03/21/2007 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 21, 2007
1:11 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
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
03/19/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/21/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 109, expressed
concerns regarding the reporting requirements for business
transactions.
BROOKE MILES, Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 109, expressed
concerns.
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 109, answered
questions.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 109, answered
questions.
HEIDI DRYGAS, General Counsel
Public Employees Local 71
Alaska District Council of Laborers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 109, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:11:38 PM. Representatives Ramras,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Lynn, Samuels, and Gruenberg were present at
the call to order. Representative Holmes arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 109 - DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
1:12:00 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), as amended.]
CHAIR RAMRAS said that he would begin the meeting with comments
from the public.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the committee has Ms.
Drygas's written testimony to which a draft proposed amendment
is attached.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned that he has an amendment to
address Ms. Drygas's concerns that he would speak to at the
appropriate time.
1:16:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, pointed
out that Alaska's constitution requires a citizen-based
legislature, and thus he and Ms. Miles tried to ensure that
there were no roadblocks to that. Representative Neuman
expressed concern with reporting transactions with individual
clients ordering his custom-made furniture because he has to
report the client's name, address, what was built, and the cost
of the item. In fact, some clients have relayed to him that
they'd prefer not to do business with him because of the
reporting requirements. Furthermore, the reporting requirements
allow his competitors to know what he charges. He opined that
Alaskans have an implied right to privacy. He suggested that
the bill be altered to maintain the current requirements to
report "the name, address, description of service, and amount
paid for their services" of any business transaction but specify
that the aforementioned would only be required for transactions
"with any person or business with substantial political interest
within the state of Alaska." Such a change, he opined, will
ensure that there is a citizen-based legislature without
impairing a legislator's business.
1:19:10 PM
BROOKE MILES, Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
Department of Administration (DOA), opined that one of the most
important policy issues to come before the legislature with
disclosure laws is an individual's right to privacy compared to
the public's right to know everything about its legislators.
Ms. Miles stated her agreement with Representative Neuman
regarding not wanting to place obstacles before anyone
interested in being a part of the legislature. She said she
could understand that all sources of income that have any
relationship with state government activities should be
reported. However, she expressed concern with Representative
Neuman's suggested change to only report those sources [with a
substantial political interest within the state] because it
moves in the opposite direction of HB 109, which is to establish
more disclosure.
MS. MILES pointed out that the APOC does have an exemption
process for those filing financial disclosure reports under the
legislative ethics Law, which is specific with respect to
medical procedures and the legal profession but [not very
specific] with regard to other business enterprises. Therefore,
she suggested that it might be more appropriate for the APOC to
review the concerns of the business community in order to
possibly propose a change that would protect the privacy rights
of customers, and of the legislator with respect to a disclosure
that could result in losing trade secrets.
1:22:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that he is comfortable with the legislative
ethics Law and the APOC requirement regarding the disclosure of
loans. He suggested developing language that would address
Representative Neuman's concerns while protecting others who
want to disclose what's necessary so that they don't appear to
be engaging in unethical conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether an artist disclosing the
cost of a painting would hurt that artist's business when he/she
produces the next painting.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that he and Ms. Miles spoke of
various professions such as artists, architects, and mechanical
engineers. Representative Neuman opined that legislators know
those who have a substantial political interest with the state.
If there's any question as to whether an individual has a
political interest, legislators can call the APOC to find out.
Therefore, he said that it should be left to those who know -
the APOC. Representative Neuman then reiterated his belief that
legislators should report anything dealing with those who have a
substantial political interest.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM relayed her understanding that under
Representative Neuman's suggested conceptual amendment, whatever
[is reported] would go to the APOC, which would make the
decision regarding [publication of the disclosure].
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied yes, adding that certain statutory
language would be necessary to guide the APOC.
CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony for today's meeting. He
suggested that Ms. Miles work with his staff to develop
Representative Neuman's suggestion into an amendment to be
considered tomorrow.
1:31:46 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS then announced that the committee would turn its
attention to proposed amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to take Amendment 9 off the table.
There being no objection, Amendment 9 was taken off the table.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 9, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 21, line 21:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 21, line 31:
Delete "if the income was earned by the hour,"
Page 22, line 1, following "worked":
Insert "to earn the income"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 22, line 17:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 22, line 24:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 22, line 27:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL informed the committee that the
administration feels strongly about the reporting dollar
amounts. He said the question is at what point does it become
too difficult to comply with and become more burdensome than it
is valuable for the public to know a particular thing.
1:34:39 PM
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), said that any time additional disclosure is required or
the restrictions on activities of public officials is ratcheted
[up], there is a risk that folks will be discouraged from
accepting positions in public service. There is constantly a
balancing act between serving the public's interest in
disclosure and ensuring that public representatives are acting
ethically, and the ability to recruit and retain competent
individuals for state service. He relayed that the DOL believes
that a $1,000 threshold is appropriate for several reasons.
First, by initiative, Alaska voters in August 2006 indicated
that $1,000 was the appropriate disclosure amount regarding a
legislator's income. Therefore, if it's the appropriate level
for legislators, then it should also be the appropriate level
for other public officials. In addition, to most folks, $1,000
is a good amount of money.
MR. JONES said that the other aspect of Amendment 9 is that it
would require disclosure, in all circumstances, of the number of
hours worked to earn income over $1,000. As currently written,
the legislation would require disclosure of the number of hours
worked only if the money was earned on an hourly basis.
However, this wouldn't reach "the sweet deal." For example, an
individual working for the executive branch has a contract with
someone for $50,000 - yet that individual isn't being paid on an
hourly basis - and that individual only works one hour. If the
public doesn't know that, it doesn't understand that it's a
"sweet deal" and that it's with someone expecting something
special from that individual. By requiring disclosure of hours
in all circumstances, it will help assure the public that these
"sweet deals" aren't occurring, he opined.
1:37:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that Amendment 9 also
pertains to transactions as well as earned income, and asked Mr.
Jones to review Section 31, subsection (b)(2), (4), and (5).
MR. JONES clarified that the $1,000 threshold would apply to
income earned, trust or fiduciary relations, and loans or loan
guarantees.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to what would be required for
credit card expenditures and other lines of credit.
MR. JONES offered his understanding that it wouldn't apply to a
credit card, but would to a credit line unless the credit line
was through a credit card.
MS. MILES clarified that a line of credit, even if it was
attached to a credit card, would be reportable. Also, these
proposed changes to AS 39.50 do conform with the requirements
under AS 24.60 because its disclosure requirements begin with
legislators, legislative employees, and the public members of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics who will report all
the things required by AS 39.50.030.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he understands that the
cost of a bicycle and the value of a dividend might be worthy of
reporting. He said he also understands that the aforementioned
was in the initiative on income and that AS 24.60.200 talks
about both the loan guarantee and the income. He said,
"Obviously, I'm not going to borrow money for a bicycle, but ...
the value of a bicycle is what we're talking about."
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that it's difficult to run for public office
and fill out the ethics reports and the APOC reports. He
further opined that he likes low common denominators, although
they are unpleasant, because they offer clarity later. To that
end, Chair Ramras said that he supports Amendment 9.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM posed a situation in which she does
"day-trading" and asked whether she would need to disclose every
month and quarter or each transaction. She then turned to the
reporting of credit lines attached to credit cards and asked if
she would have to report each transaction in order to be in
compliance.
CHAIR RAMRAS said that he must list his bank, but he doesn't
have to list it each time he goes into the credit line, but
rather as an ongoing relationship throughout the year. If he
obtained a second credit line through another bank, he would
have to also list it as a credit relationship. Therefore, if a
legislator has a credit card from which a line of credit is
tapped, it would have to be listed no matter how many times it
was tapped.
MS. MILES concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether the language "sources of
income" should be clarified.
1:45:22 PM
MR. JONES pointed out that in Section 31, subsection (b)(1), the
language, "for [THE SOURCE OF] all sources of income over $5,000
during the preceding calendar year," allows the reporting [of
the ongoing relationship] for the entire year.
CHAIR RAMRAS, on the issue of "trading," offered his
understanding that gains in the amount of more than $1,000 have
to be reported regardless of the timeframe in which those gains
accrued.
MS. MILES concurred.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in further response to Representative Dahlstrom,
specified that the report would be annual and that what is
reported would be no greater than what would have to be reported
to the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised, then, that she could have a
365-page report just on day-trading if she were required [to
report gains] every day.
MS. MILES responded that it's possible.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS posed a situation in which he has
individual stocks on which he made a $1,000 a day, every day,
for the first six months of the year, and then he loses $1,000 a
day, every day, for the last six months of the year. Therefore,
he didn't make any money on an annual basis. In such a
situation, he asked if he would have to issue reports for every
day due to the transactions.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that the legislation refers to
reporting capital gains but doesn't speak to capital losses.
Therefore, every individual capital gain over $1,000 has to be
reported. He noted that the dollar volume doesn't have to be
shown nor does the amount of shares of each stock; one must just
report the stock that was bought and sold. He said that the
APOC isn't concerned with regard to the volume of the gain, so
one can merely declare that the gain is greater than the
specified threshold.
1:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated that he maintains his
objection. He then reminded the committee that those
individuals being discussed hold high level executive positions.
To have to report every single stock transaction with a gain
without reporting the offsetting loses could provide a skewed
perspective of the person's income. The aforementioned could
discourage good people, people of some means, from entering
government service. He said he seriously doubts whether most of
the voting public gave great thought to whether it was $1,000 or
$5,000. Representative Gruenberg opined that whether the voting
public would've said it wanted the same threshold to apply to
the executive branch is purely conjecture. He said that $5,000
today is a fairly low amount for people in "this" category.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Samuels,
Lynn, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 9. Representatives
Coghill and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 9
was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
1:52:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 11,
labeled 25-GH1059\O.36, Bullard/Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 8, line 25, following "legislator":
Insert ";
(6) communicate directly with a spouse or
domestic partner of a legislator if the spouse or
domestic partner is registered as a lobbyist under
AS 24.45.041 and the communication concerns
legislative action; in this paragraph, "legislative
action" has the meaning given in AS 24.45.171"
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 11 pertains to
the prohibition regarding spousal lobbying, and is somewhat
similar to legislation making its way through Congress and an
amendment that would alter the rules of the U.S. Senate.
Amendment 11 would prohibit a legislator or legislative employee
from communicating directly with a spouse or domestic partner of
a legislator, if that spouse or domestic partner is registered
as a lobbyist under AS 24.45.041 and the communication concerns
legislative action as defined in AS 24.45.171. Representative
Gruenberg opined that this amendment is clearly constitutional
as it regulates the members as well as their employees. He read
the following definition in AS 24.45.171:
(9) "legislative action" means the preparation,
research, drafting, introduction, consideration,
modification, amendment, approval, passage, enactment,
defeat, or rejection of any bill, resolution,
amendment, motion, report, nomination, appointment, or
other matter by the legislature, or by a standing,
interim, or special committee of the legislature, or
by a member or employee of the legislature acting in
an official capacity; it includes, but is not limited
to, the action of the governor in approving or vetoing
a bill or the action of the legislature in
considering, overriding, or sustaining that veto and
the action of the legislature in considering,
confirming, or rejecting an executive appointment of
the governor;
1:56:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his understanding that Amendment
11 would specify that legislators couldn't talk to the spouse of
a legislator if that spouse is a registered lobbyist.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that that would be the case
but only if the discussion concerns matters within the
definition of lobbying. Therefore, a legislator can speak with
the spouse of a legislator who is a lobbyist about things other
than legislative activities.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised then: "You still can't lobby
then. You can register as a lobbyist, you just can't talk to
anybody."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that [the spouse who is a
lobbyist] can't lobby the legislature but can lobby the
executive branch. Representative Gruenberg highlighted that
Amendment 11 is different from the aforementioned federal
legislation in that it prohibits lobbying against both houses
rather than just to the body to which the member belongs. He
noted that he didn't necessarily feel strongly about whether
that distinction was important.
CHAIR RAMRAS maintained his objection.
1:59:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his understanding, then, that if his
wife was a lobbyist, he couldn't talk with her regarding
legislation that he was considering.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that Representative Lynn couldn't talk
with his wife, were she a lobbyist, about any issue in the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that that would be difficult to
enforce.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS announced that he is going to vote
against Amendment 11. The perception [of unethical activity
occurring] would be present when the spouse of a legislator is a
lobbyist.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that he didn't want spouses as
lobbyist due to the aforementioned perception, but opined that
he didn't believe "we've gotten there yet."
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of Amendment 11. Representatives Coghill, Samuels, Lynn,
Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 11
failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.
2:00:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 12, labeled 25-
GH0159\O.31, Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 9, following line 10:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 24.60.040(a) is amended to read:
(a) A legislator or legislative employee, or a
member of the immediate family of a legislator or
legislative employee, may not be a party to or have an
interest in a state contract or lease unless the
contract or lease is let under AS 36.30 (State
Procurement Code) or, for agencies that are not
subject to AS 36.30, under similar procedures, or the
total annual amount of the state contract or lease is
$5,000 or less, or is a standardized contract or lease
that was developed under publicly established
guidelines and is generally available to the public at
large, members of a profession, occupation, or group.
A person has an interest in a state contract or lease
under this section if the person receives direct or
indirect financial benefits. A legislator or
legislative employee who participates in, or who knows
or reasonably should know that a family member is
participating in, a state contract or lease that has
an annual value of $5,000 or more shall disclose the
participation to the committee by the date required
under AS 24.60.105. The committee shall promptly
forward the disclosure to the appropriate house for
inclusion in the journal, and the presiding officer
shall cause the disclosure to be published in the
journal or in the supplemental journal not later than
the next regularly scheduled publication of ethics
disclosures. The legislator or legislative employee
shall also disclose the renegotiation of a state
contract or lease if the original had to be disclosed
under this section or if, as a result of
renegotiation, disclosure is required under this
section. The disclosure must state the amount of the
contract or lease and the name of the state agency
issuing the contract or lease and must identify the
procedures under which the contract or lease was
issued. If the disclosure concerns a contract or lease
in which a family member of the discloser is
participating, the disclosure must identify the
relationship between the participant and the
discloser."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 9:
Delete "Section 28"
Insert "Section 29"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 34"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
MR. JONES relayed his understanding that Amendment 12 is aimed
at requiring prompt publication of disclosures of legislators'
and legislative employees' interests in state contracts and
leases.
2:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for discussion purposes.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, explained that
Amendment 12 is cleanup language for the legislative ethics
code, which currently doesn't specify that the disclosure shall
be published in the journal. Disclosures have been published up
to this point based on the precedence by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics that all are disclosed. Therefore, Amendment
12 would merely specify that in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked about the status of electronic
filing.
MS. ANDERSON said that she will be researching the possibility
of electronic filing this interim. She recalled that her
discussion with Representative Coghill earlier in the session
was in regard to reviewing other states that utilize electronic
reporting with the notion of possibly purchasing such a program
and adapting it to the legislature's needs. Once reports can be
filed on line, the House Chief Clerk and the Senate Secretary
would be able to take that information directly rather than re-
entering the information.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 12. There being none, Amendment 12 was adopted.
2:04:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned attention to Amendment 11, and
opined that something was left out. He recalled that yesterday
the committee adopted Amendment 2, which addressed lobbying by
spouses. When Amendment 2 was adopted there was the
understanding that there were significant potential
constitutional problems. Therefore, he expressed the need to
revisit Amendments 2 and 11. He mentioned that the committee
packet includes two legal opinions related to those amendments
from Alpheus Bullard, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
dated February 26, 2007, and February 28, 2007. He encouraged
the committee to review those legal opinions.
2:06:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 13,
labeled 25-GH0159\O.27, Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 9, line 27, following "determines":
Insert "by vote of a majority of committee
members who are present"
Page 17, line 31, following "determines":
Insert "by vote of a majority of committee members who
are present that"
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
MS. ANDERSON informed the committee that Amendment 13 is
actually cleanup language related to exempting the publication
of a disclosure because it may be an invasion of the person's
privacy. She pointed out that Amendment 13 establishes a
majority-vote requirement for the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, and explained that a quorum will consist of
three public members and two legislative members. Amendment 13
also utilizes the majority-vote language in the provision
addressing the complaint process in an attempt to make that
process consistent regarding how the committee makes those
determinations.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he is usually more comfortable
with having a majority of the committee members establish
policy.
2:09:21 PM
MS. ANDERSON noted that Amendment 13 was drafted by Legislative
Legal and Research Services. She then inquired as to whether
the committee wanted it to reflect a majority of the committee
members present or a majority of the committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt an amendment to
Amendment 13 such that the language "who are present" being
inserted on page 9, line 27, and "who are present that" being
inserted on page 17, line 31, would be deleted. Therefore,
Amendment 13, as amended, would read as follows:
Page 9, line 27, following "determines":
Insert "by vote of a majority of committee
members "
Page 17, line 31, following "determines":
Insert "by vote of a majority of committee members"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, drawing upon his time as a member of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, recalled that it's
seldom that all members are there. He asked how often the
amendment to Amendment 13 would prohibit the committee from
acting.
MS. ANDERSON highlighted that within the bill there is language
that would allow an alternate member to sit in when a regular
member is unable to attend. Therefore, she opined that the
[amendment to Amendment 13] would be "okay."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection to the amendment
to Amendment 13.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 13, as amended, was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS [withdrew] his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 13, as amended. There being none, Amendment 13, as
amended, was adopted.
2:11:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 14,
labeled 25-GH0159\O.30, Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 10, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 24.60.070(a) is amended to read:
(a) A legislator or legislative employee shall
disclose to the committee, which shall maintain a
public record of the disclosure and forward the
disclosure to the respective house for inclusion in
the journal, the formation or maintenance of a close
economic association involving a substantial financial
matter with
(1) a supervisor who is not a member of the
legislature who has responsibility or authority,
either directly or indirectly, over the person's
employment, including preparing or reviewing
performance evaluations, or granting or approving pay
raises or promotions; this paragraph does not apply to
a public member of the committee;
(2) legislators;
(3) a public official as that term is
defined in [WHO IS REQUIRED TO FILE A FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT UNDER] AS 39.50 [AND IS NOT AN
APPOINTED MUNICIPAL OFFICER];
(4) a registered lobbyist; or
(5) a legislative employee if the person
required to make the disclosure is a legislator."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 37"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 28, line 9:
Delete "Section 28"
Insert "Section 29"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 34"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
MS. ANDERSON relayed that this proposed change was recommended
after a discussion with the APOC regarding individuals required
to file financial disclosures. She offered her understanding
that certain cities have elected and appointed public officials
that are allowed to exempt themselves from filing financial
disclosures by going to the voters and asking [to be exempted].
One such city is the City of Cordova. Therefore, Amendment 14
would remove the requirement that a public official as defined
in AS 39.50 file a financial disclosure form.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 14 was adopted.
2:12:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 15,
labeled 25-GH0159\O.17, Wayne, 3/20/07, which read:
Page 11, line 18:
Following "from a legislator":
Insert "or a legislative employee"
Following "to a legislator":
Insert "or a legislative employee"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
MS. ANDERSON explained that Amendment 15 addresses the gift of
transportation from a legislator or legislative employee to a
legislator or legislative employee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He asked if the language
means that he would have to disclose every time that he gives
his staff a ride.
MS. ANDERSON said that it's not meant for such situations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification.
MS. ANDERSON noted that Amendment 15 is proposing a change to
the gift section of Title 24. She relayed that over time she
has had requests regarding a legislator wanting to take a
legislative employee on a trip, which has been interpreted as a
gift. Therefore, under Amendment 15, this becomes an exemption
under the gift statute and thus it's not required to be
reported.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 15 was adopted.
2:16:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 16,
labeled 25-GH0159\O.18, Wayne, 3/20/07, which read:
Page 12, line 19:
Following "shall":
Insert ", within 30 days after receiving the
gift,"
Following "committee":
Delete "annually on or before March 15"
Insert "[ANNUALLY ON OR BEFORE MARCH 15]"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
After offering his understanding that Amendment 16 merely
provides conforming language, he removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 16 was adopted.
2:18:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 17,
labeled 25-GH1059\O.19, Wayne, 3/20/07, which read:
Page 13, line 30, following "filing":
Insert "the"
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no objections,
announced that Amendment 17 was adopted.
2:18:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 18,
labeled 25-GH1059\O.21, Wayne, 3/21/07, which read:
Page 16, line 17:
Delete "in January of each year"
Insert "within 10 days of the first day of each
regular session of the legislature"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the legislature might
not be in session in January.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that it may be within 10 days
of the first regular session.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then removed his objection.
MS. ANDERSON said that the language in Amendment 18 isn't
problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that there is flexibility in
the language because it refers to the times determined by the
committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 18 was adopted.
2:21:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 19,
labeled 25-GH1059\O.29, Wayne, 3/20/07, which read:
Page 16, line 23, following "complete":
Delete "the"
Insert "a"
Page 16, line 24:
Delete "AS 24.60.150(a)"
Insert "AS 24.60.150(a)(4)"
Page 16, line 28, following "service":
Insert "and, thereafter, as otherwise required by this
section"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that this [proposed change]
is fine.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 19 was adopted.
2:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 20,
labeled 25-GH1059\O.15, Wayne, 3/19/07, which read:
Page 16, line 23, following "complete":
Delete "the legislative ethics course
administered by the committee under AS 24.60.150(a)
within 10 days of the first day of the first regular
session of each legislature"
Insert ", within 10 days of the first day of the
first regular session of each legislature, a
legislative ethics course administered by the
committee under AS 24.60.150(a)"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
MS. ANDERSON interjected that Amendment 20 would alter what was
just changed via Amendment 19.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 20 has been withdrawn.
2:23:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 21,
labeled 25-GH1059\O.34, Luckhaupt/Wayne, 3/20/07, which read:
Page 25, line 27, following "$5,000":
Insert "and less than one percent of the total
value of the business"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that if the value of the
stock is less than $5,000, if it's more than one percent of the
total value of the stock, it's not insignificant. The reason
for this is because often, particularly in closely held
corporations, it's difficult to determine exactly what the value
of the stock is. He said that it's often much easier to
determine the percentage ownership, which is why an individual
could have an interest that's significant without knowing the
exact value. Therefore, rather than going through a potentially
lengthy hearing to determine the value of the stock if it ever
becomes litigated, there would only have to be a determination
that the individual owns more than 1 percent and thus it must be
disclosed and the officer disqualify himself/herself if
necessary.
2:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
MR. JONES explained that the difficulty with Amendment 21 is
that it would require the attorney general, the designated
ethics supervisors, and the personnel board to determine in
every case whether an interest was both less than $5,000 and
less than 1 percent of the total stock in the business or the
total value of the business. Mr. Jones opined that it will be
more difficult to calculate 1 percent of the value of the
business. If the interest is worth less than $5,000, he
questioned whether anyone cares what percentage it is of the
business since what really matters is how much money is at
stake. If it's less than $5,000, the determination has been
made that it's insignificant or presumptively insignificant.
Therefore, [finding out the percentage of the whole] is not
really germane to the ultimate decision regarding whether owning
such stock or interest is an ethical thing to do, he opined.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern with the fact that Amendment 21
revolves around book value, which is a more complicated figure
to address than an investment. For instance, if one invests
$5,000 into a fully depreciated business that has a very low
book value, it's difficult to determine the percentage of
ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that the book value may have
very little relation to the actual value of the stock,
particularly if there's a potential conflict of interest. If an
employee of the executive branch is allowed to participate, it
may dramatically increase the value of the stock. Therefore,
the question becomes whether to review the value of the stock
before or after the action. It could be a situation in which
the stock has very little value, but will increase once the
permit is granted. The executive branch employee who wants to
exempt himself/herself from this prohibition would merely
indicate the number of outstanding shares and the number of
shares he/she owned.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that in order to exempt
oneself, an individual would have to meet both criteria.
Therefore, if an individual owns less than 1 percent but it was
valued at more than $5,000, then it isn't presumed
insignificant.
CHAIR RAMRAS said that he will maintain his objection.
2:30:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it seems that if an individual is
going to have an income from any stock ownership that's over
$1,000, it will have to be reported anyway.
MR. JONES said that's correct, if the individual is required to
report. However, the provision that Amendment 21 is proposing
to change pertains to the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act,
which applies to everyone, but not everyone in the executive
branch has to file financial disclosures. Additionally, the
language in the legislation refers to a presumption and those
cases in which the current interest is worth less than $5,000
but a particular action taken will dramatically increase the
value of that interest. He then noted that because the language
is framed in the negative and there is an "and", both criteria
would have to be met in order for it to be considered
insignificant under the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the question is, where should
the presumption lie. If the goal is public disclosure and
freedom from an appearance of impropriety by an individual's
actions that might increase the value of the shares, then the
presumption should be that it is significant.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
is complicated enough and shouldn't be complicated further by
double negatives in statute.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg
voted in favor of Amendment 21. Representatives Samuels,
Holmes, Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 21 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5.
2:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 22,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 25, line 27:
Delete "its value"
Insert "the value of the stock or other ownership
interest"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that Amendment 22 is merely a
technical amendment with conforming language.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that Amendment 22 was adopted.
2:35:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 23,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "who is required to file a statement under AS
39.50.020"
Insert "in a policy-making position"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "who is required to file a statement under AS
39.50.020"
Insert "in a policy-making position"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "who is required to file a statement under AS
39.50.020"
Insert "in a policy-making position"
Page 27, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 39. AS 39.52.180 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) In this section, 'employee of the Office of the
Governor in a policy-making position' means an
employee required, by virtue of his or her position in
the Office of the Governor, to file a statement under
AS 39.50.020."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 23 addresses who
would be required to file a statement.
MR. JONES relayed that Amendment 23 is merely cleanup language
to clarify who is subject to the lobbying restrictions under
Section 37 and the restrictions under Section 38 regarding
serving on certain boards. The House State Affairs Standing
Committee attempted to identify those policy-making positions in
the Office of the Governor that would be subject to both
restrictions. There was concern with the choice made in the
House State Affairs Standing Committee that perhaps some members
of the governor's office would have to file statements with the
APOC because they run for a school board or some other such
organization. Therefore, in order to provide clarity and avoid
ambiguity, Amendment 23 was proposed.
2:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the language should
include the phrase, "statement of financial and business
interest" rather than merely referring to the statute where that
phrase is located.
MS. MILES specified that statements under AS 39.50.020 are filed
with the APOC, and said that it's all part of the annual public
official financial disclosure report.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS turned the discussion to Section 36
regarding the two-year prohibition and Section 37 regarding the
one-year prohibition for various people in the executive branch.
He mentioned that [this discrepancy] could be addressed via
Amendment 23, although he acknowledged that the issue might need
to be discussed further at some point.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that the committee address it tomorrow.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that the objection had been
removed and that there were no further objections, announced
that Amendment 23 was adopted.
2:39:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 24, labeled
25-GH1059\O.24, Wayne, 3/20/07, which read:
Page 27, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 41. AS 39.52.910 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) Nothing in this chapter
(1) supersedes AS 39.90.020; or
(2) precludes a person from being in an
employment relationship with a member of the person's
immediate family if the person
(A) does not supervise the immediate family
member; or
(B) supervises the immediate family member
but exercise of the supervision is only routine; under
this subparagraph, supervision is routine only if, as
to a decision that requires the person's exercise of
independent judgment, the person may not act or
recommend the family member's
(i) appointment to employment, including
hiring, transferring, laying off, and rehiring;
(ii) discipline, including suspension,
discharge, demotion, and issuance of written warnings;
or
(iii) grievance adjudication, including
responding to a first level grievance under a
collective bargaining agreement."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 43 and 44"
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that everyone is opposed to nepotism
in its various forms. However, given that Alaska is such a
small state [with regard to population], there needs to be a
certain element of common sense.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the last page of Ms.
Drygas's memorandum has an amendment, which was placed in the
legislature's form by Legislative Legal and Research Services as
Amendment 24.
2:44:05 PM
HEIDI DRYGAS, General Counsel, Public Employees Local 71, Alaska
District Council of Laborers, echoed Representative Lynn's
comment that Amendment 24 is a common sense amendment, adding
that it attempts to clarify the scope of the Ethics Act and to
realign it with the long-standing state policy that family
members may not work together if they are in a supervisory
relationship. A current policy adopted by the administration is
creating many problems with nonsupervisory family members
working together, especially in smaller rural and Native
communities.
MS. DRYGAS, in response to a question, said that a situation in
which a family member is in a supervisory role over another
family member should be scrutinized; Amendment 24 is meant to
clarify that if it's a nonsupervisory situation, then it
shouldn't be problematic under the Alaska Executive Branch
Ethics Act.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his understanding that since
Amendment 24 doesn't supersede AS 39.90.020, it doesn't affect
any of the upper-level positions. Therefore, the commissioner
of a department can't hire his/her child.
MR. JONES concurred. In further response to Representative
Samuels, Mr. Jones pointed out that the current Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act prohibits the granting of unwarranted benefits
to someone else based on inappropriate considerations, one of
which would be to make the boss happy. Mr. Jones expressed
concern that Amendment 24 would allow someone to recommend a
promotion, assign overtime, and evaluate an immediate family
member. The aforementioned items aren't included in the
definition of supervision, which comes from the regulations and
statutes that apply to determining who belongs in which
bargaining unit. These are the criteria the Alaska Labor
Relations Agency uses when it decides whether an individual is
placed in a supervisory unit or a "rank and file" unit.
MR. JONES noted that the DOL issued an ethics opinion in 2005
which stated that it was inappropriate for someone to have the
ability to assign overtime to and/or evaluate an immediate
family member. In response to that opinion, the DOA adopted a
policy that's consistent with the direction the DOL provided in
the aforementioned ethics opinion. Amendment 24 would undermine
both of those and move in the opposite direction of the
provisions in HB 109 by loosening the restrictions, he opined.
2:49:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if Amendment 24 pertains to those
in a commissioner or deputy commissioner position and spouses in
the legislative branch.
MR. JONES said that it doesn't apply to the legislative branch,
but applies solely to the executive branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM withdrew her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS commented that the entire debate on the
legislation has been regarding legislators, legislative staff,
and upper management people. However, Amendment 24 pertains to
mid-level and lower-level management staff as well as bargaining
unit politics. He said that he would maintain an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted his disagreement, and pointed out
that AS 39.50 only applies to upper level executives while AS
39.52, which is addressed via a large portion of HB 109,
pertains to all employees in the executive branch. He pointed
out that Sections 34-40 apply to all levels in the executive
branch.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that she doesn't feel
sufficiently versed in what Amendment 24 does at this time, and
expressed the need for further research.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM requested that Amendment 24 be held.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 24 would be tabled.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that HB 109 is problematic because it
casts too wide of a net.
2:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 25,
labeled GH1059\O.6, Wayne, 3/16/07, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "denying public employee retirement
pension benefits to certain legislators, legislative
directors, and public officers who commit certain
offenses, and adding to the duties of the Alaska
Retirement Management Board and to the list of matters
governed by the Administrative Procedure Act
concerning that denial;"
Page 1, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.25 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.25.212. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 14.25.009 - 14.25.220.
* Sec. 2. AS 14.25 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.25.532. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 14.25.310 - 14.25.590."
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 22.25 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 22.25.800. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under this chapter."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, following line 21:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 33. AS 37.10.220(a) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read:
(16) administer pension forfeitures
required under AS 37.10.310 using the procedures of
AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act).
* Sec. 34. AS 37.10 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 37.10.310. Pension forfeiture to preserve
public trust in government. (a) A public officer, as
defined in AS 39.52.960, a legislator, or a person
employed as a legislative director, as that term is
defined in AS 24.60.990, who is convicted of a federal
or state felony offense of bribery, receiving a bribe,
perjury, subornation of perjury, scheme to defraud, or
fraud may not receive a state pension benefit if the
offense was committed on or after the effective date
of this section and was in connection with the
person's official duties.
(b) Pension benefits and employee contributions
that accrue to a person before the date of the
person's commission of the offense described in (a) of
this section are not diminished or impaired by that
subsection.
(c) A state pension benefit under (a) of this
section does not include
(1) insurance, voluntary wage reductions,
involuntary wage reductions, or supplemental or health
benefits under AS 39.30.090 - 39.30.495 or former
AS 39.37.145;
(2) member or employee contributions under
AS 14.25.050, 14.25.055, 14.25.075, 14.25.340,
14.25.360(a), AS 22.25.011, AS 39.35.160,
39.35.165(f), 39.35.180, 39.35.730, 39.35.760(a), or
former AS 39.37.070.
(d) In a pension forfeiture matter under this
section the board may award to a spouse, dependent, or
former spouse of the person governed by the
limitations in (a) of this section some or all of the
amount that, but for the forfeiture under (a) of this
section, may otherwise be payable. In determining
whether to make an award under this subsection, the
board shall consider the totality of circumstances,
including
(1) the role, if any, of the person's
spouse, dependent, or former spouse in connection with
the illegal conduct for which the person was
criminally charged;
(2) the degree, if any, to which the
person's spouse, dependent, or former spouse profited
financially from the person's illegal conduct; and
(3) any restitution ordered by the court in
the criminal case and the amount of restitution, if
any, still owing.
* Sec. 35. AS 39.35 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 39.35.672. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 39.35.095 - 39.35.680.
* Sec. 36. AS 39.35 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 39.35.932. Pension forfeiture. The
provisions of AS 37.10.310 apply to pension benefits
under AS 39.35.700 - 39.35.990."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, following line 26:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 48. AS 44.62.330(a) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read:
(47) the Alaska Retirement Management Board
for administration of pension forfeitures under
AS 37.10.310.
* Sec. 49. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY TO ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICERS'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM. The provisions of AS 37.10.310,
added by sec. 34 of this Act, apply to benefits under
former AS 39.37 (elected public officers' retirement
system)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 29:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 27, line 30:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 28, line 3:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 28, line 4:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 28, line 8:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 28, line 9:
Delete "Section 28"
Insert "Section 31"
Page 28, line 10:
Delete "Section 33"
Insert "Section 40"
Page 28, line 11:
Delete "secs. 42 and 43"
Insert "secs. 51 and 52"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he supports the concept, but
would prefer to have a legal opinion regarding the amendment's
constitutionality in view of Article XII, Section 7, of the
Alaska State Constitution, which read:
Membership in employee retirement systems of the State
or its political subdivisions shall constitute a
contractual relationship. Accrued benefits of these
systems shall not be diminished or impaired.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to comments, directed attention to the
language of Amendment 25 that would add a new AS 37.10.310(b)
and which read:
(b) Pension benefits and employee contributions that
accrue to a person before the date of the person's
commission of the offense described in (a) of this
section are not diminished or impaired by that
subsection.
2:57:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS sought assurance that the language in
Amendment 25 that says, "was in connection with the person's
official duties" means that the offense would be something such
as the acceptance of a bribe. Even if the DOL relays that there
is a constitutional problem with Amendment 25, Representative
Samuels expressed a preference for [adopting Amendment 25] and
letting the courts address the issue of constitutionality.
MR. JONES offered his understanding that the offense has to be
in connection with official duty, and that the purpose behind
Amendment 25 is to avoid giving a state benefit to someone who
has misused an official office.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if Amendment 25 would apply in
cases in which a state employee uses his/her state computer
during his/her off time [to access] pornography and yet that
employee may be doing his/her job extremely well.
MR. JONES answered that if any state equipment were involved, he
would want a judge to convict that individual and seek
forfeiture; if any aspect of the state office were used, there
would be a good argument that it's an offense committed in
connection with the individual's official duties. In further
response to Representative Dahlstrom, Mr. Jones said that if
there's no connection to performance of official duties or use
of state equipment, Amendment 25 wouldn't seem to apply.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if another piece of legislation
would be necessary in order to send the pension of the
individual who is in the penitentiary to the victim.
MR. JONES replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the aforementioned new AS
37.10.310(b) provided for via Amendment 25 saves the bill from
being unconstitutional under Article I, Section 7.
MR. JONES said that he isn't in a position to offer a
constitutional opinion. He suggested that one concern is
changing the rules after one has already entered the system.
Therefore, it may be that in order to be constitutional, these
changes may have to be applicable only to those who enter the
retirement system after the effective date of [the bill].
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 25 would be tabled.
[CSHB 109(STA), as amended, was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|