Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2001 02:15 PM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2001
2:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Vic Kohring
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Dave Donley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN)
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 103(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 103
SHORT TITLE:ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/20/01 0432 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/20/01 0432 (S) STA, JUD
02/22/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/22/01 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/01 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/27/01 (S) Moved CS(STA) Out of
Committee
02/27/01 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/01 0534 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE
02/28/01 0534 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, HALFORD; NR:
PHILLIPS,
02/28/01 0534 (S) PEARCE, DAVIS
02/28/01 0534 (S) FN1: (ADM)
03/09/01 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/12/01 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/12/01 (S) Moved CS(JUD) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(JUD)
03/13/01 0634 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR NEW
TITLE
03/13/01 0635 (S) DP: TAYLOR, COWDERY; DNP:
ELLIS
03/13/01 0635 (S) NR: THERRIAULT
03/13/01 0635 (S) FN1: (ADM)
03/13/01 0635 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/22/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/22/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/23/01 0783 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/23/01 0783 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, LEMAN;
03/23/01 0783 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/23/01 0783 (S) FN2: (ADM)
03/23/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/23/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/28/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
MINUTE(RLS)
03/29/01 0858 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2OR 3/29/01
03/29/01 0863 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/29/01 0863 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/29/01 0863 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/29/01 0863 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
103(FIN)
03/29/01 0864 (S) PASSED Y17 N2 A1
03/29/01 0867 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/29/01 0867 (S) VERSION: CSSB 103(FIN)
03/30/01 0782 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/30/01 0782 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/03/01 0825 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR
04/03/01 0825 (H) DP: WILSON, FATE, JAMES,
COGHILL;
04/03/01 0826 (H) DNP: CRAWFORD, HAYES; NR:
STEVENS
04/03/01 0826 (H) FN2: (ADM)
04/03/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/03/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/03/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/01 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/09/01 (H) Moved HCS SB 103(JUD) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(JUD)
04/10/01 0926 (H) JUD RPT HCS(JUD) NT 2DP 1DNP
2NR
04/10/01 0926 (H) TITLE CHANGE PENDING HCR 15
04/10/01 0927 (H) DP: MEYER, JAMES; DNP:
BERKOWITZ;
04/10/01 0927 (H) NR: COGHILL, ROKEBERG
04/10/01 0927 (H) FN2: (ADM)
04/10/01 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/10/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(FIN)
04/11/01 0954 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 6DP 1NR 1AM
04/11/01 0955 (H) DP: WHITAKER, HARRIS,
LANCASTER,
04/11/01 0955 (H) HUDSON, MULDER, WILLIAMS; NR:
CROFT;
04/11/01 0955 (H) AM: DAVIES
04/11/01 0955 (H) FN2: (ADM)
04/11/01 0963 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/11/01
04/11/01 0963 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/11/01 0964 (H) FIN HCS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/11/01 0964 (H) HELD IN SECOND READING
04/11/01 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/11/01 (H) Moved HCSSB 103(FIN) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
04/12/01 0993 (H) RETURNED TO RLS COMMITTEE
04/19/01 (H) RLS AT 2:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE BALASH, Staff
to the Senate State Affairs Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of SB
103, the Senate State Affairs Committee.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 506
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 103.
SUSIE BARNETT, Administrator
to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
PO Box 101468
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-1468
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the ethics provisions in SB
103.
BROOKE MILES, Assistant Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
2221 E Northern Lights, Room 128
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PETE KOTT called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. Representatives Kott, Porter,
Morgan, McGuire, and Berkowitz were present at the call to
order. Representative Joule arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Senator Donley was also in attendance.
SB 103-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
Number 0005
CHAIR KOTT announced that the only order of business before the
committee would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN), "An Act
relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics."
Number 0013
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt HCS CSSB 103, version Q, as
the working document before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that [version Q] incorporates the
recent court ruling into the [House] Judiciary Standing
Committee version [version I]. Version Q also includes [new
language] dealing with communications on page 7, lines 1-5. He
said those are the significant changes. Copies of U.S. District
Judge James Singleton's ruling were distributed to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection.
Therefore, version Q was before the committee.
Number 0064
JOE BALASH, Staff to the Senate State Affairs Committee, Alaska
State Legislature, identified SB 103 as primarily a housekeeping
measure. In large part, SB 103 takes into account
administrative rulings and formal and informal advice provided
by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and places those
in the statutes. Therefore, everyone will be clear in regard to
how the law works. This legislation primarily deals with the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and the Ethics statutes.
He pointed out that under the election campaign statutes, [the
legislation deals with] the issue of multiple groups controlled
by a single candidate, contribution limits due to the Singleton
decision, and an allowance for a candidate's contributor
statement to be filed by the candidate on behalf of the
contributor. The legislation also makes some modest increases
on the amount of personal property that can be carried forward
by the candidate. Furthermore, the legislation clarifies the
definition of "contributions." Mr. Balash pointed out that the
ethics portion of the legislation can be divided into the
following two portions of the bill: the use of public assets
and resources for nonlegislative purposes and the use of public
assets for political purposes. The legislation makes allowances
for a variety of things that, in most cases, were allowed due to
decisions made by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
He specified that this legislation allows for the reasonable use
of the Internet, photographs, transporting personal computers
not owned by the state but used primarily for state business,
and widens the window that legislators can use their office
before and after session. There is also a section regarding
gifts of transportation from one legislator to another.
CHAIR KOTT inquired as to the rationale behind the increase in
property allowance from $2,500 to $5,000, which doesn't include
computers and printers.
MR. BALASH explained that the $2,500 amount was set a number of
years ago and people may not have considered all the items, such
as stationary and balloons that APOC considers to be property
and what can and cannot be carried forward.
CHAIR KOTT remarked that Senate districts would have twice as
many items to pass out during campaigns.
Number 0130
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that his biggest concern with the
Singleton ruling and version Q is the $5,000 allowance for the
purpose of influencing the nomination or election of a
candidate. Although he understood the court's ruling, he
expressed concern with how large gifts could be cordoned off and
how one could account for what works towards influencing the
nomination or election of a candidate. For example, the
Democratic Party has an executive director who isn't always
working on campaigns and thus he inquired as to how one
segregates the value of something generic from something that
benefits a campaign.
MR. BALASH surmised that under APOC's regulatory powers, certain
instances and forms would be established in order to determine
what contributions are for what. Currently, the Republican
Party's executive director's salary isn't divided up among all
the Republican candidates statewide and then assessed against
the party's contribution limit to candidates. Therefore, he
wasn't sure how such an example would fit in regard to
contribution limits and what is earmarked for specific
candidates and campaigns.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ posed an example in which someone does
a $100,000 advertising campaign to benefit the Democratic Party.
Although the advertising campaign doesn't specifically mention
any candidates by name, it clearly benefits everyone who is
labeled a Democrat and thus would hurt those labeled Republican.
This [soft money] is a problem.
MR. BALASH said that he wasn't sure if Representative Berkowitz
was speaking of an advertising campaign that is "at the behest
of or designed by or commissioned by the Republican Party or
Democratic Party" or whether he was speaking of an independent
expenditure on the part of a corporation or union.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that he was speaking in the
context of Section 2, which refers to the contribution to a
political party. He said, "There's nothing that would preclude
someone from dropping $100,000 on a political party and ... run
ads saying how good you are and how bad the other guys are
generically." Representative Berkowitz related his belief that
the legislature has the ability to prevent such mischief within
the constructs of the Singleton decision. He remarked that it
seems peculiar that the rest of the country is trying to move
away from soft money, yet "we" have this issue.
MR. BALASH pointed out that the rest of the country is also
struggling with the right of individual organizations and
individuals to speak at their own behest. He related his
understanding of a Colorado case in which the supreme court has
recently granted cert to address whether that is permissible and
whether the state has a legitimate and compelling state interest
to regulate that sort of activity in speech. He offered to
provide the citation to the committee.
Number 0202
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature, noted that
although he supported the proposed HCS, he does have one concern
regarding poet account interest at the end of a term of a poet
account. By returning to the existing statutory language, there
is no fix for this problem. He explained that the statute says
that only $5,000 a year can be withdrawn from a poet account.
Therefore, if a legislator has an interest-bearing poet account
that has money in it at the end of two years or four years,
there is no statutory authority to do anything with the money
that remains in the account. He informed the committee that
APOC has supported allowing a legislator to take out interest on
a poet account also. Although this is minor, it is an
accounting nightmare. Therefore, he asked if the committee
would consider inserting the following language:
Page 4, line 1, after "$5,000"
Insert "not including any interest paid on the
account"
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER remarked that the language should read,
"is limited to $5,000 and accumulated interest".
SENATOR DONLEY indicated agreement with that language.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that those who have been
legislators for a while and who put away $5,000 early on could
could end up with some "real" money after a while.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that under the poet account, a
legislator is only allowed $5,000 per year of the legislator's
term of office. Furthermore, the legislator is only allowed to
withdraw $5,000 a year. Therefore, the most interest that could
accumulate would be about $15,000 over a three year period, that
is if the individual is a Senator. Even over that period, the
legislator would have to withdraw $5,000 a year and thus the
amount [in interest] would decrease. Therefore, it would be
interest on the average of that amount of money over the three
years.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to what would happen if the
legislator had no use for it and no money was withdrawn.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that if the money isn't withdrawn,
there is a provision for redistribution of the money in the same
fashion as the excesses from campaign finance.
CHAIR KOTT related his belief that the money has to be extracted
from the reserve account on an annual basis. However, the
entire amount doesn't have to be expended in any year. He posed
an example in which a legislator withdrew $5,000 in the first
year, which can be done if the legislator has $10,000 in the
reserve account. If the legislator withdrew $10,000 and nothing
was used the first year, then that legislator could transfer the
$5,000 from the first year into the second year and thus the
legislator would have $10,000. The legislator could spend
$2,000 of that $10,000, which would leave $8,000 at the end of
the second year. The legislator would know that if he/she were
reelected, then the legislator would be able to roll that $8,000
into the next year's poet operational account. If the
legislator was not elected, then the money would have to be
dispersed to the various entities provided for. He pointed out
that when the legislator takes funds from the reserve account,
the operational account, there is a tax liability.
Number 0261
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to $5,000 rather than $10,000,
which Chair Kott used in his example. Representative Berkowitz
remarked that if the $5,000 is not withdrawn, the interest would
amount to a considerable amount of money.
CHAIR KOTT interjected that it must be taken out of the reserve
account.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that interest accumulates now
and thus the only thing this would do is allow the legislator to
spend it rather than leaving it in the account until it is
distributed to charities, the party, et cetera.
CHAIR KOTT related his belief that it seems appropriate because
when that $5,000 is withdrawn it could be moved into an
interest-bearing checking account. Therefore, a bit more than
$5,000 would be available to spend.
SENATOR DONLEY highlighted the fact that this is poet money, the
use of which is severely restricted. This money can only be
used for governmental functions, office functions, or
legislative functions.
Number 0285
SUSIE BARNETT, Administrator to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, said that she has
the House Finance Committee version, version K, before her.
Therefore, she didn't know whether anything regarding the ethics
provisions were changed in version Q.
CHAIR KOTT answered that he believes that the two ethics
provisions are in the same form as they were in the House
Finance Committee version.
MS. BARNETT reiterated her comment to the House Finance
Committee as follows: "I think that the changes made in the
House were positive and I also compliment you folks on not over
amending the Ethics Code."
CHAIR KOTT recalled that most of the language included in SB 103
that relates to the Ethics Code is from past advisory opinions
from the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
MS. BARNETT agreed that is the case with several ethics-related
portions of the bill. For example, the language dealing with
the constitutional amendment came from an advisory opinion.
However, several are based on informal advice, which the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics has been asked to review but
have not been asked to provide a formal opinion. Ms. Barnett
pointed out that the new portion to the Ethics Code is located
in the section concerning the gift of transportation from a
legislator to another legislator. The Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics hasn't dealt with that formally. Informally,
Ms. Barnett noted that she has advised that such gifts remain
under the $250 cap or ensure that the travel had a legislative
purpose. Under this [legislation], it would exempt any of those
sorts of requirements and does not require disclosure.
CHAIR KOTT, upon no one wanting to testify on SB 103, closed the
public testimony on SB 103. He reminded committee members of
Senator Donley's earlier recommendation.
Number 0333
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee adopt the
following conceptual amendment, Amendment 1:
Page 4, line 1, after "$5,000"
Insert "plus any accumulated interest"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0342
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment, Amendment 1:
Page 2, line 5, after "candidate"
Insert "or candidates"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0355
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment, Amendment 3: Page 6, delete sub-
subparagraph (iii), lines 3-6.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to how "slate of
candidates" would be defined. He asked if that would include
the entire statewide slate, areawide slate, senatewide slate, et
cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that is left to the party. He
noted that in Anchorage the Republican Women's Club does this.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned "comparison piece"
advertisements, which can twist the most innocuous position. He
felt that [sub-subparagraph (iii)] allows for a circumvention of
the limits of gift to an individual candidate. He related his
belief that [the legislature] shouldn't allow for more hard
money contributions.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Berkowitz voted for
Amendment 3. Representatives Porter, McGuire, Morgan, Joule,
and Kott voted against Amendment 3. Therefore, Amendment 3
failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.
Number 0396
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment, Amendment 4:
Page 7, lines 2 and 4,
Delete "and their families"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that under the current
language, the Alaska Conservation of Voters could mail letters
to all its members and their relatives, which he didn't believe
was the intention.
SENATOR DONLEY related his belief that this particular language
comes from the federal statutes. Under the federal election law
this is protected free speech and not considered a campaign
contribution. This falls under the First Amendment right of
association and political free speech. Senator Donley felt that
it would be fine to limit it to the employees or actual members
of an organization. However, the intent with [this language]
was that if an organization mailed information to the [member's]
household, someone else in the household may open it up.
CHAIR KOTT asked if there was objection to Amendment 4. There
being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 0426
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to page 9, subparagraph (G),
which deals with the "incidental use of governmental resources
by a legislator or legislative employee to support or oppose a
proposed amendment to the state or federal constitution".
Representative Berkowitz expressed his belief that legislators
shouldn't be involved with a proposed constitutional amendment
once that has passed the legislature. He specified, "There is a
line of demarcation after a vote has been taken in this body
where ... the resolution ceases to be within our control and
then becomes part of ... public political domain." This line
shouldn't be blurred.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that although he understood the
reasoning, practicality is probably the reason this language is
included. He highlighted the difficulty in an elected official
not being able to relate their opinion on these matters when
asked. Therefore, practically speaking, Representative Porter
didn't believe there was a way to avoid this.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there was anything currently
that would preclude a legislator from answering constituent
questions regarding his/her opinion of a state or federal
constitutional issue.
MS. BARNETT answered no, as long as the legislator doesn't
advocate one way or the other. An advocacy role would be
problematic.
Number 0448
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether a legislator's inability to
take a position would be tantamount to limiting his/her free
speech. He asked whether it would be a violation if a
legislator stated the position he/she, as an individual, would
take on a certain issue. Technically, would it be a violation
if a legislator took out an advertisement that specified how
that legislator would vote on a particular amendment.
MS. BARNETT informed the committee that in March 1998 the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics addressed this question. The
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics concluded that under the
Ethics Code a legislator or legislative employee may engage in
activity in support or opposition to a proposed amendment to the
state constitution and may use governmental resources, including
paid staff time, to support or oppose the proposed amendment.
However, it was noted that state facilities may not be used by
legislators or legislative employees for activities relating to
contributions. Furthermore, a legislative employee may not, on
government time, solicit, accept, or receive contributions in
support of or opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment.
CHAIR KOTT related his understanding then that the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics has already reviewed this
section being discussed and have rendered an opinion that
substantiates or supports this section.
MS. BARNETT agreed.
CHAIR KOTT pointed out that the language in version Q further
restricts this by referring to incidental use.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed that this language seems to be more
restrictive than the opinion of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Amendment 5.
CHAIR KOTT offered the following conceptual amendment, Amendment
6, that would be inserted around page 3, line 15. Amendment 6
attempts to address a problem that only occurs once every ten
years when there is reapportionment. This would address only
those Senators who have the opportunity "to put the maximum
amount carry over from their campaign, excess monies into their
reserve account," he said. Since many of those Senators would
likely be truncated after two years and since they can only
access a certain amount after one year, there is the likelihood
that half of what they transferred into the reserve account
could not be accessed.
Number 0491
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee adopt the
aforementioned conceptual amendment, Amendment 6. There being
no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY mentioned that he wasn't aware of what the House
Judiciary Standing Committee had done with the constitutional
amendment issue. He inquired as to the meaning of "incidental,"
which he believes to be problematic. He explained that it would
be difficult to say that all the work answering inquiries
regarding a constitutional amendment that the legislator
sponsored was incidental. Furthermore, Senator Donley suggested
that it was a lot of work and thus wasn't incidental.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ informed the committee that the
language was the result of an amendment by Representative Ogan.
The discussion in the House Judiciary Standing Committee
revolved around the potential for abuse of the privilege through
phone banking out of the legislator's office or performing many
mailings out of the legislator's office. It was felt that a
restriction to incidental clearly applied to responses to
inquiry as opposed to a more proactive lobbying effort on behalf
of or opposed to a constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the House Judiciary Standing
Committee discussion addressed the possibility of a legislator
being the sponsor of the constitutional amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ recalled that it was to some extent.
He recalled that the House Judiciary Standing Committee felt
that responding to inquires was distinct to proactive
involvement, such as mailings requesting a certain vote or
establishing a phone bank that might target wavering voters.
SENATOR DONLEY stated his preference for specifying that a phone
bank can't be utilized rather than using the vague language of
incidental. He remarked that it would be difficult for him to
characterize the preparation of a voter's guide statement as
incidental. However, he felt that the voter's guide statement
is an important and appropriate constitutional function for the
sponsor of these proposals.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that even the preparation
of a voter's guide statement would be an incidental use of state
resources because it incurs a relatively small cost to the
state.
SENATOR DONLEY related his understanding of the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics' view that considers the cost of staff
time, which would not be incidental.
Number 0540
MS. BARNETT clarified that she hasn't run that change by the
full Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, although she felt
that it probably was a good change because it was compromise
language from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She
mentioned that the word incidental is no more challenging for
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics than minimal or
nominal or other words that are in the Ethics Code.
MR. BALASH informed the committee that during the House
Judiciary Standing Committee discussion there was an additional
section in SB 103, which was an APOC section regarding
campaigns. He pointed out that there is a ban on monies, monies
being used to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition,
held by state entities, including the legislature. He pointed
out that there was a section [in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee version] that created an exception. He explained, "If
it's permitted under this particular citation in the Ethics
Code, then it can be used." At that point, there was genuine
concern that a loophole was being created. There was concern
that monies being held by the Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
in expense accounts and phone bills would then be used to pay
for an active campaign, which was not the intent. Therefore,
the word incidental was inserted in subparagraph (G) in the
Ethics Code. He continued:
However, when we go to [the House] Finance Committee,
after discussions with APOC, the decision and
testimony from APOC at the time was that if we remove
this section in the APOC Code ... and that we retained
the exception in the Ethics Code that responding,
advocating, and opposing constitutional amendments in
the course of your duties -- it's allowable under the
Ethics Code therefore it's allowable and not
considered a contribution on the part of a campaign
effort for or against an amendment.
Mr. Balash explained that when the APOC language was taken out,
the compromise word "incidental" was not taken out. He
clarified that the compromise that was necessary in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee is no longer necessary. However,
with or without "incidental", he believes that if a legislator
crossed a threshold beyond responding in the normal course of
their day-to-day legislative duties, that would cross the line
in terms of what is interpreted as a campaign contribution.
This is the same line that could be crossed during a
[legislator's] candidacy.
SENATOR DONLEY surmised that what everyone is attempting to
address is reasonable use. For example, he felt that everyone
would agree that setting up a phone bank would be unreasonable.
He said he wasn't sure that "incidental" is the appropriate
word.
BROOKE MILES, Assistant Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, in response to Chair Kott, said that she had no
comment on this particular section since it is in the ethics
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated his agreement with Senator
Donley. However, he indicated that what is considered
reasonable under one fact situation may not be considered
reasonable under another.
TAPE 01-7, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that he believes the word
"reasonable" is a better individual approach than "incidental"
because these incidents are reviewed on an individual basis by
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Number 0586
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved the following amendment, Amendment
6:
Page 9, subparagraph (G),
Delete "incidental"
Insert "reasonable"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He related his understanding
that "we're" interpreting "reasonable." Therefore, perhaps
there should be language that specifies that the reference is to
reactive versus proactive use of state funds for active
campaigning.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that he wouldn't say that in every
situation. For example, if a legislator sponsored a
constitutional amendment on changing the constitutional
provision for the establishment of the redistricting committee
and an executive committee of a Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
didn't like the amendment, would the legislator be considered
proactive if the legislator called the members of that PTA
executive committee to offer explanation. Although he indicated
agreement that such action could be considered proactive, he
didn't think it should be precluded.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his belief that it shouldn't be
precluded when [the explanation] is not financed by the state
because once the resolution leaves the legislature, then it's no
longer the legislature's. If a legislator or the organization
pays for the phone calls related to [sponsoring] the
constitutional amendment or if the legislator or staff
volunteers time on these amendments, Representative Berkowitz
felt that such action would be acceptable and normal. However,
he did believe that the legislature "should let go" once the
vote is taken.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER specified that [the legislature] should
let go after the vote of the people. A constitutional amendment
process doesn't end until the people have voted and thus he
didn't see the need to hinder a person by not allowing them to
use their own office to support their own legislation
[constitutional amendment].
CHAIR KOTT agreed with Representative Porter. If a legislator
is a sponsor of a resolution that was going before the voters
and is approved, he asked if that legislator would be restricted
from using the legislator's staff to include an announcement
regarding the passage of it in the legislator's end of the
session newsletter. He mentioned that the legislator could use
his office allowance to pay for the newsletter. He said that
would be proactive.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that is why he believes that
"incidental" or "minimal" is preferable to "reasonable."
Number 0536
CHAIR KOTT mentioned the possibility of removing the word
"incidental" entirely, which would fall within the scope of the
opinion rendered by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned the possibility of removing
the section [subparagraph (G)] entirely.
MR. BALASH pointed out that in the past when language has been
put in and subsequently removed, it has impacted Ms. Barnett's
way of thinking and perhaps the Select Committee on Ethics way
of thinking. Therefore, he assumed that it would impact the way
in which the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics views that
opinion.
CHAIR KOTT recalled the legislature's efforts in previous years
to include opinions from the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics in statute in order to avoid different opinions from a
future Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER renewed the motion to adopt conceptual
Amendment 6, which reads as follows:
Page 9, line 31,
Delete "incidental"
Insert "reasonable"
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded by saying that use of the word
"reasonable" would more accurately reflect the advisory opinion
from the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
Number 0500
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Porter, McGuire,
Morgan, and Kott voted for Amendment 6. Representatives Joule
and Berkowitz voted against Amendment 6. Therefore, Amendment 6
was adopted with a vote of 4-2.
SENATOR DONLEY recommended that the committee request Kathryn
Kurtz, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, review the
committee's amendments in order to verify that they comply with
the federal decision.
CHAIR KOTT indicated agreement.
Number 0497
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS CSSB 103(RLS),
version Q, as amended out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, HCS CSSB 103(RLS) was reported from the House
Rules Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|