04/03/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB108 | |
| HB193 | |
| HJR13 | |
| HJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2009
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to real property foreclosures, to the sale of
property on execution, and to deeds of trust."
- MOVED CSHB 108(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to representation by a legislator or
legislative employee of another person in an administrative
hearing; relating to charity events under the Legislative Ethics
Act; requiring compensation of public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain information
from disclosure requirements of the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to the selection of alternate members and the
participation of members and alternate members in formal
proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and
its subcommittees; and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent
service,' 'legislative purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and
'private benefit' for the purposes of the Legislative Ethics
Act."
- MOVED CSHB 193(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to correct obsolete references to the office of secretary of
state by substituting references to the office of lieutenant
governor.
- MOVED HJR 13 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to avoid the use of personal pronouns and similar references
that denote masculine or feminine gender in that document.
- MOVED HJR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 108
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RAMRAS
02/02/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/09 (H) L&C, JUD
02/23/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/09 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/13/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/13/09 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/16/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/16/09 (H) Moved CSHB 108(L&C) Out of Committee
03/16/09 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/18/09 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 1DP 5NR
03/18/09 (H) DP: CHENAULT
03/18/09 (H) NR: BUCH, COGHILL, NEUMAN, HOLMES,
OLSON
03/25/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/25/09 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/30/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/30/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
03/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/24/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/24/09 (H) Heard & Held; Assigned to Subcommittee
03/24/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/26/09 (H) Moved CSHB 193(STA) Out of Committee
03/26/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/09 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 1AM
03/27/09 (H) DP: JOHNSON, SEATON, WILSON, LYNN
03/27/09 (H) AM: GRUENBERG
03/28/09 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/28/09 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/30/09 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/03/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 13
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: SEC. OF STATE REFERENCES
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
02/02/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/09 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/19/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/19/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/09 (H) STA RPT 6DP 1NR
02/20/09 (H) DP: GATTO, SEATON, GRUENBERG, WILSON,
PETERSEN, LYNN
02/20/09 (H) NR: JOHNSON
04/03/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
SPONSOR(S): GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/19/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/19/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/19/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/19/09 (H) STA RPT 6DP 1NR
03/19/09 (H) DP: SEATON, GATTO, GRUENBERG, WILSON,
PETERSEN, LYNN
03/19/09 (H) NR: JOHNSON
04/03/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 1 to HB 108, Version P,
on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Ramras.
ROBERT H. SCHMIDT, Attorney at Law
Groh Eggers, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of proposed Amendment 1
to HB 108, Version P, provided comments, responded to questions,
and suggested changes.
STEPHEN ROUTH, Attorney at Law
Routh Crabtree, apc
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
proposed Amendment 1 to HB 108, Version P.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 193 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Coghill.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 193, provided
comments and responded to questions.
DENEEN TUCK, Staff
Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 13 on behalf of the sponsor,
the House State Affairs Standing Committee, of which
Representative Gruenberg is a member.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:10:48 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Holmes,
Coghill, Gatto, Lynn, and Gruenberg were present at the call to
order. Representative Dahlstrom arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 108 - PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS
1:11:12 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 108, "An Act relating to real property
foreclosures, to the sale of property on execution, and to deeds
of trust." [Before the committee was CSHB 108(L&C), and adopted
as the work draft on 3/30/09 was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 108, Version 26-LS0318\P, Bannister,
3/26/09.]
1:11:28 PM
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Ramras,
turned the committee's attention to Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS0318\P.2, Bannister, 4/2/09, which read:
Page 2, lines 27 - 29:
Delete "The notice must be published for at least
30 days, including at least 10 of the last 15 days
before the actual date of the sale. Giving notice
under this subsection is not required unless there is
an Internet website that qualifies under (c) of this
section."
Insert "Publication of the notice must begin not
later than the first day that the notice is published
under (a)(2) of this section and must continue at
least through the day in the fourth week that the
notice is published under (a)(2) of this section."
Page 4, line 21, following "AS 34.20.080(e)":
Insert ", unless the trust deed was entered into
before the effective date of this Act and provides for
a different time to cure the default before the sale"
Page 5, lines 15 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) payment of the sum then in default,
other than the principal that would not then be due if
default had not occurred, and foreclosure fees and
costs actually incurred by the beneficiary and trustee
due to the default is made
(A) at any time up to two days before the
sale date stated in the notice of default, or two days
before a date to which the sale is postponed; or
(B) if the trust deed was entered into
before the effective date of this Act and provides for
a different time than the time described in (A) of
this paragraph to cure the default before the sale,
within the time provided in the trust deed; and"
MS. PIERSON explained that Amendment 1 does three things: the
portion proposing to alter page 2, lines 27-29, conforms the
language regarding Internet publication with that of newspaper
publication; the portion proposing to alter page 4, line 21,
cures a potential problem that could arise if a deed of trust
sets out a time period different from statute in which to cure a
default; and the portion proposing to alter page 5, lines 15-21,
describes what information regarding how to cure a default must
be provided in the notice of default.
1:12:55 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:13:20 PM
ROBERT H. SCHMIDT, Attorney at Law, Groh Eggers, LLC, indicated
that he would be amenable to Amendment 1 as long as the
committee clarifies that the Internet publication and the
written publication are intended to be "coextensive" and that
the Internet publication is not required to be every day. This
clarification is necessary, he opined, because the written
publication is only required to be once a week for four weeks,
and so to require the Internet publication to be every day for
four weeks would greatly increase the cost of publication.
MR. SCHMIDT, noting that he strongly supports the bill,
expressed concern regarding the unintended consequences of
mandating [that the payment to cure the default be made at least
two days prior to the sale date stated in the notice of default,
or at least two days prior to the date the sale is postponed
to]. Currently, one can cure a default and thereby stop a
foreclosure sale anytime before the sale; additionally, a
trustee may elect to refuse a cure and proceed with the
foreclosure sale if default has occurred two or more times
previously. He suggested that Section 4 of the bill be amended
such that the proposed new language on page 4, line 17, would
read in part, ", and, if the beneficiary under the trust deed so
elects, (9) a statement described". He offered his belief that
this change would provide the beneficiary with the discretion to
waive what he called the "two-day rule." He also suggested that
Section 6 of the bill be amended such that the language on page
5, lines 12, would read in part, "If the beneficiary so elects,
a statement required by (b)(9) of this section may state".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that the change Mr. Schmidt is
suggesting to page 4, line 17, should instead read in part, ",
and (9) if the beneficiary so elects, the statement described in
(e) of this section describing conditions for curing the
default".
MR. SCHMIDT concurred. He then suggested that the language on
page 5, line 12, instead be changed to read in part: "A
statement allowed by (b)(9) of this section may state". In
response to a question, he said, "My intention with these
changes is to make it discretionary on the part of the
beneficiary whether they want to cut off the borrower's right to
stop the foreclosure to curing two days out." In response to a
further question, he suggested that Amendment 1 be amended such
that the printed publication requirements and the Internet
publication requirements are harmonized; specifically, that the
new language Amendment 1 is proposing to add to page 2, lines
27-29, instead read, "Publication of the notice must occur four
times, once a week for four successive weeks". He opined that
the language currently proposed via Amendment 1 to page 2, lines
27-29, is ambiguous with regard to whether the Internet
publication must occur daily even though the written publication
needn't, and that his suggested language - which can be found on
page 2, line 2, of Version P - would make the bill stronger.
1:23:39 PM
STEPHEN ROUTH, Attorney at Law, Routh Crabtree, apc, expressed
satisfaction with the language of Amendment 1 as is, offering
his understanding that Internet publications are free, and his
belief that no bank would turn down a cure for default
regardless of how close it occurs to the date of the foreclosure
sale.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no further objections,
announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:27:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 108, Version 26-LS0318\P, Bannister,
3/26/09, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 108(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:28 p.m. to 1:31 p.m.
HB 193 - LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
1:31:23 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 193, "An Act relating to representation by a
legislator or legislative employee of another person in an
administrative hearing; relating to charity events under the
Legislative Ethics Act; requiring compensation of public members
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain
information from disclosure requirements of the Legislative
Ethics Act; relating to the selection of alternate members and
the participation of members and alternate members in formal
proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and
its subcommittees; and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent
service,' 'legislative purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and
'private benefit' for the purposes of the Legislative Ethics
Act." [Before the committee was CSHB 193(STA).]
1:32:31 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Representative John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Coghill,
explained that Section 1's proposed AS 24.60.030(a) uses the
term "gift" instead of "lawful gratuity", thereby making the
ethics provisions of Title 24 consistent, and provides that
legislators' legislative mailing lists may be used for campaign
purposes. Section 2's proposed AS 24.60.030(i) adds new
language that would protect legislators and staff, when
assisting constituents, from violating the Legislative Ethics
Act as the result of unintentional encounters with those
involved in administrative hearings; for example, if a
constituent requests assistance with a problem with a state
agency but doesn't inform the legislator or legislative staff
that the issue is already being addressed at the administrative
hearing level, currently, just by contacting the agency, the
legislator or legislative staff is violating the Legislative
Ethics Act, but under proposed AS 24.60.030(i), the legislator
or legislative staff could be cleared of any wrongdoing.
MS. MOSS explained that Section 3's proposed AS 24.60.080(a)
would allow a legislator or legislative staff to receive [from a
lobbyist a gift worth less than $250 if the gift involves a
charitable event; that Section 4's proposed AS 24.60.080(c)
allows a legislator or legislative staff to receive such a gift
worth $250 or more as long as it is not given by a lobbyist];
and that Section 5's proposed AS 24.60.080(d) requires a
legislator or legislative staff to report the amount of any such
gift worth $250 or more. The aforementioned monetary limit for
lobbyists applies to lobbyists, immediate family members of
lobbyists, and persons acting on behalf of lobbyists. Section
6's proposed AS 24.60.105(d) exempts a person from making a
required disclosure under AS 24.60 if doing so would violate the
U.S. Constitution, the Alaska State Constitution, or any other
state or federal law [protecting confidential information].
Section 7's proposed AS 24.60.130(f) would allow public members
of legislative committees to receive compensation of $150 per
day when attending committee meetings.
MS. MOSS explained that Section 8's proposed AS 24.60.130(n) -
in addition to providing for the appointment of alternate public
members to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics - would
require an alternate member participating in a
[meeting/proceeding] of the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics due to a regular member - either legislative or public -
being unable to participate, to participate for the duration of
the [meeting/proceeding]. Section 9's proposed AS 24.60.990(a)
adds definitions [for the terms, "constituent", "constituent
service", "legislative purpose", "nonlegislative purpose", and
"private benefit"].
1:37:24 PM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, mentioning that
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is familiar with the
[changes proposed by CSHB 193(STA)], explained that Section 6
would cover situations in which a person provides or receives
medical services, for example, but can't make the required
[close economic association] disclosure regarding that
relationship because doing so would violate the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); this issue
was raised by someone seeking an advisory opinion from the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. Characterizing Section
9's definition of "constituent" as very, very broad, she
indicated that that shouldn't be a problem because currently
there are other sections of statute that cover situations
involving campaigning and doing something for a private benefit
- which is now also being defined in Section 9 - as was the case
in an incident wherein the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics issued a complaint decision regarding a legislator whom
it found in violation for sending a newsletter [regarding a
campaign issue] to individuals who were not within the
legislator's constituent district.
1:39:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether under the bill, a legislator
would continue to be able to provide services to people even
though they don't live in the legislator's district.
MS. ANDERSON said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the alternate public member
provided for in Section 8 would be entitled to the compensation
provided for in Section 7.
MS. ANDERSON said he/she would be but only if he/she were
participating in the meeting in an official capacity.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether that would also be
the case if an alternate public member was asked to come to a
meeting just in case he/she might have to participate in just a
portion of the meeting.
MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the language in Section 8
stipulates that alternates who are required to participate in a
proceeding are required to participate in the entire proceeding.
In response to further questions, she offered her understanding
that alternate members would only be called to participate in a
meeting if a regular member was unable to participate, and would
not be called in to participate in a meeting just on the chance
that a regular member might need to leave the room for some
reason.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that an alternate member should
be able to participate in just a portion of a meeting - say for
one agenda item - and still receive compensation for doing so.
MS. MOSS offered her understanding that if both the regular
member and the alternate member are at a meeting in an official
capacity, then both would receive compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in possibly amending
the bill to insure that an alternate member could participate in
just a portion of a meeting and receive compensation for doing
so.
1:43:42 PM
MS. ANDERSON said that another provision of statute already
addresses situations in which a regular member must recuse
himself/herself due to a conflict of interest. She offered her
understanding that the language in the bill isn't intended to
allow a regular member to simply step out of the room for a few
minutes and have the alternate member take that person's place
and vote on an issue.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the language of the bill
is meant to address quorum issues; if a regular member has to
recuse himself/herself, there would then be an alternate member
to take the regular member's place.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that an alternate public member
ought to be able to fill in for one regular member when
addressing a particular topic and then fill in for another
regular member when the committee moves onto another topic, and
that an alternate public member should receive compensation even
if he/she sits through the meeting just in case he/she might be
called upon to fill in but then ultimately doesn't have to.
MS. MOSS offered her belief that that is what would occur
because the alternate would be there in an official capacity.
In response to a question, she posited that the bill is clear on
that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether anything in either
current law or the bill would prohibit an alternate member from
participating in just one agenda item during a meeting.
MS. ANDERSON indicated that there is not.
1:47:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that according to language in
Section 8, if an alternate public member has to participate,
he/she must participate for the duration of that meeting. He
questioned whether this means that if a regular public member
were unable to address one agenda item because of a conflict,
then he/she would be unable to participate in the rest of the
meeting as well, because the alternate member would have started
participating.
MS. ANDERSON indicated that Section 8 is meant to address a
concern that public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics don't have an alternate member to sit in for
them; the intent is to have an alternative public member
available if, for any reason, a regular public member cannot
attend a meeting. She clarified that Section 8 is addressing
both meetings and proceedings, and that a proceeding would have
to do with a particular complaint and could, for example,
require attention during three separate meetings. In such a
situation, an alternate member taking the place of regular
member due to a conflict of interest specific to that complaint
would have to attend all three of those meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether a legislative member who is
late for a meeting must then sit out the meeting because his/her
alternate had to take his place.
MS. ANDERSON said that's how she would read it. In response to
another question, she offered her belief that the requirement
that an alternate participate for the entirety of a proceeding
applies only to complaint proceedings, not "a full committee
meeting."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether, in a situation in which a
regular member knows he/she has a conflict of interest with
regard to a particular agenda item and therefore recuses
himself/herself from participating in that agenda item, the
alternate member would be required to take the regular member's
place during the entire meeting.
MS. ANDERSON offered her understanding that in such a situation,
the alternate member would only have to participate in that
specific agenda item, but would still be entitled to
compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that that's been the practice for
legislative members of the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, and so he therefore assumes that that is the intent [for
public members as well].
MS. ANDERSON concurred.
1:54:47 PM
MS. MOSS, in response to a question, repeated her explanation of
Section 6.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised that Section 6 would apply in
situations involving [someone in the medical field].
MS. ANDERSON concurred, repeated her previous comments regarding
Section 6, and explained that under that provision, a legislator
or legislative staff could write an explanation to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics regarding why he/she is not
making a particular disclosure, and if the committee considers
the explanation to be sufficient, then there would be no need
for the person to make the disclosure. In response to a
question, she explained that Section 6 pertains to disclosures
of close economic associations, not financial disclosures
required by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that the language in Section 6
was chosen instead of trying to establish a particular dollar-
amount threshold.
MS. MOSS, in response to a question, pointed out that the
written explanation is only required if requested by the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics or a person acting on its
behalf.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned how the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics or a person acting on its behalf would even know to
request a written explanation.
MS. ANDERSON suggested that perhaps the language in Section 6 on
page 9, lines 2-3, that says, "a person who refrains from making
a disclosure under this subsection shall" could be changed to
instead say, "a person who is required to make a disclosure
under this subsection shall". In response to a request, she
described what constitutes a close economic relationship for
purposes of being required to disclose such, and offered some
examples.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that the language of Section 6 ought to
also specify that the person who chooses to refrain from making
a disclosure shall notify the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics that he/she wouldn't be making the disclosure; in this
way, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would know that
it might need to request a written explanation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that Section 6 should also
specify that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' request
for a written explanation be kept confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the language on page 8,
line 30, be changed to say in part, "A person may request to
refrain from".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that that request to refrain
should also be in writing.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred.
2:10:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
add the words "submit a written request to" on page 8, line 30,
after the word "may". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
2:11:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, to add language to Section 6 specifying that "this
correspondence shall not be considered a public document
disclosable unless the ... committee or the staff determines
that it is disclosable except to the extent that they say it
must be disclosed, that there's no right of privacy."
CHAIR RAMRAS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the correspondence now
referred to in Section 6, as amended, would need to be
identified as confidential.
MS. ANDERSON explained that doing so would not be necessary,
because correspondence received by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics is confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question, explained that under
statute, complaint proceedings of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics are confidential, but committee members do
not have to sign confidentiality agreements, though she did have
her temporary staff person do so upon being hired. She
acknowledged that perhaps committee members should do so as
well.
CHAIR RAMRAS then turned members' attention to AS
24.45.051(b)(1) which read:
(b) A lobbyist required to report to the
commission under (a) of this section, who provides or
pays for food or beverage for immediate consumption by
a legislator or legislative employee or a spouse or
domestic partner of a legislator or legislative
employee shall report the date the food or beverage
was provided or paid for and the recipient's name and
relationship to the legislator or legislative
employee, unless the food and beverage
(1) cost $15 or less; or
2:17:06 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, to alter AS
24.45.051(b)(1) such that "$15" would be changed to "$35".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he was amenable to the
amount being changed to "$50" instead.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he was not.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the amount listed is merely
the threshold that triggers the reporting requirement for
lobbyists, and surmised that a threshold of $35 would be a
reasonable amount, and that a threshold of $50 would not be
exorbitant.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that when lobbyists treat a
legislator or legislative staff to a meal, it is often dinner,
rather than lunch, and includes spouses.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the threshold amount includes
tips.
MS. ANDERSON said it does not, and that this was a policy call
made by the APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to amend Amendment 3 such
that the new proposed threshold amount would be $50. There
being no objection, Amendment 3 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 3, as
amended.
CHAIR RAMRAS stated that Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to questions and comments, pointed out
that the reporting requirement outlined in AS 24.45.051(b)(1)
pertains only to food and beverage for immediate consumption,
not the room rental where a meal might take place.
2:30:57 PM
MS. MOSS turned members' attention to AS 47.14.235 - which
pertains to the confidentiality of the Citizen Review Panel -
and suggested that the committee might wish to amend HB 193 such
that similar language would apply to members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
MS. ANDERSON concurred.
MS. MOSS suggested that Conceptual Amendment 4 could add
language that read: "A person attending a meeting of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics or a member or staff of the
committee may not make any disclosures related to information
obtained during a review by the committee."
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
MS. MOSS acknowledged that it might be better for the new
language to refer to a proceeding of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that currently only parts of a
meeting of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics might be
confidential, and said she doesn't want to make the whole of
such meetings confidential.
MS. ANDERSON explained that the term "proceeding" as used in the
Legislative Ethics Act refers specifically to ethics complaints.
She surmised, therefore, that Conceptual Amendment 4 could be
amended such that confidentiality would apply to proceedings and
advisory opinions.
2:34:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 4.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a request, offered the following
language as constituting the amendment to Conceptual Amendment
4: "A person attending a meeting of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, or a member or staff of the committee, may
not make any disclosure related to a proceeding under AS
24.60.170 or an advisory opinion request under AS 24.60.160".
MS. MOSS, in response to a question, explained that under the
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4, the aforementioned language
would be added to Title 24 via a new subsection.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that some information disclosed
in a proceeding under AS 24.60.170 or an advisory opinion
request under AS 24.60.160 may start out being confidential but
will then end up becoming public, and expressed concern that the
language of the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4 could become
a problem.
MS. ANDERSON said she does not envision that it would become a
problem because existing statute already provides that such
information shall become public after certain details are
redacted.
CHAIR RAMRAS, offering his understanding that there were no
objections to the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4, announced
that Conceptual Amendment 4 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to Conceptual
Amendment 4, as amended.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended,
was adopted.
2:36:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5,
labeled 26-LS0656\T.2, Wayne, 4/3/09, which read:
Page 10, line 30, through page 11, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"(21) "private benefit" means a benefit
that is conferred, on a person, with a purpose that is
mainly a non-legislative purpose."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the bill's current
definition of the term, "private benefit" was mis-drafted, and
that Amendment 5 provides for a new, cleaner definition.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. [Although not
formally announced, Amendment 5 was treated as having been
adopted.]
2:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6,
labeled26-LS0656\T.1, Wayne, 4/3/09, which read:
Page 4, line 26:
Delete "A [EXCEPT"
Insert "Except when representing another person
for compensation subject to AS 24.60.100 and as a
professional who is licensed in the state, ["
Page 4, line 31:
Delete "A]"
Insert "] a"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 6 would allow
a licensed professional to represent another person for
compensation in a hearing. He offered his understanding that
this language is similar to that which was suggested by Chief
Administrative Law Judge Terry Thurbon, and that the language
was removed in the prior committee. He opined that it is
extremely important that people be able to obtain counsel,
adding that anyone providing such counsel would be subject to
the rules of professional conduct and thus risk disciplinary
action for violating those rules.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed.
MS. MOSS explained that Ms. Thurbon was neutral "on this issue,"
and that the concern expressed in the prior committee was that
any legislator who represented a person in an administrative
hearing would have a certain amount of influence just by virtue
of being a legislator. However, as some have pointed out, there
are legislators who represent people as part of their
profession, and so could be hired to represent a client before
an administrative hearing officer. Amendment 6 would allow such
to occur.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the policy question being
raised is, are legislators citizens first and then legislators,
or are they legislators and can therefore never be citizens.
His view, he relayed, is that although legislators have
reporting responsibilities, they are citizens first and should
therefore be able to pursue their professions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then withdrew his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 6 was adopted.
2:41:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 193(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
193(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HJR 13 - CONST AM: SEC. OF STATE REFERENCES
2:41:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska to correct obsolete
references to the office of secretary of state by substituting
references to the office of lieutenant governor.
2:42:11 PM
DENEEN TUCK, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, the House State Affairs
Standing Committee, of which Representative Gruenberg is a
member, explained that HJR 13 proposes amendments to the Alaska
State Constitution such that if approved by the voters, the
references to "secretary of state" would be replaced with
references to the "lieutenant governor". In 1970, voters
approved amendments to the Alaska State Constitution changing
the name of "secretary of state" to "lieutenant governor", but a
couple of references to "secretary of state" were missed, and
HJR 13 would correct this.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, offered his
belief that there have been conversations with the lieutenant
governor on this matter.
MS. TUCK concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he is proposing other
legislation that would "empower a secretary of state."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM pointed out that the outdated
references would still need to be corrected regardless, since
any new position of secretary of state would not have the same
duties as the lieutenant governor.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that he's voted for legislation
similar to HJR 13 before.
2:44:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HJR 13 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 13 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HJR 2 - CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
2:44:44 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska to avoid the use of personal
pronouns and similar references that denote masculine or
feminine gender in that document.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, speaking as one of the joint prime
sponsors, explained that HJR 2 proposes amendments to the Alaska
State Constitution such that if approved by the voters, gender
specific pronouns would be replaced with gender neutral
pronouns. He then offered examples of specific language that
would be changed under the resolution, and listed some of the
positions held and contributions made by women in Alaska. In
response to a question, he acknowledged that federal law says
one may not discriminate on the basis of sex, but offered his
belief that that also means one may not discriminate on the
basis of gender.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned which term would be more
appropriate [for use in the title].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that the term "gender" would be.
2:49:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HJR 2 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 2 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:50:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB108 version P.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| HB108 Amendment P.2.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| HJR13.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB193.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 193 |
| HJR2CommitteePacket.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB193Amendments.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 193 |