Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/17/1997 01:03 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 17, 1997
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eric Croft
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 119
"An Act raising the limit on small claims actions to $10,000; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARING SHIRLEY McCOY, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
(*First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 119
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE SMALL CLAIMS JURISDICTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HODGINS,Green,Croft
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/07/97 265 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/07/97 265 (H) JUDICIARY
02/17/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM MANNENIN, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Mark Hodgins
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907)465-4853
Position Statement: Provided sponsor statement on HB 119
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
820 West Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005
Telephone: (907) 264-8228
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HB 119
SHIRLEY MCCOY
P.O. Box 33475
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907)780-6400
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on her confirmation to
the Select Committee on Ethics
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-19, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
order at 1:03 p.m.. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Ethan Berkowitz, Norman Rokeberg, Brian Porter and
Chairman Joe Green. Representative Con Bunde arrived at 1:04 p.m.
and Representative Jeannette James arrived at 1:05 p.m.
Representative Eric Croft was excused.
HB 119 - INCREASE SMALL CLAIMS JURISDICTION
Number 0037
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would be considering HB 119 -
"An Act raising the limit on small claims actions to $10,000; and
providing for an effective date."
Vice Chairman Bunde arrived.
CHAIRMAN GREEN invited Tom Manninen, staff to Representative Mark
Hodgins, the prime sponsor of HB 119, to provide comments on the
proposed legislation.
TOM MANNENIN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Hodgins, provided an overview of HB 119. He said
the proposed legislation would increase the small claims cap to
$10,000, presently set at $5,000. Representative Hodgins felt the
increase would more accurately represent the real dollar costs
involved in small claims litigation.
Number 0154
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Mannenin when the small
claims cap was last changed.
MR. MANNENIN advised members the cap was changed to $5000 in 1986.
Representative Jeannette James arrived.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the inflation rate was over the
past 11 years.
MR. MANNENIN advised members the inflation rate was between 33.5
percent to 40 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the number given might be accurate for
the city of Anchorage. He felt that the United States' city
average rate of inflation was possibly higher than 33.5 percent
during that period of time. He stated that the rate of inflation,
over an 11 year period, would account for a significant rationale
for the increase in the small claims cap.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked what kind of input they had received
from the legal community regarding the increase in the small claims
cap.
MR. MANNENIN said they have not received much input from the legal
community. He felt there could be some concern out there, but no
one had expressed concern to Representative Hodgins.
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ responded to Representative Bunde's
question. He advised members that usually small claims cases were
too small to be of any financial value, or attraction, to
attorneys. He said there are not many lawyers who become involved
in small claims.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE questioned whether the small claims process
would become a more formal procedure because of the increase in the
cap.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that Chris Christensen from the
Alaska Court System would be providing testimony, via
teleconference, and would address the fiscal note submitted by the
court system.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Mannenin if he knew what the
small claims caps were in other states.
MR. MANNENIN advised members that he could not answer that
question.
Number 0445
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked what the current filing fee
was.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that the current filing fee was $25.00,
adding that the filing fee had not changed for some time.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt the filing fee ought to be increased as
well. She advised members if a person hired an attorney to
represent the case, they would be required to pay an up-front
retainer fee, and by increasing the filing fee for those who handle
their own small claims suits, it would provide more of a balance of
the two instances.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Chris Christensen address the committee
on the fiscal note.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, pointed
out that more bills affect the judiciary than other executive
branch departments. Several hundred bills affecting the judiciary
are introduced in each legislature. Mr. Christensen advised
members that, as a general rule, the Alaska Supreme Court did not
take a position in favor or against any piece of legislation. He
noted that he would attempt to bring technical problems to the
attention of the committee, and advise members of costs relating to
proposed legislation. Mr. Christensen reiterated that the court
would only take a position when it believes a bill would have a
very significant impact on the internal operations of the branch.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that he was making the disclaimer because he
wanted the committee to know that the court does not take the
position to oppose or support legislation lightly. However, Mr.
Christensen advised members that the Alaska Court System did oppose
the proposed legislation in its current form.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that HB 119 doubled the jurisdictional
limit of small claims actions from $5000 to $10,000. He advised
members that the Alaska Supreme Court did not object to increasing
the small claims jurisdiction, quite the contrary. Mr. Christensen
pointed out that since the last increase in the small claims cap,
which took place in 1986, the consumer price index (CPI), for
Anchorage had increased by approximately 35 percent. That increase
would reflect that the small claims jurisdiction should be at
approximately $6900.
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that he had advised the legislature
several times during the last few sessions that the court does not
object to an increase above the inflation rate, possibly as high as
$7500. At that point, the court would evaluate the consequences of
the increase. The legislature could revisit the issue in another
two years to determine whether the consequences were not too severe
as a result of the initial increase and evaluate whether another
increase, up to $10,000, would be appropriate at that time.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the court system believed that
a jump to $10,000, at this time, would have potential of imposing
some very severe consequences on the court system. He felt there
was a common misunderstanding about small claims court; most people
think that because it is a simple, cheap court for the parties, it
is also a simple, cheap court for the state. This understanding is
not true.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said small claims cases require far more clerical
involvement than low value cases which proceed under formal rules
in district court. He explained that the courts not only create
and provide the parties with fill-in-the-blank forms, but they also
assist parties in filling out the forms. Mr. Christensen pointed
out that the court provides much more detailed procedural
assistance in the conduct of a claim, as well as performing much of
the procedural work for the parties such as serving documents on
the opposing party.
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that the court system hires the best
people they can get; however, he expected that it was quite
possible that there would be many cases, in many locations, where
the magistrate would not be able to handle the case because of its
complexity. He noted that magistrates were normally not attorneys.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said an additional problem was that the vast
majority of those who file small claims actions never talk to a
lawyer first. Whereas, the majority of those filing a suit in
district court would first consult with an attorney. Many of those
cases never see the courthouse because the lawyer was able to
settle the case or explain to the person filing the suit why they
would not have an arguable case.
MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that the filing of small claims actions
increased by 11 percent in 1996, but the resources to handle those
cases did not increase. This results in the courts losing the
ability to handle the cases in an expeditious manner and HB 119
would most likely increase that problem.
MR. CHRISTENSEN further stated that small claims court is an
essential element in the justice system. He explained that it
provided a forum for people to resolve their disputes
constructively and allows people to deal with small claims that
could not be handled economically by an attorney.
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that there was a wide range of opinions
on what that cap level should be. He noted that more than half the
states, including states with a higher cost of living than Alaska
such as Hawaii, place the limit of small claims jurisdiction at or
below $3000, with only two states placing the limit above $5000.
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out the fact that even though the crime
rate decreased the previous year, more people were being prosecuted
- presumably because more people were being caught. The increase
in prosecution meant that the court system was falling behind. He
noted that they have more work with no increase in resources.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the court strongly believed
that an increase in small claims jurisdiction to $10,000 would have
a serious potential of creating a further imbalance within the
system and causing some severe internal problems.
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that it was not just a question of the
fiscal note. He noted that the fiscal note submitted by the court
system only reflected an increase in clerical time. There were
additional things that could not be reflected in the fiscal note,
which was why the Alaska Supreme Court was concerned. Mr.
Christensen explained that if the case load became substantially
more complex, with many magistrates unable to handle those complex
cases, injustice would result. He said this was not the kind of
thing one could attach to a fiscal note.
MR. CHRISTENSEN strongly urged the committee to consider an
amendment to HB 119 which would place the small claims cap at $7500
and then revisit the issue in two years, after the court system had
time to evaluate the consequences of an increase.
Number 1255
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Christensen to comment on what happened to
the court system when the small claims limit was increased from
$2000 to $5000.
MR. CHRISTENSEN could not answer that, although he felt that they
might be able to figure it out by looking through the annual
reports.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the court system was concerned over the
doubling of the cap, and mentioned that the increase from $2000 to
$5000 was a two and a half fold increase.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members he had some statistics available.
The statistics showed the age of pending cases in small claims
court as of December 31, 1996. These were cases the court was
attempting to get out as quickly as possible because that is what
small claims court is all about. The median case in Anchorage was
300 days old and the average case 400 days old. In Ketchikan it
was 450 days old. Mr. Christensen explained that the delays, in
part, were the result of the 11 percent increase in case loads the
previous year without any increase in resources.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that taking 300 days to get a small
claims case resolved was wrong. If the state dramatically
increases the jurisdictional limit, the number of days could extend
further. He added that "justice delayed is justice denied," which
he did not believe was the intent of the legislature.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the large difference between the median and the
average would indicate a heavy end to the curve.
Number 1417
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how the fee, for filing a small claims
suit, was established.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said the Alaska Supreme Court had been given the
authority to establish filing fees for various types of cases. The
fee to file in small claims court is $25. Mr. Christensen pointed
out the fee for small claims court was low because it was supposed
to be the people's court, an inexpensive court where a lawyer is
not needed. The court system did not want to the fee to serve to
bar small claims.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that small claims court was
supposed to be inexpensive, but that did not mean it was not
suppose to pay its own way. She proposed the establishment of a
sliding scale in conjunction with the size of the claim.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said the Alaska Supreme Court had always believed
very strongly that small claims cases were not supposed to pay
their own way. He stated that justice was one of the basic
functions of state government. Providing a justice system was not
something the state does because people want it or because it makes
them feel good, but because the state has to provide it. Mr.
Christensen noted that without a justice system there would not be
much point in government.
MR. CHRISTENSEN added that justice should be funded at the level
needed, whether or not it actually paid its own way. He advised
members that the legislature could enact a sliding scale fee and
overturn the court rule if it chose to.
Number 1651
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt that possibly some of the small claims
case load would diminish if there was some personal investment
involved in achieving access to small claims court. He suggested
that the application should pay for itself and did not see how a
filing fee of $25 would cover all the court assistance procedures
and paper work costs. Representative Bunde asked Mr. Christensen
what the filing process cost the court system per claimant.
MR. CHRISTENSEN expressed that it was low cost to the litigant, but
not for the state. He explained, that although the court charges
the $25 filing fee, the claimant could pick up the forms and
receive free assistance from the clerks in completing the forms.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that the Alaska Supreme Court did
review filing fee rates every four or five years to make sure they
are reasonable and does so by comparing the rate with other states.
He added that filing fees in Alaska were not particularly low. He
noted that the state would not want to impose a filing fee so high
that it would make people feel they have been barred from justice.
Number 1851
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that Mr. Christensen explain the
jurisdiction of the district court, the small claims court and how
they mesh.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the district court had
jurisdiction over civil claims up to $50,000 while the small claims
court has jurisdiction up to $5000. He noted that the small claims
court was also barred from hearing certain kinds of cases which the
district court is allowed to hear. These cases include the ability
to file a claim against the state, a claim involving equity, or
certain types of tort actions such as; false arrest, false
imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation or slander.
Number 1920
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that there were actually two kinds
of judges in a district court; district judges appointed by the
governor who have the full district court jurisdiction, and
magistrates who are hired by the court system who have limited
district court jurisdiction. Magistrates can only hear infractions
and small claims cases.
Number 2074
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER referenced the court's practice of
serving process in small claims court and asked why the court chose
to offer that service.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the court charges the fee,
fills out the paperwork and provides it to the process servers. He
understood this was because the legislature had instructed the
Alaska Supreme Court to make the rules simple and expeditious. He
pointed out, in the distant past, this was one way to simplify the
procedure. He added that the average citizen did not understand
the service of process and, if that was done improperly, there
would not be a case.
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked if the courts would have more
problems, as a result of the increase in the small claims cap, with
higher numbers of pro se litigants.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said this would be one distinct problem the court
system felt it would have as a result of HB 119. Pro se litigants
were very expensive, difficult and time consuming to handle, but it
was a duty of the court to handle those cases as a matter of public
service. Mr. Christensen advised members that the court had over
8,000 small claims cases, which was close to 10 percent of the
court's case load, and the court was already delaying those cases
way beyond the point that they should have been resolved.
Number 2212
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern about the apparent gap
for people seeking justice between $5000 and $50,000. He asked how
many suits had been filed in district court between $5000 and
$10,000 in 1996.
MR. CHRISTENSEN could not answer that, although would attempt to
get that statistic. He did not know if the court's computer system
had the ability to produce that information.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked which two states had a small claims
cap over $5000 and what their experience had been.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the two states were Nevada and
Tennessee, but he did not know what their experiences had been.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Christensen if he could suggest
any alternatives, in lieu of raising the cap to $10,000, that would
provide more civil justice to a greater amount of people in the
small claims court.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that would be something he would
have to give some serious thought to.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the inflation rate had increased
approximately 35 percent over the past 11 years and that rate would
increase the present $5000 small claims cap to almost $7000. He
asked Mr. Christensen if the court would support an increase to
$7500, and then revisit the issue in a couple years.
MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members the court system would support
that. He explained that the court system was a strong supporter of
small claims court and thinks it is essential, it increases
justice. Mr. Christensen stated that the court system felt $7500
would be appropriate, the court system could evaluate the
consequences with the issue being revisited in two years. He noted
that if it was not causing the kinds of problems the court system
felt might occur then it might be appropriate to raise the cap
again at that time.
Number 2320
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if HB 119 were amended to a $7500
small claims limit, if the fiscal note would be reduced.
MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that this cap would reduce the fiscal note
possibly by half because it would result in much less clerical work
being provided by the court system.
Number 2380
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the fiscal note was
requesting funds for one more person, but with the existing backlog
and delay in hearing small claims cases she felt an additional
person was needed anyway. If that staff was located in Anchorage
it would not help other areas of the state with their backlog
problems.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that the court could hire part-time
people in several locations, attempt to move clerical work from one
site to another, or use the funds to pay overtime in various
locations. He noted that the court system had alerted the
Judiciary Committees and the Finance Committees, over the past
several years, that they would be seeing a large case load increase
because of the increase of law enforcement officers in Anchorage,
which the legislature did not fund. He referred to a discussion
with clerk of court in Anchorage two weeks ago, who said that
traffic tickets for the calendar year 1996 had increased by 8,000.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that these tickets were not paid by
mail, but tickets where people actually showed up in court. The
Anchorage court system was falling dramatically behind because of
the municipality's increased police force.
TAPE 97-19, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt that an increase in the small claims
jurisdiction should increase the filing fee at the same rate. He
asked that Mr. Christensen comment on that suggestion, and provide
some ideas as to how to accomplish that.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, if there are 8,000 cases now and the
jurisdiction is increased and we estimate that the case load would
increase by half, increasing the filing fees from $25 to $50 would
bring in another $100,000.
Number 0042
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that filing fees were set in the court
rules. The legislature could instruct a legislative drafter to
add a court rules change to the bill. Mr. Christensen thought the
filing fee for district court was currently set at $60.00. He
pointed out that the Alaska Court System did not get program
receipts. All fees, fines and forfeitures accepted by the courts
each year are turned over to the general fund, this amount was
approximately $7 million in 1996.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the chairman would accept a
motion to table HB 119 for the purpose of allowing Representative
Croft, as a co-sponsor to the proposed legislation, to speak to the
concerns expressed during the meeting.
Number 0220
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the proposed legislation could be held
over for further consideration, rather than tabled.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER had no objection to holding the bill for
further consideration of an appropriate increase in the small
claims cap, as well as an increase in filing fees for those types
of cases.
Number 0298
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the existing $25 filing fee had
been in existence for a long period of time and felt it should
increase along with the small claims cap. It was her desire that
the bill be held in order to speak with the prime sponsor,
Representative Hodgins, on those issues. She agreed with
Representative Rokeberg that it would not be necessary to table the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE advised members that he would feel more
comfortable if the small claims cap were increased to $7,500 in
addition to increasing the filing fee. He felt the sponsor should
be aware of it and comfortable with the suggestions presented by
members of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 0520
TOM MANNENIN noted that he would feel more comfortable with
Representative Hodgins speaking for himself, but stated it did not
seem reasonable to increase the cap to $7,500 this year and raise
it again in a year or two. He said it would require a change in
filing forms which would result in additional costs to the system.
He felt, in the long run, it would cost the state more time, energy
and effort. He said if we realize that this is a problem, accept
it as such, change the cap one time, then everything would be done.
CHAIRMAN GREEN felt it was a convincing argument and advised
members he would hold the bill for further consideration and notice
from the chair.
Number 0586
CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief at-ease at 2:05 p.m. for the purpose
of contacting Shirley McCoy via teleconference. The meeting
reassumed at 2:08 p.m.
CONFIRMATION OF SHIRLEY McCOY, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
Number 0605
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would next consider the
Governor's reappointment of Shirley McCoy to the Select Committee
on Ethics.
SHIRLEY MCCOY advised members she had served one partial term and
one complete term on the Select Committee on Ethics as a public
member. She explained that her primary reason for being interested
in serving on the Ethics Committee, initially, was the fact that
she had been involved in community issues in Sitka, Alaska. Ms.
McCoy stated that she had just recently moved to Juneau when the
Ethics Committee was being formed and felt it would be a good
opportunity to continue to have some public involvement.
Number 0643
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out the strong possibility of the ethics
rules being revisited and revised because of a recent situation
where many seemed to interpret the present rules differently. He
asked Ms. McCoy to respond to the issue of amending the current
ethics rules.
MS. MCCOY felt from the very beginning that those who had served on
the Ethics Committee had noticed a number of areas within the rules
that were not completely clear, and possibly contradictory. She
noted that any time a new law comes into effect there are certain
things that need to be worked out.
MS. MCCOY felt the present Ethics Committee had gone a long way to
identify some of the problem areas and, with the help of
legislators on the panel, they had attempted to present those
problem areas to the full body.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referenced the deliberations of the Ethics Committee
in the recent past and asked Ms. McCoy if she recalled statements
made by former Senator Rodey which indicated that the current
ethics laws were less than perfect. The ethics laws were a
conglomeration of bits and pieces. He asked if she would concur
with the statements made by Senator Rodey.
MS. MCCOY advised members that she did listen to those hearings, as
well as to Senator Rodey's comments. She stated that she would not
concur with his statements totally, but agreed that there were some
problem areas. Ms. McCoy felt the rules had a fairly solid
foundation and she thought the problem areas could be addressed
easily. She commented that one does not have to "throw out the
baby with the bath water." To clarify, she felt the ethics code
was basically sound and although there were some problem areas,
they were not substantial. She thought they could be identified,
successfully between those who had worked on the Ethics Committee,
and then presented to the full body. Ms. McCoy did not feel a
complete rewrite of the ethics code would be necessary.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. McCoy to express her views
regarding citizen participation on the Ethics Committee.
MS. MCCOY felt private citizen participation on the Ethics
Committee offered a valid compliment to the make-up of the
committee. She also felt it was imperative to have public members
on the committee for the purpose of satisfying legislator's
constituents, giving them a level of comfort that they had not had
in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if Ms. McCoy felt the manner, in
which the last process worked, diminished the citizen role in any
fashion.
MS. MCCOY responded that it did not, adding that she felt it was
beneficial due to the fact that it exposed some areas of
conflicting interpretation of the rules. She expressed that the
Ethics Committee was a buffer zone between the legislators and the
public, and advised members that the committee did the best they
could with the information they had. Ms. McCoy pointed out that
the committee received many minor complaints that they would not
even care to consider. The ethics code does not allow the
committee to be the final authority, the legislature is. She
reiterated that the last situation identified some areas that
really need to be addressed.
Number 980
MS. MCCOY explained that there were seven people who debated for an
extended period of time to reach a common stance. She noted that
one of the things she felt very comfortable about in the meetings
was that members go to an extreme to ensure that they are following
the ethics code when considering a complaint.
Number 1092
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her appreciation of Ms. McCoy's
willingness to continue serving on the Ethics Committee.
Representative James felt that the need for an Ethics Committee was
to address the perception of the public, not necessarily reality.
Number 1176
MS. MCCOY agreed with Representative James, pointing out that many
times the public was not aware of all of the information that comes
before the Ethics Committee. She was sure there had been times
when the committee had eliminated violations or complaints, or
found lack of probable cause, yet the public possibly had more
questions. The best the committee could do in those situations was
try to clarify, usually through the press, what those situations
and circumstances were.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that he had the opportunity
to serve with Ms. McCoy on the Ethics Committee during the first
two years of its existence. He noted from his experience that Ms.
McCoy was an objective, no nonsense and common sense kind of person
who brings the right approach to the consideration of ethics
complaints and questions.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that one of the problems the
Ethics Committee faced initially, including himself as a
legislator, was the lack of experience in the legislative process.
He felt this experience was an important and necessary element of
a legislative ethics committee.
MS. MCCOY expressed her appreciation of Representative Porter's
support. She agreed that there was merit to having continuity on
the Ethics Committee and felt that any change of membership to the
committee, at this point, would slow down the process because they
had spent so much time trying to tighten up the codes that
currently exist. Ms. McCoy noted that there were two new
legislative members on the Ethics Committee and she had been
impressed with their ability to jump right in, adding that they did
have the legislative background by virtue of their position.
MS. MCCOY advised members that her main reason for being interested
in being reappointed to the Ethics Committee was to maintain the
continuity of the committee and be able to see through some of the
objectives the committee was in the process of addressing.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that he was a newly appointed member of
the Select Committee on Ethics and had the opportunity to work with
Ms. McCoy, although briefly, and would also recommend her
reappointment to the Ethics Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that prior to his appointment to the
committee, there had been discussions regarding legislative changes
to the ethics code, and asked Ms. McCoy if she felt the proposed
changes would assist the process in being more effective.
MS. MCCOY felt the suggested changes would go a long way in
clarifying specific areas and providing a better comfort level with
the ethics code. She noted there would still be areas of concern
that might arise, but felt they would be very minor. Ms. McCoy
said the changes they were proposing would eliminate a majority of
the differences of interpretation that had been recognized during
the recent hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. McCoy if she felt the Ethics
Committee, or its executive director, should seek out ethics
violations.
Number 1830
MS. MCCOY responded that she was not aware that anyone on the
committee had ever sought out violations. She believed that Susie
Barnett testified during the House Rules Committee meetings that
there had been times when she had, in her capacity, seen minor
infractions, had approached the offices and mentioned to the
individual involved that it could be a violation of the ethics
code. Ms. McCoy pointed out that the objective of the members of
the Ethics Committee was to help the situation, not add fuel to the
fire.
MS. MCCOY explained that the committee's first course of action
upon receipt of a complaint was to verify that it was valid,
notarized and signed by the complainant. Once that process is
completed, the committee is obligated to act on the information
before them. Ms. McCoy advised members that she did not feel it
was a members' purpose to go out and look for complaints, but if
she or anyone else on the committee had direct knowledge of a
violation, she would not have a problem in filing a complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the executive director of the Ethics
Committee had been proactive in seeking out violations. He felt
this was something that the legislative counsel should look into
and members of the Ethics Committee should be aware of it.
Number 2120
CHAIRMAN GREEN referenced the House Rules Committee hearings which
took place several weeks ago, and pointed out that the results
arrived at were basically opposite of the results reached by the
Ethics Committee in the matter of guilt as well as the matter of
cooperation. He asked Ms. McCoy what her reaction would be, in the
future, knowing that any review and recommendation by the Ethics
Committee could be reviewed by a Legislative Rules Committee.
MS. MCCOY said she was not sure that she was in total agreement
that the Rules Committee's decision totally contradicted the Ethics
Committee's decision in both those areas. She noted that the House
Rules Committee did find, as the Ethics Committee did, that there
was a lack of cooperation and felt that the Rules Committee dealt
with that appropriately. Ms. McCoy stated that if there had been
the level of cooperation from the beginning, the state would have
saved mega-bucks. It was never the intent or purpose of the Ethics
Committee to hold a public hearing. She stated that the Ethics
Committee followed the code and did exactly what was required by
the code. She said given the same circumstances and the same code,
she did not see where anything could have been dealt with
differently.
TAPE 97-20, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that as a member of the House Rules
Committee he did not feel it was a total disagreement with the
Ethics Committee's decision, but disagreed with the finding of the
Ethics Committee that elements of specific statutes existed in a
specific fact situation. He noted that it is a far cry from a
determination that a certain behavior is, or is not, ethical.
CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified his earlier statement regarding the
decisions reached by each committee being opposite. He stated that
he realized that both the Ethics Committee and the House Rules
Committee found a lack of cooperation; however, he felt the Ethics
Committee treated that rather lightly, and the Rules Committee
acted fairly stringent on that matter.
Number 0206
MS. MCCOY felt the Ethics Committee took into consideration the
lack of cooperation, but also the fact that there were two other
similar charges before them. She said this was why the sanctions
were deemed more significant than they may have been for what was
otherwise considered a minor infraction by the Ethics Committee.
Number 310
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt the sanction applied for the failure
to cooperate bore no relation to the cost overruns that resulted
from the failure to cooperate, he felt it was a very light
sanction. He expressed concern that the House Rules Committee
substituted its view of the facts for those given to the Ethics
Committee. Representative Berkowitz felt it had the effect of
eviscerating a strong public process and expressed his disagreement
with what occurred. He was wholly supportive of how the Ethics
Committee dealt with the process and felt compelled to make those
statements as a minority member of the legislature.
Number 385
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the Governor's reappointment of
Shirley McCoy to the Select Committee on Ethics be reported out of
committee and forwarded on to the Joint Floor Session for
confirmation purposes. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 0428
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further to come before the committee, Chairman
Green adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at
2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|