03/19/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2007
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Bob Buch
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/30/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/07 (H) Moved CSHB 109(STA) Out of Committee
03/03/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1NR 3AM
03/07/07 (H) DP: ROSES, DOLL, LYNN
03/07/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN
03/07/07 (H) AM: JOHNSON, COGHILL, GRUENBERG
03/19/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the requestor of HB 109.
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 109.
BROOKE MILES, Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 109.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 109.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:02:17 PM. Representatives Samuels, Lynn,
Holmes, Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras were present
at the call to order. Representatives Gardner and Buch were
also in attendance.
HB 109 - DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
1:02:43 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to the requirement for
candidates, groups, legislators, public officials, and other
persons to submit reports electronically to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; relating to disclosures by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
legislative directors, public officials, and certain candidates
for public office concerning services performed for compensation
and concerning certain income, gifts, and other financial
matters; requiring legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public
officials, and municipal officers to make certain financial
disclosures when they leave office; relating to insignificant
ownership interest in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to
certain restrictions on employment after leaving state service
for purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 109(STA).]
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized the issue of ethics as being central
to the campaigns of many and to all Alaskans.
1:03:25 PM
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN, speaking as the requestor of HB 109,
concurred, expressed her appreciation for the efforts that
legislators have taken to address the issue of ethics, and
expressed her belief that [state government] can build upon a
foundation of trust and thus provide for a better standard of
living for Alaskans.
1:05:21 PM
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), said he would assist the committee with the task of
ethics reform in order to [in part] reassure Alaskans of the
integrity of their public officials.
CHAIR RAMRAS provided comments regarding how the committee would
be proceeding with the bill.
MR. JONES noted that both the House State Affairs Standing
Committee and its ethics subcommittee did a lot of work on the
legislation.
1:10:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that committee packets contain a
color-coded sectional analysis of CSHB 109(STA), and a listing
of the definitions of terms used in the bill. Referring to the
sectional analysis, he indicated that rather than explaining the
sections of the bill in a strict numerical order, it instead
parses the sections it is explaining into four different
categories: reporting by legislators, Titles 15 and 24;
reporting by public officials, Title 39; procedures of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics; and enforcement statutes of the APOC and
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. He also mentioned
some of the specific groups of people that each of the four
categories address.
1:20:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 1 pertains to the
exemption on reporting. Currently, if a candidate doesn't plan
on spending more than $5,000 on a campaign, he/she is not
required to report. Under Section 1, that exemption will only
apply to delegates to a constitutional convention, a judge
seeking electoral confirmation, or a candidate for a municipal
office. Section 2 establishes a May 1, 2009, deadline for
mandatory electronic filing for all candidates except candidates
for municipal office [and candidates whose circumstances warrant
an exception].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 1, and asked
whether there is any other group of persons who should also be
included as qualifying for the aforementioned reporting
exemption.
1:24:32 PM
BROOKE MILES, Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
Department of Administration (DOA), offered her belief that the
term "municipality office under AS 15.13.010" will cover all
necessary groups. She additionally noted that planning
commissioners file financial disclosure reports but not campaign
disclosure reports, that utility board members don't file
campaign disclosure reports [because] they are not currently
subject to campaign disclosure laws, and that candidates for
Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs) are also not subject to
campaign disclosure laws.
1:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Sections 3 requires the APOC
to administer an annually updated training course for lobbyists
and their employers. Section 4 requires the APOC to obtain a
sworn affirmation from a lobbyist to verify that he/she has
completed a training course within a 12-month period [preceding
the date he/she registered as a lobbyist].
MS. MILES, in response to a question regarding Section 2, said
that her concern is that it currently lists some people who
needn't be included in this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM indicated a willingness to offer an
amendment to Section 2 to address that concern.
1:28:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 5 of the bill
establishes a new prohibition on lobbyists regarding campaign
contributions or gifts that would violate AS 39.52.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM pondered whether they should also
perhaps amend the provision [of statute] that addresses gifts
given by lobbyists during the interim. In response to a
comment, she clarified that she was pondering whether they
should amend AS 24.60.080.
1:31:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 6 allows a person
prohibited from lobbying because of a family relationship with a
legislator to engage in volunteer or representational lobbying;
that person must, however, register as a representational
lobbyist but need not pay the registration fee. Section 7
modifies language in the applicability section of the
legislative ethics Act in an effort to clarify who could be
exempted from the Act's disclosure requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 8 prohibits [a
legislator] from sending out a constituent newsletter within 30
days of an election.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered whether such a prohibition
should also be established for a governor, or someone in a
municipal office, running for reelection. Referring, then, to
Section 6, he suggested that there might be some constitutional
problems with it that could be addressed via an amendment, an
amendment that [might mirror proposed federal legislation].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Section 9 requires a
legislator or legislative employee to disclose all of his/her
board memberships to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
1:36:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 10 will streamline
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics reporting process for
disclosures relating to loans received or programs participated
in by legislators or legislative employees; it does this in part
by replacing the existing phrase of, "within three weeks after
the filing date" with the phrase, "on or before the next
regularly scheduled publication of ethics disclosures". Section
10 will also allow the staff of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics to, upon request, edit information that if
disclosed might result in an unjustified invasion of personal
privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS questioned whether a legislator or
legislative employee who is the sole shareholder of a
corporation or a limited liability company (LLC) that received a
loan from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) or the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), for
example, would have to both report with the APOC as the
shareholder and report the loan his/her company received.
CHAIR RAMRAS said a legislator or legislative employee would
report both facts.
MS. MILES concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question, relayed that
under Section 10, a quorum of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics would determine whether disclosing
information about a loan might result in an unjustified invasion
of personal privacy.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that current law requires the
legislator or legislative employee to report the gross amount,
the terms, and the interest rates of any such loans. In
response to a question, he said that as the recipient of an
AIDEA loan, he must disclose the portion of the loan that "is
with [the] AIDEA," the initial amount that is currently "owned,"
the length of the term, and the amortized amount, but he is not
required to disclose "the portion that is with my primary
lending institution" except to indicate that he has a
relationship with the primary lender. However, he noted, the
AIDEA generally makes its "loan documentation" available to the
public.
MS. MILES concurred.
1:42:18 PM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, also concurred
that under [the legislative ethics Act] there are certain
criteria about state benefit and loan programs that must be
reported. She added that there are two types of reporting: one
through the financial disclosure [provisions governing the
APOC], and one through the [legislative ethics Act provisions].
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he just wants to ensure that those
who operate a business "do not get so boxed in" by HB 109 that
they decide not to run for office.
CHAIR RAMRAS mentioned that Representative Neuman has a similar
concern [regarding a provision of current law].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to Section 10, asked what is
meant by the phrase, "quorum of the committee".
MS. ANDERSON said that that language was chosen by the drafter,
that to her it means a majority of the members, and acknowledged
that perhaps that point should be clarified.
1:45:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Section 11 eliminates
legislators from the provision of statute that requires them to
report a close economic association with a lobbyist; this change
is necessary because legislators are no longer allowed to have a
close economic association with a lobbyist.
MR. JONES clarified that the intent of Section 11 was to conform
statutory language to an amendment that was adopted by the House
State Affairs Standing Committee but which was inadvertently
left out of CSHB 109(STA).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred, and relayed that he will
offer an amendment to address that issue and that his earlier
comment regarding Section 6 really applies to the amendment that
was inadvertently left out of CSHB 109(STA).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that what was left out of CSHB
109(STA) was an amendment that would preclude spouses of
legislators from serving as lobbyists.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then explained that Section 12 adds
employees of the Office of Victims' Rights (OVR) to the list of
those who do not qualify for certain discounts. Section 13 adds
gifts received by family members of legislators and legislative
employees to the list of what must be disclosed and maintained
for the public record and forwarded to the APOC.
1:48:37 PM
MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the language on page 12, line 19,
should instead say, "shall disclose to the committee within 30
days of receipt of the gift"; this would be a conforming change.
In response to comments, she clarified that there are two
definitions of "immediate family" in the [legislative] ethics
code - one pertaining to gifts and one pertaining to all else -
and a third definition in the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics
Act. With regard to the legislative ethics Act, the definition
pertaining to gifts is broader - AS 24.60.080:
(k) In this section, "immediate family" or
"family member" means
(1) the spouse of the person;
(2) the person's domestic partner;
(3) a child, including a stepchild and an
adoptive child, of the person or of the person's
domestic partner;
(4) a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or
uncle of the person;
(5) a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or
uncle of the person's spouse or the person's domestic
partner; and
(6) a stepparent, stepsister, stepbrother, step-
grandparent, step-aunt, or step-uncle of the person,
the person's spouse, or the person's domestic partner.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to further comments, said that
legislators do not have to worry about the definition of
"immediate family member" in the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics
Act. Under the legislative ethics Act definition of "immediate
family" that pertains to state benefit and loan programs, a
legislator would only need to concern himself/herself with
family members with whom he/she is financially [interdependent].
In response to a question, she pointed out that family trusts do
not fall under the definition of gifts.
1:54:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that AS 24.60.080(c) says
that a legislator or legislative employee may accept gifts from
immediate family members, and that AS 24.60.080(i) says:
(i) A legislator or legislative employee who
knows or reasonably should know that a family member
has received a gift because of the family member's
connection with the legislator or legislative employee
shall report the receipt of the gift by the family
member to the committee if the gift would have to be
reported under this section if it had been received by
the legislator or legislative employee or if receipt
of the gift by a legislator or legislative employee
would be prohibited under this section.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to comments, posited that even
legislators who are currently in office, regardless of how many
years they have served, still have to call the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics or the APOC for clarification of the
ethics and disclosure laws as they might apply in a particular
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that different definitions are
needed for different circumstances; for example, in the case of
gifts, a broader definition is probably warranted.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to comments about family trusts,
clarified that the gifts that must be reported would have to be
those given because of one's legislative status, and thus money
given to a family trust by family members would not have to be
reported because it is being given because of a family
relationship.
2:00:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Section 15 prohibits a
serving legislator from, directly or by authorizing another to
act on the legislator's behalf, accepting or agreeing to accept
compensation from anyone but the state for services related to
his/her legislative work. Section 16 prohibits a legislator or
legislative employee from being compensated for representation
before a municipal, legislative, or executive branch entity.
Section 17 streamlines reporting requirements such that unless
otherwise statutorily provided for, ethics disclosure deadlines
for legislators and legislative employees will be within 30 days
of the commencement of the matter or interest. Section 18
requires a former legislator, legislative employee, or public
member of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to file -
within 90 days of the final day of his/her service - disclosure
information for all matters relevant to when that person did
hold one of the aforementioned positions.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that the language of Section 18 located on
page 14, lines 29-30, needs to be cleaned up in that currently
it may be interpreted to mean disclosing information pertaining
to the person's entire length of service.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 19 allows the chair
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics or a subcommittee
to designate an alternate legislative member to attend a meeting
if the regular member is unable to attend. Currently the chair
can only appoint an alternate if the regular member has a
conflict with an item on the meeting agenda. Section 20 allows
the chair of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics or a
subcommittee to designate an alternate legislative member to
attend a meeting if the regular member and the alternate member
are both accused of a violation in the complaint the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics is hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 21 requires the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to publish certain
legislative-ethics educational material, and to administer, in
January of each year, an ethics course in order help people
understand and follow the ethics code.
MS. ANDERSON pointed out that language on lines 17-18 of Section
21 says in part, "in January of each year and at other times
determined by the committee, administer a legislative ethics
course", whereas the language on lines 24-25 of Section 22 says
in part, "within 10 days of the first day of the first regular
session". Suggesting that that point should be clarified, she
offered her understanding that the intent is to have that
training each year.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his hope that the training would
not be a full-day event.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES suggested to the committee that they
consider perhaps altering the language [in Sections 21 and 22]
so that it would conform to a possible 90-day legislative
session, particularly if such a session wouldn't start in
January.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that it is intended that the
course would be administered via a disc that people could simply
take with them and complete [within a given timeframe].
2:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 23 adds the APOC and
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to the list of
entities that may request an advisory opinion under AS
24.60.160, adds the requirement that the advisory opinions be
redacted before publication to protect the identity of the
person involved, and makes the vote record of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics a public record. Section 24
would allow persons who have provided legal advice to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, but who no longer do so, to be
appointed by the committee to present a case against the person
charged.
MS. ANDERSON explained that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics hires outside legal counsel who provides counsel to
herself and the committee, and Section 24 changes language
adopted a few years ago that prohibited such a person from also
presenting the case; under Section 24, someone who provided
counsel in the past would have the option of being able to
present [a current] case.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Section 24 also allows the committee
to approve a change in the date of a hearing beyond the current
20-90 day limit, and to dismiss a complaint if a delay caused by
a complainant is not supported by a compelling reason.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question regarding Section 23,
explained that when a person asks for an advisory opinion, it
must be regarding an action the person requesting the opinion is
contemplating, not an action that someone else might be taking
or has taken. She mentioned that the language being added to
statute via Section 23 merely reflects common practice.
2:12:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 25 defines the
victims' advocate as the appointing authority for purposes of
determining how to sanction an employee of the Office of
Victims' Rights (OVR).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that "victims' advocate"
means a specific office holder.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 26 clarifies the
list of financial information that a legislator, legislative
director, or a public member of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics is required to disclose: income received for
personal services, or a loan or loan guarantee, are to be
reported to the APOC in the annual financial disclosure
[provided for] in Title 24. Section 26 also requires that when
personal income is reported, the approximate number of hours
worked must be reported along with any other information the
earner wishes to report. In response to a comment, he said the
actual language regarding that other information is, "and
additional information regarding how the income was earned may
be disclosed".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 27 requires a person
who is appointed as a legislator, legislative director, or
public member of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
after the required annual reporting deadline to file his/her
financial disclosure report with the APOC within 30 days of the
appointment. Section 28 requires mandatory electronic filing of
financial disclosures to the APOC by July 1, 2008, except in a
case where the APOC makes an exception. He noted that Section
42 stipulates that Section 28 has an effective date of July 1,
2008.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that Section 29 specifies that
when the APOC finds that a person at the OVR has failed or
refused to file a financial disclosure when required, the APOC
will report that fact to Legislative Council.
MS. MILES, in response to a question, said that the commission
is required to file an annual financial report, though the
employees of the APOC are not, and are all subject to Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act - AS 39.52.
2:19:08 PM
MR. JONES relayed that Section 30 requires former public
officials to file a final statement with the APOC within 90 days
after leaving office, and the statement must cover any period
during the official's service for which he/she did not already
file a statement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that the 90-day period
provided for in both Sections 18 and 30 starts the day after one
leaves office, not the day one leaves office.
MR. JONES concurred.
2:21:02 PM
MR. JONES relayed that Section 31 requires additional
information to be included in the financial disclosures that
executive branch, judicial branch, and municipal government
public officials are required to file with the APOC. Also, only
income that is earned on an hourly basis shall be reported.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM surmised, then, that someone working on a
contract basis would not have to report that income.
MR. JONES concurred, and, in response to a question, relayed
that the administration had originally proposed that all income
earned should be reported, but the House State Affairs Standing
Committee chose a different approach.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM mentioned that that would be a topic of
further discussion.
MR. JONES relayed that Section 32 proposes additional
requirements for blind trusts that public officials may
establish to avoid conflicts of interest - [this provision]
would be administered by the APOC. Section 33 requires
electronic filing for the financial disclosures that certain
executive branch, judicial branch, and municipal government
public officials must file; municipal officers, however, are
exempted from this requirement as are people who've requested an
exemption that the APOC grants. This provision takes effect
July 1, 2007. In response to a question, he relayed that the
policy choice made by the House State Affairs Standing Committee
- and with which the administration agrees - was that electronic
filing should only be required of those that are best able to
comply; for example, in many of the smaller communities in
Alaska, electronic filing is not a realistic option.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, referring to Section 32, mentioned that
Representative Seaton still has some concerns about this
provision and will be speaking to the committee [later in the
week].
2:24:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the current proposed
language of Section 32 was taken from New Jersey statute and was
inserted with the intention of having the House Judiciary
Standing Committee give it further consideration. He mentioned
that he is also pondering whether, if this language is inserted
into the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, it ought to also be
inserted into the legislative ethics Act and perhaps into Title
22, which covers the judicial branch.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM suggested to Mr. Jones that he research
that issue further.
MR. JONES agreed to do so. He then went on to explain that
Section 34 - which pertains to the Alaska Executive Branch
Ethics Act - addresses what constitutes a significant financial
interest in a business. He added, "A couple of lawyers several
years ago examined an issue involving a former attorney general
and pointed out that there was nothing in the [Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act] that clearly established what a significant
financial interest was for purposes of violations of that Act."
Section 34 will address that omission. Section 35 establishes
that any gift from a lobbyist to a [public officer] or his/her
[immediate] family member [is presumed to be intended to
influence the performance of official duties, actions, or
judgment and] is prohibited unless the person receiving the gift
is an immediate family member of the lobbyist giving the gift.
MR. JONES relayed that Section 36 would add legislation and
regulations to the two-year prohibition on a public officer
leaving state service [from representing, advising, or assisting
someone for compensation regarding a matter that was under
consideration by the administrative unit served by that public
officer].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that someone who worked
on regulations dealing with environmental protection couldn't,
for two years, go to work for an environmental firm.
MR. JONES said that is correct if "it is the same matter" and
the public officer was personally and substantially involved in
that matter.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether the phrase, "personally and
substantially involved" is defined.
MR. JONES said that phrase is only defined in regulation and is
subject to interpretation by the attorney general's office and
the personnel board, both of which are charged with enforcement
of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. In response to a
request, he explained that if he has a question regarding
whether something he is contemplating doing is a violation of
the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, he would take that
question to a designated ethics supervisor; each department has
a designated ethics supervisor and although statute establishes
the commissioner to be that person, as a practical matter, most
commissioners delegate that authority to a deputy commissioner
or special assistant. The ethics supervisor will then either
provide an answer if he/she knows it, or will consult the
attorney general's office. Mr. Jones relayed that if he then
violates the advice and direction given to him, he would be
subject to charges under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
The aforementioned advice is ordinarily given in writing,
particularly if requested.
2:30:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether lobbyists are prohibited
from going into government service after being lobbyists.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that issue was not discussed, and
suggested that such a restriction might lead to recruitment
problems.
MR. JONES relayed that under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics
Act, the administration would focus on whether the person still
has any personal or financial ties to [a lobbying firm], and
concurred that such a restriction might lead to recruitment
problems. The line drawn is that a person may not act on
matters in which he/she has significant personal or financial
interests while in state service. In response to a question, he
said that Section 36 merely eliminates an existing exception for
work on legislation and regulation, and offered his belief that
the exception was originally intended to address concerns by the
DOL that it might have difficulty recruiting lawyers with
expertise in oil and gas matters.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that under legislative rules a
legislator must only disclose a possible conflict and could
still be required to act.
MR. JONES explained that Section 37 adds "deputy heads" and
employees of the Office of the Governor who are required to file
APOC financial disclosure statements to the list of folks who
would be prohibited from lobbying for one year after leaving
state service. Section 38 would prohibit, for one year after
leaving service, a former head of a principal department or a
former employee of the Office of the Governor who is required to
file APOC financial disclosure statements from serving on the
governing board of a company, organization, or other entity that
was regulated by the former employee's department/office or with
which the former employee worked as part of his/her official
duties.
MR. JONES explained that Section 39 would expand the existing
list of members of boards and commissions that must file annual
financial disclosure statements with the APOC. He relayed that
the governor noticed several glaring omissions from that list.
Section 40 would require the governor, whenever considering
granting executive clemency, to submit a disclosure in writing
to the attorney general regarding any [personal or financial]
interest in the clemency action; the attorney general would then
be required to issue a public determination regarding whether it
was appropriate under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act for
the governor to take action on the clemency application.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN clarified that Section 40 would not prohibit
the governor from granting clemency.
MR. JONES concluded by noting that Sections 41-44 pertain to
applicability and effective date provisions.
[Members briefly discussed how the committee would be proceeding
with the bill and proposed amendments during the upcoming
meetings.]
[CSHB 109(STA) was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|