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