Murkowski, this is something that the public would be surprised and I think disappointed to know we do and have them pay for because it's just getting our face one more time before people. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG disagreed. He said the cards and other stuff is not coming out of legislative dollars. "We are talking about labor here." Number 1141 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to amend Amendment 5 so that it only relates to page 3 of HB 225. There was no objection. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that Amendment 5 as amended was before the committee. Amendment 5 as amended would read: Page 3, line 20, after "to" Insert "prepare and" REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she has two separate lists. She said, "The people who are on my legislative list are other legislators, mostly businesses, not people in my district, not my constituents because if there's any constituents that I know very personally which I do, I send them personal - a personal message and they also get a copy of my Christmas letter." She commented that sending out Christmas cards is a lot of work to do alone. Number 1303 CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Representative James and agreed that it is a lot of work. He has never done it, and would not send a picture because it would be cost-prohibitive. Still, he indicated understanding as to why a legislator would send a picture as it is a form of communication and recognition. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added that he does send Christmas cards out, but he sends pictures of the entire staff. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if they were finished with Amendment 5. He said that Representative Rokeberg has taken out part of it, but in a weird way because it is just taken out of the amendment so that it will stay in the bill itself. He did not have any objections to the amended Amendment 5. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that Amendment 5 [as amended] was adopted without any objection. Number 1409 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move Amendment 6 which would delete lines 3 and 4 on page 5 of HB 225. There being no objections, Amendment 6 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to page 3, line 9, of HB 225 and stated that he feels there are a lot of controversial "unlimiteds". He said, "The one on page 3, line 9, is another one, I think the only one left, where we say "unlimited" right before we put the limitations on it." He read from the bill and said that it seems to him to be a silly place to put "unlimited" right before the limitations. He agrees that there will be some later that are true areas of controversy with regard to policy differences. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Croft. She said "USING" is the same as "unlimited use of" to that extent. CHAIRMAN KOTT clarified that Amendment 7 would read as follows: Page 3, line 9 Delete "unlimited use of" Insert "using" There being no objections, Amendment 7 was adopted. Number 1584 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HB 225 as amended with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if any committee members had a problem with subsection (G) on page 3, lines 21 through 23. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated there would have to be a cost involved and, in that case, there should be a fiscal note. CHAIRMAN KOTT said there would be a fiscal note and that the fiscal note would be reported out of this committee as indeterminate. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA emphasized that there should be a Finance Committee referral for HB 225. Number 1662 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that (G) is not a big issue. He referred to page 3, line 22, after "but" and suggested inserting "primarily". He felt that what is being discussed are things that are bought and used primarily for a state function. However, he did not think that legislators should be able to throw in any and all personal equipment into the van. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this is a judgement call because the existing rules allow a legislator to bring 10,000 pounds of personal effects to and from Juneau. He noted that there is a federal tax liability that floats with the personal effect allocation to the legislator. However, he indicated that there may actually be some savings in this process. CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that it is a savings to the state because in many cases the vans go back three-quarters empty. Therefore, there is no reason why a legislator could not place some items in those vans. Such action would avoid some of the back charges to the state for transporting that legislator's personal goods home. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he has no objection to the amendment. Number 1858 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI wondered if "primarily" is the best word. The committee seems to be making the assumption that this refers to the computers in the legislator's offices. However, there are some legislators out there that have their computers at their home here in Juneau and who may want to transport that. She indicated the need to qualify this by saying that it [the computer/equipment] is primarily used for a state function. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she struggles with this every year. She thinks the cost would be a lot less to the state if legislators were allowed to ship their personal effects with the vans. She thinks there is some argument only because it is so confusing to do it all. CHAIRMAN KOTT mentioned items other than computers, such as refrigerators without state labels , which come down on the vans. Number 2154 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referring to Representative Murkowski's comment about taking computers home, said he would not allow, as the House Rules chairman, anybody to take state-owned computers home. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she was referring to an individual computer she bought. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY (indisc.). He said he has no problems and agreed with Representative James. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that there might be a problem with shipping a computer, if it is not packed in its original box. Number 2407 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to move the conceptual amendment by Representative Croft (Amendment 8) which would, on page 3, line 22, after "but" insert "primarily". There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 8 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "On page 4, I think there is testimony from Susie [Barnett] and others that the 'unlimited in section [(5)](D) didn't really do much. ... It's still campaign records so..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 99-59, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated there was one substantive and one silly "unlimited" left. He referred to (E) on page 4 of HB 225 and said it is identical to what was done on page 3, line 9. He made a motion to adopt Amendment 8: Page 4, line 24 Delete "unlimited use of" Retain "USING" There being no objection, Amendment 9 was adopted. Number 0142 CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease at 7:26 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 7:35 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to page 3, lines 24 through 25, which read "(H) unlimited use be a legislator of photographs of that legislator." She said it is one thing to simply refer to use or reuse. However, if this is about having the state pay for it [the photograph] and then allow [the legislator] to use or reuse it [the photograph], Representative Kerttula believed there should be some reimbursement to the state for that cost. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that he is confused about when the state has ever paid for a photograph. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that it is allowed through the Legislative Affairs Agency. She suggested the following language: "unlimited use by legislator of photographs of that legislator except where purchased by the state in which case the legislator shall reimburse the state for the cost of the photographs." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "I have never known where we state the state of rules and I'm in charge of session budgets where I have authorized any payment ... when they come for ID that's part of the operation cost of the legislature." CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that the ID is done on a digital camera these days. There is only one copy and it is on the digital camera. Therefore, he was not sure what the additional cost would be for that. In his time as the House Rules chairman, he did not recall rendering payment for any photos. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why this was even in the bill. It seems to her that she could use any picture that she pays for. She feels she should have unlimited use of any picture of herself as long as she pays for it. Number 0383 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY pointed out that a legislator may have had some photographs made with campaign funds. That legislator owns those photographs. He posed a situation in which the legislator wanted to use those photographs in a newsletter. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, "In reverse, I was thinking; my example was, taken down here [Juneau] then utilized for a campaign, you're going just the opposite. Campaign monies that have paid for a photo that you may want to use in an official capacity in the form of a newsletter." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said that was his intent. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the Alaska State Legislature Directory and stated that the picture of herself in the directory is her campaign picture. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that leadership, state money, provides for some photographic work. He provided the example of a picture taken of a legislator on the House floor. He said such a photograph should then be available for use by the legislator in a campaign. Number 0563 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that AS 24.60.030 (a) (2) is where this exception is located. Representative Croft discussed Representative Murkowski's use of her campaign photograph in the directory. He said, "She used private funds for a legislative purpose, if anything, or campaign funds for a legislative purpose and that is just not talked about here. It's the one way that we're talking that is using government stuff for nongovernment purposes." He pointed out the difficulty in separating photographs on the basis of use for a private campaign or for public use. Most people just have a photographs file. Representative Croft didn't think it is an area of much significant monetary abuse. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY informed the committee that he has a digital camera and has probably taken pictures of everyone in the room and given them the copies. He specified that this is his personal camera for which he personally pays for the disks. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "If we could waive the sponsor's Fifth Amendment rights and ask him how he produces the copies of the photo on the computer in your office and has them copied on state paper, is that right?" REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that he has his own deal. He said, "I'd give you a ... picture is my own, I bought my own photo type paper to use." Number 0809 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that she is satisfied on the area of photographs. CHAIRMAN KOTT reiterated that he will not move HB 225 until it is drafted in its final form so that members can see all of the amendments. [HB 225 was held over.] ADJOURNMENT Therefore, the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned to the call of the chair at 7:46 p.m.