Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/02/2002 05:12 PM House OMB
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
OMBUDSMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE
April 2, 2002
5:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Randy Phillips, Co-Chair
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Johnny Ellis
Representative Pete Kott, Co-Chair
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Selection of an Ombudsman
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Tamara Brandt Cook, Director
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Mr. Skiff Lobaugh
Human Resources Manager
Personnel Office
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-01, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIR RANDY PHILLIPS called the Ombudsman Selection Committee
meeting to order at 5:12 p.m. All members were present. He asked
Ms. Cook to address the committee.
MS. TAMARA BRANDT COOK, Director of the Division of Legal
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, told members that AS
24.55.020 speaks to the appointment of an ombudsman, but it is
incredibly sparse regarding the procedure to be used and says
nothing about whether the application process is to be public or
confidential. She said in general, the legislature has adopted
policies that require personnel information to be kept
confidential. However, the ombudsman is a special appointment.
She explained that when the position was advertised, a notice was
attached that said applications for the position of the ombudsman
are a matter of public record and may be made available to the
public upon written request to the Legislative Affairs Agency
personnel office after the selection process has been completed.
MS. COOK explained the selection process contains two steps.
First, the selection committee chooses a nominee. The nominee's
name is then submitted to the full legislature for confirmation.
The selection process is completed if the nominee is confirmed.
At that point, the applications would be treated as public
records. She noted that process has been used in the past for the
ombudsman. She said that raises a question regarding the right of
privacy of the individual and said she cannot recommend the
committee release the applications at this point.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS asked at what point in time the applications
can be made public.
MS. COOK said they could be released after the selection process
is completed when the nominee is confirmed. She pointed out the
identity of the nominee will become public when placed before the
full legislature for confirmation. She told members that because
this is a special type of committee and the application process
is not covered by a personnel act, the committee could have
drafted an application solicitation with different terms because
no procedure is set by statute.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS said the committee wants to agree on about five
applicants to interview. He asked Ms. Cook whether the
discussions that lead to narrowing the pool to five should be
confidential.
MS. COOK said that is a hazy question that the committee may
decide either way on. She indicated the Uniform Rules apply to
all legislative bodies, not just the standing, special and joint
committees. The Uniform Rules require public meetings of all
legislative bodies and set out some situations for which it is
appropriate to go into executive session. One or two statutory
provisions that attach to the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics allow that committee to hold some of its hearings on a
confidential basis and to hold its materials as confidential. But
because this committee does not have that statutory umbrella over
it, it falls under the Uniform Rules, which require meetings to
be held in public unless it goes into executive session.
MS. COOK explained that one of the three reasons it is
appropriate to go into executive session under the Uniform Rules
is to discuss a matter that might damage or bring into question
the reputation of a person. Normally, discussing applicants would
not carry that sort of a burden, but it is possible. If the
committee feels it is faced with the possibility of damaging an
applicant's reputation during a free flowing discussion, it would
be appropriate to go into executive session. She pointed out
once a discussion starts, it is difficult to corral before a
damaging remark might come out. She told members if the committee
goes into executive session, all legislators could attend.
CO-CHAIR KOTT asked Ms. Cook to explain the other two reasons the
committee could go into executive session. He asked if one was
to discuss expending public monies and whether hiring an
ombudsman would fall under that reason.
MS. COOK clarified that it applies to situations where knowledge
of matters would have an immediate effect on a serious fiscal
matter. That is used fairly regularly when the legislature is
facing an emergency situation, often when it involves litigation
against the legislature for a monetary claim. An executive
session is not appropriate to discuss general expenditure
questions in which public knowledge will not affect the state
finances. She said her hunch is that committee members will be
wrestling with the personal reputation matter.
CO-CHAIR KOTT asked how Ms. Cook "marries" up the idea that there
is an expectation of confidentiality on the one side but no clear
reason to go into executive session. He asked her how to get
around the conflict if the committee speaks openly about an
individual by name.
MS. COOK agreed the committee is faced with a conflict. She
repeated the applicants were told their applications would not be
made public. They were not told their names would be kept
confidential in the course of a public meeting. She said she is
not sure that the committee has promised applicants that they
would not be discussed in general terms in a public meeting. If
the committee gets into specific details and compares applicants
in a way that might damage an applicant's reputation, she
recommended the committee go into executive session. She said if
members are concerned that might happen, the committee should
probably go into executive session ahead of time.
CO-CHAIR KOTT maintained that if committee members intend to pare
down the list to five nominees, he expects that there will be
some discussion about qualifications for the purpose of choosing
the most qualified. He asked if that would be justification to go
into executive session.
MS. COOK said it would.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS noted that he was involved in the last two
selections for the ombudsman, and if members wanted to ask
certain questions of an applicant or discuss personalities, they
would go into executive session. However, the initial interviews
lasted 15 or 20 minutes each and were public. He said that so
far, three committee members have selected nine names.
CO-CHAIR KOTT asked Ms. Cook what justification the committee
would use to go into executive session to interview the
candidates once it pares down the names to five.
MS. COOK said the answer is not clear-cut, but if the committee
treats it as a personnel matter, legislative policy treats all
personnel matters as confidential so the committee could exercise
that discretion.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if House members have met and pared down the
list of applicants.
CO-CHAIR KOTT said they have not. He noted that Representative
Berkowitz was not present and wanted to get input from each
member.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS told members that the three Senate members
looked at all of the applications and individually selected their
choices. They then got together and made a common list. He
offered to provide those names at this time.
CO-CHAIR KOTT asked if the three Senate members met collectively.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS said they analyzed the applications
individually and then met, at which time each Senator presented
his top five applicants. He said that although they could have
come up with 15 names, they had some common nominees so they have
nine names.
CO-CHAIR KOTT said he thought the entire committee would go
through that process, not the House and Senate separately.
SENATOR ELLIS explained that the Senate members were trying to
expedite the procedure since the previous meetings were
postponed.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS announced a brief at-ease at 5:30 p.m.
Upon reconvening, CO-CHAIR KOTT said the House members came up
with nine names also.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS asked what Co-Chair Kott intended to do about
the absence of Representative Berkowitz.
CO-CHAIR KOTT said that Representative Berkowitz was due
momentarily and that his staff had arrived.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS provided the following names.
The three Senators unanimously agreed on two of the
applicants: Suzan Armstrong and Maria Moya.
The following three names were supported by two of the
Senators: Gwen Byington was supported by Senators Ellis
and Phillips; Ruth Decamp was supported by Senators
Stevens and Ellis; and Linda Lord Jenkins was supported
by Senators Stevens and Phillips.
The following names were supported by one Senator:
Shirley Dean was supported by Senator Ellis; Holly Hill
was supported by Senator Stevens; Theda Pittman was
supported by Senator Ellis; and Tom Nelson was
supported by Senator Phillips.
CO-CHAIR KOTT noted that all three [Representatives] supported
Linda Lord-Jenkins. He said that two Representatives supported
Maria Moya, Peter Giannini, Gwen Byington, and Bridget Brice.
5:45 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ arrived.
After further discussion, the committee eliminated the names of
the nominees that were only supported by one committee member.
CO-CHAIR KOTT noted that Linda Lord Jenkins and Maria Moya have
the support of five of six committee members. Gwen Byington and
Suzan Armstrong have the support of three of six. Ruth Decamp and
Peter Giannini have the support of two of six. The remaining
candidates have the support of one member.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the committee has decided to interview the
top six vote-getters.
AN UNIDENTIFIED COMMITTEE MEMBER said that members agreed to
interview five at the initial meeting but the list contains six
names because of a tie.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that he only voted for three
candidates so far and would like to add his support to Bridget
Brice. He said he would cast his last vote for Theda Pittman.
CO-CHAIR KOTT said the next question is whether to interview the
bottom four vote getters or to pick one of them.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to interview all eight of the top vote
getters.
SENATOR STEVENS said he did not want to vote between the bottom
four vote getters without a chance to carefully review the
applications.
CO-CHAIR KOTT asked if the committee would be paying the
applicants' transportation costs for the interviews. He suggested
providing them with constituent airfares to lower the cost.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE stated for the record that she is
opposed to paying transportation costs as all applicants do not
have the consensus of all committee members. She then clarified
that she would be in favor of paying transportation costs for the
top six candidates.
CO-CHAIR KOTT pointed out that the four candidates at the bottom
of the list have the same number of votes.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS suggested the committee decide whether to bring
all eight candidates to Juneau or to bring fewer.
SENATOR STEVENS repeated his opposition to having to vote between
the four bottom vote getters without having another chance to
review their resumes.
CO-CHAIR KOTT agreed and said this is the area where the
committee may run into problems comparing qualifications.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested going into executive session.
CO-CHAIR KOTT said that is possible if the committee wants to
take four hours at this time, which he would rather not.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS suggested voting on whether to pay
transportation costs for all eight candidates first.
SENATOR ELLIS repeated his motion that committee members
interview the eight people listed as the top vote getters.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS said the motion carried, 4 to 2. He noted the
committee would look into getting the best airfare possible.
CO-CHAIR KOTT suggested setting up the interviews in advance to
coincide with the airfare restrictions.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS announced the committee would interview
Jenkins, Moya, Giannini, Byington, Armstrong, Brice, Decamp, and
Pittman. He asked Skiff Lobaugh to contact the candidates to set
up travel arrangements or a teleconference interview.
MR. LOBAUGH, Human Resources Manager, Personnel Office,
Legislative Affairs Agency, asked committee members to find a
common date on which to interview candidates.
SENATOR STEVENS suggested setting up the interviews on two half-
days.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS agreed and directed Mr. Lobaugh to schedule
four interviews on each of two days. He suggested setting up the
interviews from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. and to try to arrange travel so
that candidates could travel to and from Juneau on the same day.
TAPE 02-1, SIDE B
MS. COOK suggested determining whether the interviews will be
held publicly or privately before candidates are contacted.
CO-CHAIR KOTT suggested holding the interviews privately. He
expressed concern that the first candidates to be interviewed
would be placed at a disadvantage if all other candidates could
listen to the questions and answers.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Cook to describe the standard
procedure.
MS. COOK said there is none, which is why she suggested
candidates be informed ahead of time whether the interviews would
be held in private.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS asked Ms. Cook if she suggests doing the
interviews in private.
MS. COOK said she believes that would be appropriate and that the
notice of the meeting should indicate that the committee would be
holding an executive session for the purpose of conducting
interviews.
CO-CHAIR KOTT moved to conduct the interviews during an executive
session in the conference room in the Terry Miller Legislative
Office Building. There being no objection, the motion carried. He
then asked members to provide a set of interview questions so
that everyone is working from the same "sheet of music."
MR. LOBAUGH informed committee members that Personnel Office
received 78 qualified applications for the position.
CO-CHAIR PHILLIPS stated that the advertisements were placed on
two separate occasions.
CO-CHAIR KOTT clarified that the advertisement was run a second
time because it was not clear in the first advertisement that the
position could be located in either Anchorage or Juneau. The
applicant pool increased from 13 to 78 after the second
advertisement.
There being no further business to come before the committee, CO-
CHAIR PHILLIPS adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|