01/30/2017 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Organizational Discussion | |
| HB44|| HCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 30, 2017
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ORGANIZATIONAL DISCUSSION
- HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44
"An Act requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or
withholding official action or exerting official influence that
could benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain
employers; requiring a legislator to request to be excused from
voting in an instance where the legislator may have a financial
conflict of interest; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to voting and abstention from voting.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/23/17 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUE INTRODUCED -REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/17 (H) STA REPLACES FIN REFERRAL
01/25/17 (H) BILL REPRINTED 1/25/17
01/25/17 (H) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23 FOR SSHB 44
01/25/17 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GARA
01/25/17 (H) JUDICIARY at 01:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/17 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17
01/27/17 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ORTIZ
01/27/17 (H) JUDICIARY at 01:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/17 (H) -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17
01/27/17 (H) MINUTES (HJUD)
01/30/17 (H) JUDICIARY at 01:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/17 (H) --Please Note Time Change --
02/03/17 (H) JUDICIARY at 01:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/17 (H) -- Please Note Time Change --
02/08/17 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 1DP 3DNP 3AM
02/08/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX
02/08/17 (H) DNP: KOPP, EASTMAN REINBOLD
02/08/17 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER, CLAMAN
02/08/17 (H) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
02/08/17 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
BILL: HCR 1
SHORT TITLE: AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN
01/20/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/17 (H) STA, JUD
01/20/17 (H) JUD REFERRAL REMOVED
01/20/17 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE STA
01/23/17 (H) COSPONSOR(s): TARR
01/25/17 (H) JUD at 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/17 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17 --
01/27/17 (H) JUD at 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/17 (H) -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17 --
01/27/17 (H) MINUTES
01/30/17 (H) JUD at 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/17 (H) -- Please Note Time Change --
02/01/17 (H) COSPONSOR(s): ORTIZ
02/03/17 (H) JUD at 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/17 (H) -- Please Note Time Change --
02/08/17 (H) JUD at 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/17 (H) -- Delayed to 15 Minutes After JSC
Concludes --
02/10/17 (H) JUD RPT 1DP 3DNP 2AM
02/10/17 (H) DP: CLAMAN
02/10/17 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, KOPP, REINBOLD
02/10/17 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER
02/10/17 (H) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
02/10/17 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 44 and HCR 1,
testified and answered questions.
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff
Representative Jason Grenn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 44 and HCR 1,
testified and answered questions.
JERRY ANDERSON, Legislative Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 44 and HCR 1,
answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:36:00 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Representatives Fansler, Eastman,
Reinbold, Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, and Claman were present
at the call to order.
^ORGANIZATIONAL DISCUSSION
ORGANIZATIONAL DISCUSSION
1:36:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
a motion regarding AS 24.08.060(a).
1:36:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved that Representative Claman, Chair
of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, be delegated the
duties and responsibilities in AS 24.08.060(a) during regular
and special sessions of the 30th Alaska State Legislature; this
delegation remains in effect until withdrawn by the committee.
1:37:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.
1:38:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.
[Technical difficulties 1:38:22 - 1:38:45]
1:38:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that AS 24.08.060(a) gives the chair the
authority to introduce committee
[Technical difficulties 1:38:51 - 1:39:35]
1:39:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that [as chair of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, 29th Alaska State Legislature] she
was asked why she had not been required to obtain permission
[from the committee] when she had introduced a committee
sponsored bill. She said her response was that committee
sponsored bills had, routinely, been introduced as committee
sponsored bills simply by the chair of the committee introducing
the bill. She explained that simply because it is a committee
sponsored bill does not mean that everyone in the committee
necessarily supports the bill. She advised that at one point,
Representative Keller advised her that he did not have any
problems with the bill, although he thought he should have been
consulted. The issue was discussed last year, she explained,
when Representative Reinbold was not part of the House Majority
Caucus. Wherein, she continued, Representative Keller had
provided her with a Legislative Legal and Research Services
opinion that said the chair is to seek the permission of the
committee each time a committee sponsored bill is introduced,
with a majority of consenting members - unanimous consent is not
necessary. Therefore, the chair simply needs a majority of the
members present, or in the alternative, a chair can receive a
delegation of authority from the committee to introduce a
committee sponsored bill, which is how the opinion came about,
she explained.
1:41:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether there is anything in the
delegation of authority that would inhibit a member of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee's informed discussion of the bill,
or voting in favor or against a bill, and it being on the
record.
CHAIR CLAMAN responded that it would never prevent a member of
the committee from stating whether they support or oppose it as
a committee sponsored bill. He advised that his general
approach as the chair would be to talk with the members of the
committee about making it a committee sponsored bill. He
related that if he had a sense the majority of the committee did
not support the bill, he would not introduce it as a committee
sponsored bill because that would be over-exercising his
authority. As an aside, he reminded the members that he spoke
with everyone on the committee in advance of this motion to
explain it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed his appreciation, and asked
whether the committee would still vote on moving the bill [out
of committee] if there was an objection.
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed. He said that to the extent the bill is
introduced as a committee sponsored bill, everyone on the
committee would still have the opportunity to move to amend that
bill, and as amended it would still be a committee sponsored
bill.
1:42:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested an example of circumstances
wherein Chair Claman would exercise that [authority], and asked
whether it would be when a majority of the committee supported a
piece of legislation. He said he was trying to distinguish
between a simple majority of one vote versus the consensus of
most of the committee.
1:43:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN replied, there is not a simple answer to that
because it depends upon the circumstances. For example, he
said, the committee heard Representative Wilson's bill and
people had many questions, including the Department of Law
(DOL). In that regard, he explained, to the extent a majority
of the members supported a different version, he would
potentially consider introducing a committee substitute rather
than a sponsor substitute. There are too many hypotheticals to
try to answer, but his intent would be to discuss the
legislation with the members of the committee to get a sense of
their thoughts, he related.
1:44:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that when the deadline
for personal legislation comes and goes, committee sponsored
legislation has traditionally been a means to address
outstanding problems requiring the bill to be expedited and
having that standing authority. He opined that is the most
common instance in which he has seen committee sponsored
legislation used relatively infrequently. He added that he had
no idea there was a statute because during his four years
committee sponsored legislation had always appeared like magic.
He commented that this process appears more forthright and
transparent, and he is good with it as long as it is used
judiciously and conservatively.
1:45:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that her preference is to seek
permission from members before introducing legislation,
especially from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She
said it appears the chair will only introduce bills in the event
this motion passes, and he will not introduce legislation
without majority support.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that it is the majority of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she was unsure how the chair would
know the thoughts of the members without speaking with everyone.
She asked why, as Chair of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, he would not put his name so everyone would know the
movement behind the bill. For example, she pointed to Senate
Bill 91, and advised that she and Chair Claman are on opposite
planets on that bill and that she does not want look like she is
supportive of something she is adamantly opposed to. She said
she intends to maintain her objection to the motion, and offered
to clarify any questions Chair Claman may have about her
testimony.
1:46:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that additional questions were not
necessary because she articulated her objection, "wherever you
are now." He said he anticipates that Representative Reinbold
will voice her objection to a bill she disagrees with from any
member of "our body" or a committee bill, and he has no
intention of limiting her ability to do so.
1:46:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fansler, Eastman,
Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, and Claman voted in favor of the
motion to delegate the duties and responsibilities in AS
24.08.060(a) to Chair Claman. Representative Reinbold voted
against it. Therefore, the motion was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
HCR 1-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
1:47:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 44, "An Act requiring a legislator to abstain
from taking or withholding official action or exerting official
influence that could benefit or harm an employer or to request
to be excused from voting in an instance where the legislator
may have a financial conflict of interest; and providing for an
effective date," AND HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1,
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to voting and abstention from voting.
[HB 44 and HCR 1 were before the committee together.]
CHAIR CLAMAN advised this is the second hearing on HB 44 and HCR
1, the sponsor previously presented the legislation, the
committee listened to public testimony, and public testimony is
closed.
1:48:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
himself.
1:48:44 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, said that HB 44 provides a concise outline for the
standards a legislator can review to determine whether they have
a conflict of interest. He moved to HCR 1, and advised it is an
amendment to Uniform Rule 34(b), changing it from unanimous
consent to a majority consent for an abstention for a
legislator.
MR. JOHNSTON, referring to a previous request, advised
Representative Fansler that the sponsor was still waiting to
hear from the other states regarding their journal records on
abstention.
MR. JOHNSTON, referring to a previous question, advised
Representative Eastman that the sponsor spoke with the Chief
Clerk and, currently, there is an ability to withdraw the motion
once a representative has asked for a motion to abstain, and
under this legislation, that ability would still be allowed
before a vote on the abstention.
1:50:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-
LS0209\J.3, Gardner/Wayne, 1/26/17, which read:
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. Rule 34(b), Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature, is amended to read:
(b) Abstention. Every member present in the
house shall vote unless the house for special reasons
permits a member to abstain. All motions excusing a
member from voting shall be made before the house
divides or before the call for the yeas and nays is
commenced. A member requesting to be excused from
voting shall have up to five minutes to explain the
member's request to be excused from voting, [MAY MAKE
A BRIEF ORAL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST]
and the question of granting permission to abstain
shall be taken without further debate. A member may
not explain a vote, may not discuss the question while
the yeas and nays are being called, and may not change
a vote after the roll call result has been announced.
Upon division and count of the house of any question,
a member who is not within the chamber may not be
counted. A member may not be permitted to abstain
except upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
full [UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE] membership of the
house."
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
1:50:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment amends HCR 1
and allows members up to five minutes to explain their conflict
of interest on the floor of the House of Representatives. A
member may not be committed to abstain from a vote except upon
an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the full membership of the
House of Representatives.
1:51:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN related that research indicated that a vast
majority of other states have the same language contained within
the bill regarding a majority vote, and that his intention was
to put the vote on the record. He said his main goal was
consistency with the statute regarding municipalities which puts
this conflict of interest vote to a majority vote. He related
that this legislation was drafted with the hope that pragmatic
logic would be the approach legislators would use when voting on
an abstention, and said he is willing to discuss the amendment
from Representative Eastman.
1:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that there are two
substantive components to the amendment, raising the threshold
from two-thirds vote from a mere majority, and five minutes of
discussion related to the abstention. He said he can infer the
logic in raising the threshold, and asked Representative Eastman
to expound on the five minutes of discussion on the conflict of
interest.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that, currently, the verbiage
within the uniform rules is "brief," and the amendment asks a
bit more of someone when rising to speak to a conflict of
interest. The five minutes was designed to give the legislator
sufficient opportunity to explain the conflict, with the
expectation that it is unlikely everyone would use the full five
minutes. He related that the intent was to be certain everyone
participating in a vote had sufficient time to understand the
conflict of interest, and were confident they had a good
understanding of what they were about to vote on.
1:55:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he noticed that the language
toggles from "may" to "shall," and asked whether the language
should be "may have" as opposed to the more imperative "shall."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that as long as the person making a
request for an abstention has that opportunity, the spirit of
the amendment is satisfied.
1:56:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that if the language was "may"
rather than "shall have up to five minutes," that would give the
Speaker of the House of Representatives the discretion not to
give someone five minutes. She explained that "may make a brief
oral statement of the reasons for the request" leaves it up to
the person whether or not they want to make any sort of
statement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he appreciates the intent of the
amendment and said, currently, it appears there are no limits
because it reads "a brief oral statement of the reasons for the
request." He asked whether this amendment would be
inadvertently limiting the speaker to five minutes whereas
currently there are no limits.
1:58:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that possibly the better part of
valor would be that if someone was concerned with either the
Speaker of the House of Representative or the Rules Committee
Chair cutting someone off based upon their understanding of the
term "brief," she suggested "they make an oral statement ... for
the reasons of the request," and it doesn't include "brief"
because people may argue the definition of "brief" depending
upon the context of its usage.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked, previously, how long a legislator
had spoken to their conflict. He offered that in serving on a
municipality council, typically, it has been the person's name
and where they work. He asked whether an open dialogue is
allowed during the declaration of a conflict because it would
helpful to sometimes ask follow up questions before voting
2:00:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that, generally, a
representative will rise and say they work for the University of
Alaska, for example. There will be no discussion whatsoever
because between the time someone rises to declare a conflict and
toward the end of their sentence, someone will yell out
"objection" and the Speaker of the House will say,
"Representative Fansler, there has been an objection, you are
required to vote." Although, she commented that in the event
this bill passes, she imagines it would change somewhat because
a legislator would actually have to rise and enunciate further
than what has been done in the past because it will have some
real consequences. She advised that questions are permitted on
the floor of the House of Representatives, but she has never
seen a basic conversation in the chambers, it is all formalized.
2:01:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested input from the sponsor on this
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN answered that the time limit is somewhat
common in other states, and within his conversations with other
ethics committees, there is an anti-filibuster type feeling to
it. Also, he said, it gives the legislator time to enunciate
their conflict if they are trying to rise to their conflict and
advise they would like to vote or abstain from the vote.
2:02:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Amendment 1 is not an amendment to HCR
1, Version J, but rather an amendment to the uniform rules. He
asked whether his intention with the amendment s to change the
existing Uniform Rule 34(b), and reject everything that's
changed in HCR 1, Version J.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that Amendment 1 is a
replacement, and it basically makes it a committee substitute.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he wanted to verify that was Representative
Eastman's intent.
2:03:57 PM
MR. JOHNSTON clarified that the motion is not debatable, which
is in the uniform rules and this legislation.
2:04:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Version J and the current
uniform rules, and asked whether the motion as to whether or not
someone can abstain is not debatable at all.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN replied that it is not debatable, and
offered that the legislator requesting to abstain may rise, make
their brief oral statement, and the motion is then taken up for
a vote with no debate.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she wondered whether any
discussion or debate was allowed in any of the other
municipalities where they actually vote on whether it's
appropriate to abstain. For example, she said, the Municipality
of Anchorage and whether any discussion or debate is allowed.
2:05:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN referred to AS 29.20.010. Conflict of
Interest, which read:
(a) Each municipality shall adopt a conflict of
interest ordinance that provides that
(1) a member of the governing body shall
declare a substantial financial interest the member
has in an official action and ask to be excused from a
vote on the matter;
(2) the presiding officer shall rule on a
request by a member of the governing body to be
excused from a vote;
(3) the decision of the presiding officer on
a request by a member of the governing body to be
excused from a vote may be overridden by the majority
vote of the governing body; and
(4) a municipal employee or official, other
than a member of the governing body, may not
participate in an official action in which the
employee or official has a substantial financial
interest.
(b) If a municipality fails to adopt a conflict
of interest ordinance by June 30, 1986, the provisions
of this section are automatically applicable to and
binding upon that municipality.
(c) This section applies to home rule and general
law municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN answered that it does not appear to allow
for debate.
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Amendment 1, and opined that the real
question, among other voiced questions, is whether it should be
two-thirds or a majority of the body. Chair Claman advised that
he will not remove his objection.
2:06:57 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Reinbold,
and Kopp voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Kreiss-
Tomkins, LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-4.
2:07:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to a conceptual amendment he may
propose for HB 44, Version O, page 2, lines 19-20, [Sec. 2, AS
24.60.030(g)]. The amended language would read as follows:
(g) ... a legislator shall request to be excused
from voting on a question before a house of the
legislature if the legislator or a member of the
legislator's immediate family has a financial interest
in a business
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that the conceptual amendment gets
to the heart of the matter in that there would be full
disclosure on the floor of the House of Representatives so the
full body can hear it and call for the vote. He continued that
it would take out the unnecessary obstacle of a legislator not
being allowed to vote because the legislator may believe they
have a conflict. The legislator would rise and declare the
conflict and still have the option of voting depending upon the
vote of the body. Although, in a House of Representatives or
especially a Senate committee it may be difficult to have a
quorum and that one denied vote has a much greater impact in
committee than before the body as a whole. He argued that it is
within the spirit of the legislation and does not take away the
committee work, and that he hoped a member who felt they were
conflicted would say so, even in committee. Currently, he
noted, the legislation reads "may not vote" and that may be
something that goes beyond what is needed when the House of
Representatives floor issue is covered.
2:10:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded the committee of the policy which requests
amendments by 5:00 p.m. the day before the bill is heard, and
advised the committee it would not be voting on this conceptual
amendment today. Although, the committee could discuss it
during this meeting.
2:11:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that it makes sense to
him.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN agreed that the conceptual amendment helps
get to the heart of the intent of the legislation, allowing for
a vote to take place on the floor of the House of
Representatives and not to feel like the legislation is
automatically eliminating someone's representation of their
district by a vote in a small place like a committee. He said
he would accept this friendly conceptual amendment.
2:11:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER opined that a key reason for the
legislation is to be certain the [votes] are on the record. He
asked whether Representative Kopp would accept language such
that it is recognized there is a possible conflict of interest
on the committee record and the legislator is still allowed to
vote. Therefore, the conflict would be out there and the
legislator could declare they have a conflict of interest but
the rule being [indisc.] the legislator is allowed to
participate in discussion and amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded that Representative Fansler's
suggestion is consistent with his thoughts in that he hopes the
legislator would disclose, but that the legislation wouldn't be
to stop the legislator from voting at that point.
2:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN advised that, currently, within the uniform
rules there is nothing to say that a legislator needs to declare
a conflict of interest in committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that a bill was before the House Judiciary
Standing Committee that created a basis for Chair Claman to
declare a conflict because he owned stock in some company. He
would still count for purposes of reaching the quorum, and he
had announced he would be rise on the floor of the House of
Representatives regarding the conflict. He related that the
public is concerned about people with an interest voting on the
legislation, so the bill passes out of committee by a 4 to 3
vote with Chair Claman having disclosed this conflict, and is
the fourth vote that gets it out of committee. Therefore, he
said, those in the public that would object to legislators
voting on bills in which they have an interest, would say that
the bill made it out of committee, yet Chair Claman had this
conflict. He referred to this example and asked whether this
makes the public any happier if having reached the quorum, the
person with the conflict is nevertheless allowed to vote on
whether the bill moves out of committee, rather than abstaining
in committee and leaving it to the remainder of the committee to
gather their votes to move the bill forward. He noted that the
example reflects the Senate committees more so than the House of
Representative committees. He said he offered that example for
purposes of discussion which reflects a certain concern with the
public's perception.
2:15:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed that the uniform rules are silent
on this issue, and opined there may be a Legislative Legal and
Research Services opinion as to whether or not a legislator is
required to declare a conflict within the committee process.
She suggested there may be something in Mason's Manual, which is
where legislators look to when the uniform rules do not
specifically cover an issue.
2:16:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed to the issue of smaller committees
in the other body wherein there may be three members on a
committee of which one member has a conflict, and if there are
differing opinions between the other two legislators, the bill
fails to get out of committee. He related that the problem with
full public transparency is that the bill never really gets to
the floor of the House of Representatives where all members, and
the public, hear a detailed explanation because the body, as a
whole, would be voting. The problem is with the smaller
committees in the other body, he reiterated.
2:17:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Doug Gardner,
Director of Legislative Legal and Research Services, was on line
and could offer insight into Representative LeDoux's
recollection.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Mr. Garner was not on line.
2:18:13 PM
JERRY ANDERSON, Legislative Ethics Committee Administrator,
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, stated that
Representative LeDoux is correct, and that Advisory Opinion
2004-02 contains that specific provision wherein it does not
apply to voting in a committee, and subsequent opinions have
also stated that same fact.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether any of the advisory opinions
say whether or not a legislator is supposed to identify the
conflict and then vote anyway.
MR. ANDERSON explained that the advisory opinions specifically
state that a legislator is not required, under the current rules
and statutes, to extend that [requirement] to the committee,
including chairing a committee, debating in a committee, and
voting in a committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the ethics rules parallel
state criminal law and federal law because she could recall
cases in federal court dealing with "honest services," and she
thought people got into trouble for not declaring a potential or
actual conflict throughout the process, possibly in this state
or other states,
2:21:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he has a similar memory that it was either a
statute or common law doctrine regarding "honest services," but
he could not recall the details.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that within Alaska's statutes,
three statutes discuss misuse of public office or abuse of
public office regarding taking or failing to take an action that
a public officer should have or should not have taken. He
opined that conflicts are addressed, but it would probably need
to be a fairly egregious act to be applied against a legislator.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented "You never know." She opined
there is a federal doctrine that talks in terms of "honest
services."
CHAIR CLAMAN, after asking for further committee questions
regarding the conceptual amendment and hearing none, moved to
comments on the legislation before the committee.
2:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that she was trying to
understand the intent of the legislation because currently
legislators have the opportunity to declare a conflict, and the
conflict is listed on the legislative financial disclosures.
Historically, she said, the legislature has allowed all members
to vote to make sure that "18,000 members that we represent are
not disenfranchised" because this is a citizen legislature. She
said that any member of the legislature making greater than
$10,000 from a client or spouse's client or company, owns stock,
works in public schools, is a state employee, et cetera, the
legislator needs to recuse themselves from a committee vote or a
vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. She pointed
out that she was unsure whether retirement benefits were
encompassed in the legislation if they receive more than $10,000
of benefits.
2:26:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that she was incorrect.
MR. JOHNSTON clarified that each of these situations would
require a fact based inquiry; therefore, under the bill more
details on each situation would be necessary to determine
whether or not a legislator fell under the substantial benefit
provision and had a conflict of interest.
2:26:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that [the language] is clear in
that if a legislator received $10,000 from the University of
Alaska, from public schools, as a state employee, from unions,
stocks, private sector, and retirement and benefits [there would
be a conflict of interest]. She asked whether the legislation
is targeting individuals working in the private sector, or
whether it is discussing a smaller group than those she
mentioned.
MR. JOHNSTON answered the legislation dictates that in the event
a legislator has an income of $10,000, it could be public,
private, or a sole proprietor, and this business made a
substantial benefit from the passage of certain legislation,
more so than the rest of that class, business, or industry, a
legislator could determine they have a conflict of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered concern that the legislation is
subjective because "how are we supposed to know on everybody -
we don't get to see everybody's income tax" to determine whether
they make more than $10,000 from a certain bill related entity.
She said it is hard for legislators to see all of that
information before every single committee vote and noted that
incomes can change. Legislators would have to spend a lot of
time studying other people's financial records before voting
before the committee or the legislature as a whole, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN pointed out that legislators honor each
legislator to have the integrity and wherewithal to know when to
rise and declare a conflict of interest, and the legislation
does not change that. The legislation offers a measure for
legislators to stand on to recognize when they have a conflict
based upon the legislation, he said.
2:29:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that, currently, the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics deals with issues such as
conflicts. He asked how these types of situations would be
handled if this legislation had never been filed, and what the
legislature would revert to.
MR. JOHNSTON reiterated that, currently, a legislator can ask to
abstain, but if a legislator feels that another legislator did
not declare a conflict of interest, an anonymous complaint can
be made to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and the
committee conducts an investigation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that, currently, a legislator
would pursue a complaint through the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics. By putting this legislation into statute it
takes it out of the realm of the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, and now the legislator would be prosecuted by a district
attorney.
MR. JOHNSTON argued that the legislation provides a better
standard for the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to
actually refer back to AS 24.60.030 and regard it as another
standard it could use. Currently, AS 24.60.030 does deal with
legislative ethics, and it falls under the purview of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics to deal with that complaint.
[HB 44 was held over.]
[HCR 1 was held over.]
2:32:13 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR001 & HB044 Amendment 1 1.27.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 44 HCR 1 |
| HB044 ver D 1.20.17.PDF |
HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB044 ver O 1.23.17.PDF |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HCR001 ver J 1.20.17.PDF |
HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB044 Explanation of Changes 1.23.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB044 Sectional Analysis 1.23.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HCR001 Sectional Analysis 1.23.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HB044 Sponsor Statement 1.23.2017.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HCR001 Conflict of Interest flow Chart 1.27.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HB044 Supporting Document-Letter AKPIRG 1.23.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HCR001 Leg Research Report 15-423m 1.20.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HB044 Leg Research Report 15-422m 1.20.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB044 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS 1.25.17.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 44 |