03/11/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR35 | |
| HB355 | |
| HB289 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2010
1:48 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
prohibiting passage of laws that interfere with direct payments
for health care services and the right to purchase health care
insurance from a privately owned company, and that compel a
person to participate in a health care system.
- MOVED HJR 35 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 355
"An Act relating to criminal fines for organizations."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 289
"An Act authorizing state agencies to pay private legal fees and
costs incurred by persons exonerated of alleged Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing certain public officers
and former public officers to accept state payments to offset
private legal fees and costs related to defending against an
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act complaint; and creating
certain exceptions to Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
limitations on the use of state resources to provide or pay for
transportation of spouses and children of the governor and the
lieutenant governor."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 287
"An Act relating to the adoption of the Uniform Disclaimer of
Property Interests Act, and to the disclaimer of property rights
under the Uniform Probate Code."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 35
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: HEALTH CARE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, KELLER, P.WILSON, GATTO
01/08/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) HSS, JUD, FIN
02/09/10 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/09/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/10 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
02/16/10 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/16/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/16/10 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
02/17/10 (H) HSS RPT 3DP 1NR
02/17/10 (H) DP: T.WILSON, LYNN, KELLER
02/17/10 (H) NR: HERRON
03/11/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 355
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL FINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUENBERG
02/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/10 (H) JUD, FIN
03/10/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 289
SHORT TITLE: EXEC ETHICS: LEGAL FEES/FAMILY TRAVEL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUENBERG
01/15/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/23/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/23/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/25/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/25/10 (H) Moved CSHB 289(STA) Out of Committee
02/25/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/10 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 1NR
02/26/10 (H) DP: SEATON, GRUENBERG, PETERSEN, LYNN
02/26/10 (H) NR: JOHNSON
03/11/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As one of the joint prime sponsors of
HJR 35, presented the resolution.
PEGGYANN McCONNOCHIE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 35, and urged its passage.
ANDREA DOLL, Director
Legislative Information Standing Committee
Retired Public Employees of Alaska (RPEA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 35, and asked the committee to defeat the resolution.
PATRICK LUBY, Advocacy Director
AARP Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 35.
DAVE ROLAND, Policy Analyst
Show-Me Institute
Saint Louis, Missouri
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 35.
CHRISTIE HERRERA, Director
Health and Human Services Task Force
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments in favor of HJR 35.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 355.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 355.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:48:02 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:48 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Gatto,
Lynn, Holmes, Dahlstrom, and Herron were present at the call to
order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HJR 35 - CONST AM: HEALTH CARE
1:48:31 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting passage of laws
that interfere with direct payments for health care services and
the right to purchase health care insurance from a privately
owned company, and that compel a person to participate in a
health care system.
1:48:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
one of the joint prime sponsors, indicated that HJR 35 - a
resolution proposing amendments to the Alaska State
Constitution - is in response to proposed federal healthcare-
reform legislation, which is meant to address the issues of
access, affordability, and quality. However, he remarked, many
people are unsure that the federal legislation is going to
adequately address those issues. [Should HJR 35 pass the
legislature and be adopted by the voters at the next general
elections, it would change the Alaska State Constitution such
that] it would preclude the passage of laws that prohibit or
penalize direct payment for healthcare services, or laws that
prohibit or penalize the purchasing of healthcare insurance, or
laws that compel one to participate in a healthcare system, or
laws that penalize one for refusing to participate in a
healthcare system. He acknowledged that passage of HJR 35 and
ratification by the voters of its provisions into the Alaska
State Constitution could create a conflict with the
aforementioned federal legislation should it pass as well. He
offered his understanding, though, that 35 other states are
considering legislation similar to HJR 35.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES relayed that one of the main concerns she
has with HJR 35 is that it could have severe, negative impacts
on any proposed changes to existing federal programs such as
Medicare, and those addressing Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits
and the issue of tribal health.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY indicated that that might be the case, but
surmised that others could better address that issue. In
response to a question regarding the resolution's fiscal note,
he indicated that he would research its analysis further.
1:56:42 PM
PEGGYANN McCONNOCHIE relayed that she and her husband own three
small businesses, two of which have employees, and offered her
belief that the aforementioned federal legislation is going to
result in two of her businesses going out of business, and won't
necessarily resolve the problems it is meant to address. She
added that a system similar to that being proposed by the
federal government is already in place in New Zealand, where her
husband is from, and opined that it doesn't work there,
particularly with regard to pre-existing conditions. Alaskans
should come up with their own solution to the problems of access
to healthcare and its costs, she opined, and predicted that the
proposed federal legislation is going to impose unreasonable
burdens on Alaskans and their businesses, especially small
business like those she and her husband own. She said she is
excited about the possibility of getting a chance to vote on the
proposed changes to the Alaska State Constitution as embodied in
HJR 35. She surmised that the ratification of those changes
would protect small business from being taxed for not providing
healthcare insurance. In conclusion, she urged the committee to
pass HJR 35.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked Ms. McConnochie whether she would be
concerned if passage of HJR 35's proposed changes to the Alaska
State Constitution resulted in it becoming difficult to make
future changes to certain existing federal programs.
MS. McCONNOCHIE, citing her nescience regarding such programs,
declined to venture an opinion, but noted that small business
owners already face increasing taxes and costs.
2:00:29 PM
ANDREA DOLL, Director, Legislative Information Standing
Committee, Retired Public Employees of Alaska (RPEA), remarking
that the prospect of a national public health plan being imposed
on individuals has made people either very happy or very
fearful, explained that the RPEA feels that HJR 35 is an example
of an exaggerated response to the aforementioned proposed
federal healthcare-reform legislation. Because HJR 35 is
proposing to amend the Alaska State Constitution, it has raised
concern among many RPEA members that voter ratification of its
proposed changes would tie the hands of current and future
legislators and thereby preclude them from addressing Alaska's
healthcare issues, and from considering the full array of
options currently available. This is a shortsighted approach,
particularly given that no one yet knows what the proposed
federal legislation will ultimately entail.
MS. DOLL said that although keeping the federal government out
of the [business of] healthcare might be a political philosophy
that appeals to a significant sector of the population, to take
steps to amend the Alaska State Constitution is drastic and
potentially harmful. The RPEA, therefore, is asking the
committee to reconsider such an approach, and to defeat HJR 35
as currently written. In response to a question, she reiterated
that what's of concern to the RPEA is that voter ratification of
HJR 35's proposed changes to the Alaska State Constitution would
close off legislators' future options.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, characterizing HJR 35 as a bit of a
kneejerk reaction to the proposed federal healthcare-reform
legislation, reiterated her concern that voter ratification of
HJR 35's proposed changes to the Alaska State Constitution could
have severe, negative impacts on any future changes to existing
federal programs, such as the Medicare system, which, as many
could agree, needs changing.
MS. DOLL concurred, reiterated some of her previous remarks,
predicted that passage of HJR 35 would engender litigation, and
pointed out that such litigation wouldn't solve anything.
2:09:30 PM
PATRICK LUBY, Advocacy Director, AARP Alaska, said that the AARP
Alaska is opposed to HJR 35, and feels that the Alaska State
Constitution shouldn't be amended except for very serious
reasons. The problems that HJR 35 purports to address don't
actually exist yet and may never exist, since no one knows what
Congress will do, and the AARP Alaska feels that Alaska should
keep its options open, especially with regard to an issue as
serious as healthcare. He added:
Although Alaska does not have managed care in the HMO
model using capitated cost, we do have new models that
do managed care. Healthcare now and in the future
will be all about networks and coordinated delivery of
services; pay for performance, paying physicians and
hospitals for more quality care, medical homes, not
paying providers for what's referred to as "never-
events" - which Medicare is already doing and is being
picked up as a model by Medicaid and private
insurers - ... will only increase in the future. Cost
containment is going to be the main focus of
healthcare debate in the future. In Alaska, we must
do something about the uninsured. Currently, 17
percent of Alaskans between the ages of 50 and 64 have
no insurance at all. When they need healthcare, they
often ended up in the emergency room - the most
expensive place to get it. They also usually cannot
pay their bill.
Those of us that do have insurance end up picking up
their tab. The average cost of the uninsured for
every Alaskan family is $1,900 annually. Employers,
including the State of Alaska, also pick of the cost
of those employers who do not provide coverage to
their employees. [The] AARP wants to make sure that
all of us participate in healthcare coverage so that
we can end this cost-shifting. [House Joint
Resolution 35] ... would allow people to opt out of
coverage. The rest of us would still be stuck with
their bills. We look to our legislators [to] provide
solutions to problems. Why close down this option
that might be very helpful to Alaska in the future?
We recommend a "nay" vote on HJR 35. Thank you.
MR. LUBY, in response to questions, relayed that the AARP Alaska
thinks that requiring some type of coverage - wherein everyone
participates and no one has to pick up someone else's bill - is
the sensible approach to take; that when something is done at
the national level, people would be able to either join some
type of [insurance] pool or enter into some type exchange; and
that if one doesn't pay for one's own health insurance - or
one's employer doesn't - there would be penalties, penalties
which would serve as an incentive to get people to actually
purchase the coverage, to make sure that everyone has some type
of basic coverage.
2:14:36 PM
DAVE ROLAND, Policy Analyst, Show-Me Institute, mentioned that
he's provided members' with his written testimony, and that he
has a background in constitutional law. With regard to the
question of whether legislation such as HJR 35 is premature, he
opined that now is the time to take action, and surmised that
passage of HJR 35 would give Alaskans the opportunity to decide
for themselves whether they think that their right to decide
whether or not to purchase healthcare insurance should be
constitutionally protected. He also offered his belief that
although under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution,
federal law preempts state law, there is reason to believe that
with regard to the issue of mandated healthcare insurance, if
the voters ratify HJR 35's proposed constitutional changes and a
legal conflict then arises, the courts might instead rule that
the Alaska State Constitution preempts federal statute.
2:20:13 PM
CHRISTIE HERRERA, Director, Health and Human Services Task
Force, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), relayed
that the ALEC applauds HJR 35 - which is modeled after "our own,
'freedom of choice in healthcare Act,' now in ... 38 states" -
because the ALEC believes that it will ensure continued access
to health services; that when government controls healthcare
dollars, it makes treatment decisions based on what's best for
government; and that patients, not bureaucrats, should decide
what's best for patients. The ALEC also applauds HJR 35 because
the ALEC believes that the resolution would stop mandates that
just don't work. She indicated that although the ALEC believes
it's important for people to have health insurance coverage, it
also believes that a government requirement to purchase it would
be ineffective, bureaucratic, and costly. For example, in
Massachusetts, which has mandated the purchase of health
insurance since 2006, such insurance cost 40 percent more than
in the rest of the country], a third of the population still
doesn't have coverage, it's harder for the newly-insured to see
a physician, emergency room usage has increased by 17 percent,
and legislators expect a $2 billion to $4 billion shortfall over
the next decade.
MS. HERRERA relayed that the ALEC also believes that HJR 35
would help Alaskans shield themselves from the proposed federal
healthcare-reform legislation, and from any attempt by the State
of Alaska to prohibit direct payment for medical care, and that
it would result in a federalism clash if Congress passes a law
that either forces people to purchase insurance or prohibits
direct payments. On the latter point, she offered her
understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in
favor of the states when they take steps to protect their
citizens' freedoms. She then offered her belief that the
problem of people seeking medical services but refusing to
purchase health insurance is going to exist anyway regardless of
whether HJR 35 passes and its proposed changes to the Alaska
State Constitution are then ratified by the voters; "even if ...
a mandate did solve the 'free-rider' problem, we would still be
forced to pay for the newly-insured with subsidies to purchase
the required insurance," she added, and offered her
understanding of what the provisions of the proposed federal
healthcare-reform legislation might entail and how they might
affect a low-income family of four.
MS. HERRERA offered her belief that HJR 35 won't affect federal
programs - such as Medicare and Medicaid - or that it would tie
the hands of legislators thereby preventing them from addressing
possible changes to such federal programs. Instead, she
ventured, HJR 35 would ensure that the cornerstone of any future
reforms is the preservation of patients' rights. She offered
her understanding that a study performed by the Cato Institute
estimates that the proposed federal healthcare-reform
legislation would require more than 100 million Americans to
drop their existing coverage and buy more expensive coverage
that they may not want or need. She concluded by reiterating
that the ALEC applauds HJR 35.
2:24:33 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HJR 35.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:24 p.m. to 2:26 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HJR 35 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 35 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:27 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
HB 355 - CRIMINAL FINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS
2:31:13 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 355, "An Act relating to criminal fines for
organizations."
2:32:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as the sponsor, explained
that HB 355 [and a proposed amendment are] designed to bring
Alaska's criminal fines for organizations - corporations,
partnerships, and the like - up to date, and to close a
potential loophole in the law; the amendment, labeled 26-
LS1385\E.1, Luckhaupt, 3/9/10, [which later became known as
Amendment 1] read:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "$1,000,000"
Insert "$2,000,000 [$1,000,000]"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "$200,000"
Insert "$400,000 [$200,000]"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "$25,000"
Insert "$50,000 [$25,000]"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "$10,000"
Insert "$20,000 [$10,000]"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that although the officers of a
corporation could be imprisoned for wrongdoing, the corporation
itself couldn't be imprisoned; however, a corporation could have
criminal fines levied against it. Currently, an organization
could be sentenced to pay a fine not to exceed the greater of:
the existing fine amounts - currently listed on page 1, lines
[7-13]; three times the pecuniary gain realized by the defendant
as a result of the offense; or three times the pecuniary damage
or loss caused by the defendant to another or to the property of
another as a result of the offense. He also mentioned that
members' packets contain an Alaska Law Review article dated
December 2008 that addresses the issue of criminal liability as
it pertains to organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, to illustrate the loophole in existing
law, referred to the federal corruption case involving the VECO
Corporation, wherein although the company didn't realize any
pecuniary gain - and the State of Alaska didn't realize any loss
or damage - the company was certainly seeking pecuniary gain -
and pecuniary loss or damage to the State - when it bribed
certain Alaska lawmakers to defeat a tax that would have
affected the oil and gas industry. House Bill 355 would close
that loophole by stipulating that an organization may be
sentenced to pay a fine of three times the pecuniary gain - or
loss or damage to another - sought by the defendant via the
commission of the offense.
2:35:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how a potential gain, or potential
loss or damage, could be calculated. For example, in the
aforementioned case, under the bill, what would the criminal
fines have amounted to?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that in some cases, it
could be difficult to determine the potential gain, or potential
loss or damage. In those cases, the court could simply choose
to sentence the organization to pay the appropriate fine as set
out in AS 12.55.035(c)(1). In other cases, however, the
potential gain, or potential loss or damage, could be calculated
as being the amount sought by the organization via the
commission of the offense. In the situation involving the VECO
Corporation, for example, under the bill, the court could have
calculated the potential loss of tax revenues to the State of
Alaska, particularly given that there was evidence and witnesses
in that case. Both existing statute and the proposed statute
provide the court options with regard to what the maximum
criminal fine could amount to, on a case-by-case basis, thereby
addressing the fact that the amount of gain, or the amount of
loss or damage, can sometimes be hard to calculate.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question regarding
the language of proposed AS 12.55.035(c)(2)(B) - which says in
part, "sought by the defendant for the defendant or for others"
- explained that an organization could be committing the offense
on behalf of its clients. With regard to the situation
involving the VECO Corporation, for example, under the bill, any
pecuniary gain to its clients - either realized or sought - as a
result of the commission of the offense would probably have been
too speculative to determine and thus the court could simply
have chosen an appropriate fine as set out in
AS 12.55.035(c)(1).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to questions, explained
that any criminal fines received under the bill's provisions
would go into the general fund (GF); that HB 355 is merely
amending existing statutes pertaining to criminal fines for
organizations; that the aforementioned Alaska Law Review article
mentions specific Alaska cases involving the criminal liability
of an organization - State v. ABC Towing and State v.
Greenpeace, Inc. being just a couple of examples; and that he
does not know why the VECO Corporation was not prosecuted under
existing AS 12.55.035(c).
2:46:45 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in response
to questions, said that the DOL doesn't prosecute corporations
very often under Title 11; that she would research why the VECO
Corporation itself was not prosecuted; that some who work in the
Office of Special Prosecutions & Appeals are in support of HB
355 and the proposed amendment increasing the fines, because in
those situations where they can prosecute an organization for a
criminal act, there is often a pecuniary gain realized by the
corporation as a result of the offense it commits; and that such
prosecutions don't take place very often.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to questions, reiterated
his opening remarks; noted that the largest of the existing set
fines is $1 million, and that the aforementioned proposed
amendment [would double that amount]; and ventured his
understanding of some of the factors involved in the
aforementioned legal cases, and what might have occurred had
HB 355 been in place when those cases were heard in court.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the last paragraph on page 6 of the
aforementioned Alaska Law Review article says in part [original
punctuation provided]:
Collectively, ABC Towing and Greenpeace, Inc. confirm
the existence of organizational criminal liability
under state law. These decisions do little, however,
to define the contours and limitations of that
liability and, in fact, highlight problems with the
existing laws. ABC Towing carves out an exemption for
sole proprietorships. ... Greenpeace is also
problematic in that it illustrates the ease with which
organizations might compartmentalize their operations
or duplicate themselves and thereby thwart criminal
prosecution. ... These are shortcomings legislators
need to address if the prosecution of organizations is
to be effectively and consistently utilized.
2:51:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added that although HB 355 would be
closing a loophole regarding unrealized gains, or unrealized
losses or damages, sought by an organization via the commission
of an offense, the Alaska Law Review article indicates that
there are other changes to the "criminal corporate liability
statutes" that might be warranted. In response to questions, he
explained that the proposed amounts outlined in the
aforementioned amendment were suggested by the DOL; that the
existing fine amounts for misdemeanors have remained unchanged
since they were first included in statute 20 years ago; that the
existing maximum fine amount for a felony was enacted in statute
in 2002; and that inflation since that time has been
significant.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in receiving information
regarding how often existing AS 12.55.035(c) has been utilized
over the last 10 years; what criminal-fine amounts were ordered;
and whether such fines could be dedicated to specific purposes
or governmental entities.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, indicated
that although the DOL did not ask him to introduce HB 355, the
DOL did provide input on the bill when he asked for it. He
further indicated that the DOL suggested increasing the set
criminal-fine amounts for misdemeanors and he'd simply included
a new set criminal fine amount for felonies.
2:56:32 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), acknowledged that he had suggested the
new amounts now listed in the proposed amendment, but indicated
that HB 355 would not impact cases involving antitrust
violations, which fall under the purview of his section. In
response to a question, he said that he himself has not
prosecuted anyone under AS 12.55.035(c).
MS. CARPENETI added her understanding that the DOL has
prosecuted [organizations] under AS 12.55.035(c), and agreed to
research the specific details.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 355 would be held over.
HB 289 - EXEC ETHICS: LEGAL FEES/FAMILY TRAVEL
2:59:56 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 289, "An Act authorizing state agencies to pay
private legal fees and costs incurred by persons exonerated of
alleged Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing
certain public officers and former public officers to accept
state payments to offset private legal fees and costs related to
defending against an Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
complaint; and creating certain exceptions to Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act limitations on the use of state resources to
provide or pay for transportation of spouses and children of the
governor and the lieutenant governor." [Before the committee
was CSHB 289(STA).]
3:00:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as the sponsor, explained
that HB 289 would amend the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
to include proposed regulatory language addressing the
reimbursement of travel expenses for the families of the
governor and lieutenant governor in certain situations, and the
reimbursement of legal fees and costs to exonerated executive
branch employees accused of ethical violations. Such provisions
should be in statute rather than in regulation, and the proposed
regulatory language has been simplified via HB 289 to address
the fact that in at least three respects, the proposed
regulations were too loose: they could have been read as not
requiring that the executive branch employees be exonerated
before reimbursement occurs, they could potentially have been
read to allow reimbursement of legal costs and fees [stemming
from charges filed prior to the enactment of the provision], and
the procedure for reimbursing legal costs and fees was very
cumbersome and convoluted.
[HB 289 was held over.]
3:02:20 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.