Legislature(1999 - 2000)

05/06/1999 01:22 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= 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                                                                   
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                                                                
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                                                                    
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                                                                  
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                                                                      
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                                                             
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                                                               
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                                                                
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                                                             
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                                                              
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                                                                
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                                                               
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                                                                    
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                                                              
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                                                                      
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                                                                    
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                                                              
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                                                                             
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                                                              
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                                                                    
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                                                              
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                                                                     
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                                                               
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                                                             
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                                                                     
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                                                                  
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                                                                
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                                                                      
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                                                                     
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.                                                                                 
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.                                                                                     
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                                                             
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                                                                       
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                                                                
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;                                                               
          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                                                              
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                                                                  
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                                                                
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                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested, "How about just the two letters                                                                 
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                                                                   
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                                                                        
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                                                                
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                                                                       
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                                                             
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                                                              
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                                                                   
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                                                               
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                                                                   
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                                                                    
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                                                               
     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                                                                  
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                                                               
     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 [2], 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                                                                      
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                                                                 
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                                                                          
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                                                                
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                                                                        
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                                                                     
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                                                                
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                                                                
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                                                             
CHAIRMAN KOTT assured the committee that it will have a copy of the                                                             
bill with the substantive amendments before the committee moves the                                                             
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                                                                     
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                                                                 
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                                                                       
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                                                                     
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                                                                
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                                                                    
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                                                             
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                                                                  
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                                                                 
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                                                                    
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                                                             
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.]                                                                                            
Therefore, the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was                                                                   
adjourned to the call of the chair at 7:46 p.m.                                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects