01/19/2008 11:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB296 | |
| HB281 | |
| HB260 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 19, 2008
11:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Anna Fairclough
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 296
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Parole;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 296 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act extending the statute of limitations for the filing of
complaints with the Alaska Public Offices Commission involving
state election campaigns."
- MOVED CSHB 281(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act relating to a State Officers Compensation Commission and
establishing how legislators, the governor, the lieutenant
governor, and executive department heads shall be compensated;
providing for an effective date by repealing the effective dates
of certain sections of ch. 124, SLA 1986; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 260(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE-
HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act requiring the state to procure United States and Alaska
flags manufactured in the United States; and requiring state
buildings and schools to display only United States and Alaska
flags manufactured in the United States."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 1/24/08
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 296
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING BOARD OF PAROLE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, FIN
01/17/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/17/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 01/19/08>
01/19/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 281
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN, GATTO
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, JUD
01/17/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/17/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/17/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/19/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 260
SHORT TITLE: STATE OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DOOGAN
05/15/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/07 (H) STA, FIN
01/17/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/17/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/17/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/19/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL STARK, Vice Chair
Parole Board
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 296 on behalf of
Representative Bob Lynn, sponsor.
ED RAIS, Chair
Parole Board
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
296.
KATHY MATSUMOTO, Executive Director
Parole Board
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 296.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question related to the fiscal
note during the hearing on HB 296.
MICHAEL SICA, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 281, Version 25-LS1115\M,
Bullard, 1/18/08.
BROOK MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 281.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 281.
JANET DeYOUNG, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the definition of "person" as it
appears in Alaska Statute, during the hearing on HB 281.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 260.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 11:10:13 AM. Representatives Roses,
Coghill, Johansen, Johnson, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 296-EXTENDING BOARD OF PAROLE
11:10:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the first order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 296, "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Parole; and providing for an effective date."
11:11:31 AM
MICHAEL STARK, Vice Chair, Parole Board, introduced HB 296 on
behalf of Representative Bob Lynn, sponsor. He noted that he
had worked in the Office of the Attorney General for 20 years
prior to his seven years on the board. He stated that the
proposed legislation would extend the life of the Parole Board,
which is set to sunset at the end of fiscal year 2008 (FY 08).
MR. STARK directed attention to the Parole Board's statistical
report for calendar years 1996-2007 [included in the committee
packet], which shows all the responsibilities that keep the
board busy. He said the board conducts hundreds of hearings
each year, during which it considers early release of persons
who have demonstrated that they are a "safe risk to be released
into the community." He indicated that a majority of the
hearings are focused on the issue of parole revocation, wherein
the parole board must decide whether to deal with the parolee
through intermediate sanctions, issue a warning, or put him/her
back in prison and require program participation.
11:13:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL stated that the Parole Board is an important
link in the corrections system. She directed attention to the
audit report, dated August 28, 2007, [included in the committee
packet], and asked for comment from the board regarding two
recommendations found in the audit [on page 7], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Board of Parole should increase public
accessibility to, and accountability for, its
administrative actions and operations.
The Board of Parole should hold a general session
meeting, open to the public, at least once a year.
11:14:25 AM
ED RAIS, Chair, Parole Board, replied that in response to
reading those recommendations, the board will be advertising
[its hearings] in local newspapers in Juneau, Fairbanks, and
Anchorage. He offered his understanding that in the past, only
one or two people have had questions of the board.
11:15:32 AM
MR. STARK, in response to Representative Doll, said the Parole
Board will be scheduling its statewide teleconference for public
participation in July.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL, citing another entry on page 7 of the
aforementioned audit, read, "... since 2001, the board has not
formally issued a statistical report summarizing how effective
the board has been at achieving operating objectives." She
commented that that is a long time between reports.
MR. STARK referred again to the statistical report covering the
period of 1996 to 2007. He stated, "In fact, the board has
produced annual statistics demonstrating what the board has
accomplished each year. However, due to some budget
constraints, they stopped publishing a formal report." He said
information has been made available on the web site. He
clarified, "It was the actual formal publishing that was
lacking, not the production of the statistics." In response to
a follow-up question from Representative Doll, he said the
legislature fully funded the board this fiscal year.
11:17:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN mentioned that he had questions
regarding a handout in the committee packet from the Division of
Probation & Parole's "Goals and Objectives," but that he would
wait to get clarification.
11:18:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked how many of the 497 full board
hearings conducted in 2007 were full-day sessions as opposed to
half-day sessions.
MR. STARK replied that the board typically hears 8 to 13
hearings in a day, and each hearing is allotted between 30
minutes to one hour. In response to a follow-up comment from
Representative Roses, he clarified that most of the days the
board meets are full days. He added, "So, you have to divide
that 497 by that number to figure out roughly how many days
there were of full compensation for hearings alone." He noted
that the statistics reflect that the board serves other
functions, too.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES told Mr. Stark that it would be helpful to
the committee if the board would submit the number of full days
and half day meetings to accompany the fiscal note to facilitate
translation of the information in order to decide whether or not
the fiscal note is in line.
MR. STARK noted that the compensation for board members is a
relatively minor expense in the board's budget. There are five
staff persons who work full-time.
KATHY MATSUMOTO, Executive Director, Parole Board, Department of
Corrections, acknowledged Representative Roses' request to see a
list of the number of full and half days that the board meets.
In response to that request, she explained that she cannot
recollect any half days scheduled in addition to the five full
days of hearings that the board schedules on its calendar each
month. She noted that additionally, individual board members
provide preliminary hearings. She said, "That also adds to the
cost in terms of compensation."
11:21:33 AM
MR. REIS reported that during calendar year 2007, he personally
conducted 172 preliminary hearings in Anchorage. He offered his
understanding that the other Parole Board member, Charles Moses
(ph), conducted almost 190 preliminary hearings, while Mr. Stark
conducted 124 preliminary hearings. He said [conducting
preliminary hearings] comprises a majority of the board members'
work. He noted that board members work out of their homes and
are compensated $16 per each file read. He said he believes the
board as a whole signed over 500 parole warrants last year.
MS. MATSUMOTO confirmed that statistic.
MR. REIS added that many board members are also required to
speak before the public, and they work in conjunction with the
department to discuss , for example, the budget and planning.
11:23:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated the need for this information to be supplied
to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES concurred. He clarified that he does not
think anyone believes the parole board is not putting in lots of
time; the information is needed simply in order to balance
finances.
11:23:39 AM
MR. REIS said the committee should also be made aware that in
addition to parole, the board is also responsible for clemency.
MS. MATSUMOTO inserted that the board members are responsible
for conducting final board hearings, preliminary hearings,
signing warrants, reading packets, and studying parole
conditions; however, "it falls on board staff in terms of
responsibility for clemency." She clarified, "The board doesn't
have any impact on that work; that's strictly assigned to board
staff."
MR. REIS said his point is that it will take a lot of board
staff time to conduct the business of the state in that area.
11:24:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked the sponsor why he chose 2016 as the
next sunset date. He asked if eight years was a deliberate time
frame.
11:24:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN indicated that choosing that date had to do with the
audit.
MR. STARK added that the last time the legislature extended the
Parole Board, they did so for an eight-year period.
11:25:04 AM
MR. STARK, in response to a question from Representative
Johansen, reiterated the board's plan to make an annual meeting
available to the public.
11:26:47 AM
MS. MATSUMOTO, in response to a question from Representative
Doll regarding past fiscal notes, reported the Parole Board's
past budgets as follows: $481,200 allocated and $612,424
expended in FY 03; $530,400 in FY 04; and $524,000 allocated,
with a supplemental of $65,000 in FY 05.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL observed that the board has been spending an
average of $600,000 [a year]; therefore, it is looking for an
additional $169,000 this year.
MR. STARK offered his understanding that the board is "looking
at a maintenance budget for this coming year," and that the
amount in the current fiscal note is the amount that was
appropriated last year.
MS. MATSUMOTO responded that she thinks there was an increase.
11:28:41 AM
MR. REIS noted:
One of the issues per board compensation members was
never budgeted. I believe per day it was $150 per
board member. That had not been changed since 1984.
When I became the chair under the Murkowski
Administration, Governor Murkowski signed a bill that
allowed each board member, on a full day of
compensation, to receive $250 dollars per day. That
was never offset in our budget until last year. We
asked for $794,000, and I believe that we were
appropriated ... $736,000.
We also have - due to retirement benefits ... for
employees to the board -- as the committee all knows,
those costs have all gone up. And that was our
request there to fund all those positions. And the
board ... for years has been funded for two ... Parole
Officer III positions, and for almost two and half
years we did not have one of those positions filled,
because our budget was restricting ... [filling] that
position.
CHAIR LYNN noted that the fiscal note analysis read:
Passage of this legislation should have no fiscal
impact on the Department of Corrections.
CHAIR LYNN said the issue at hand is whether or not to extend
the Parole Board, and he stated that he does not want to do too
much of the House Finance Committee's work for them.
MR. REIS assured the committee that the board members will be
willing to go through the board's budget line by line with the
House Finance Committee. In closing, he stated that he thinks
the eight-year off-set for the budget is a good thing, because a
sunset audit of the board yearly would be a waste of state
resources. He said he understands the importance of outside
perception and having an annual open meeting for the public, as
is mandated in statute; however, as Mr. Stark previously noted,
the board is not fully funded to do a lot of the work as is
required by statute. In response to a question from
Representative Johnson, he said he has not heard from the deputy
commissioner regarding allocations to the board this year.
11:32:22 AM
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
in response to a question from Representative Johnson, noted
that the fiscal note has been modified. He explained:
The number being reflected for [FY] 09 on the note
page, first column - appropriation required - is the
base in the governor's request FY 09. The second
column in the fiscal note, where you see FY 09 again,
would be additional monies required to implement. The
base is $769.1 thousand in the current governor's
budget request. By passage of the sunset law, there
[are] no additional funds required.
11:33:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HB 296 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 296 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 11:34 a.m. to 11:35 a.m.
[Due to technical difficulties the recording did not start until
11:43 a.m.]
HB 281-CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS
CHAIR LYNN announced the next order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 281, "An Act extending the statute of limitations for the
filing of complaints with the Alaska Public Offices Commission
involving state election campaigns."
11:43:10 AM
MICHAEL SICA, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the sectional analysis for the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 281, Version 25-LS1115\M, Bullard,
1/18/08 [not yet before the committee].
MR. SICA said Section 1 would establish in code a retention
period of six years for records of transactions listed in this
section. Section 2, he said would add a new section, AS
15.13.042, mandating that each candidate, group, nongroup
entity, or person required to report under this chapter preserve
all necessary records for six years. Section 3 would amend AS
15.13.380(b), increasing the statute of limitations for filing a
complaint for an alleged campaign finance violation from one
year to five years. Mr. Sica said a sentence [from AS 24.60.170
- Legislative Ethics Law] was added, which read: "The time
limitations of this subsection do not bar proceedings against a
person who intentionally prevents discovery of a violation of
this chapter."
11:46:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL indicated that she needed a minute to read a
memorandum she had just received.
CHAIR LYNN requested a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
11:47:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 281, Version 25-LS1115\M, Bullard, 1/18/08, as a
work draft.
11:47:43 AM
CHAIR LYNN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL explained that the memorandum is from
Representative Gruenberg, asking the committee to consider
amending the sentence to read: "The time limitations of this
subsection do not bar proceedings against a person who the
commission finds willfully prevents the discovery of a violation
of this chapter. Such a finding by the commissioner must be
based on clear and convincing evidence."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that "intentionally" and
"willfully" are standards that the committee may wish to
consider; however, the issue will be subject to review in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR LYNN noted that he, Representative Coghill, and
Representative Gruenberg serve together on the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. He indicated that the issue would be dealt
with in that committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said that is acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the committee decide which
version of the bill is before them.
11:49:40 AM
CHAIR LYNN removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Version M was before the committee as a work draft.
11:50:16 AM
MR. SICA returned to his review of the sectional analysis. He
stated that Section 4 pertains to [AS 24.45.111(a)], which
already requires that a lobbyist retain records required under
this section, and would add to that requirement: an employer, a
retainer, or a contractor of a lobbyist. The section would also
increase the retention period [from one year] to six years.
Section 5, he said, [amends AS 24.45.131] to allow any person,
not just a qualified voter, to file a complaint with the
commission.
11:51:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if the sponsor really means "any
person," because that could include, for example, a nonresident
visiting Alaska on a fishing trip or a head of a political party
based in Washington, D.C. He said it would be nice if the
person were at least a citizen of the U.S.
11:52:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL warned that the legal definition of
"person" can include corporation or trust.
CHAIR LYNN suggested the committee consider specifying that the
person be a resident of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the committee should probably have
that discussion. He asked if the intent of the bill sponsor was
to review the bill today, because he sees many places in the
bill that may require significant discussion. In response to a
question from Chair Lynn, he said he would like to hear the
entire sectional analysis before offering amendments.
MR. SICA continued to Section 6, which he said would add a new
section, AS 24.45.131(d), which would prohibit commission
members and staff who file complaints from participating in any
commission proceeding related to the complaint. Section 7, he
noted, would add AS 24.45.135, allowing "a person" - as well as
a commission member or staff - to file a complaint [alleging a
violation of AS 24.45.121-24.45.171 has occurred or is
occurring]. Section 8 would amend AS 24.60.170(a), increasing
the time limitation on complaints alleging a violation of this
section from two years to five years. Furthermore, Section 8
would increase the time limitation for investigation of
complaints against a former legislator from one year to five
years.
MR. SICA noted that Section 9 would add AS 24.60.255, which
would allow a person, as well as a member of the Alaska Public
Office Commission (APOC) or a member of its staff to file a
written complaint alleging a violation of [AS 24.60.200-
24.60.260] has occurred or is occurring. The complaint must be
filed within five years after the date of the alleged violation.
Section 10, he said, adds a new section, AS 39.50.055, which
would allow a person, as well as a member of APOC or APOC staff,
to file a written complaint alleging a violation of this chapter
has occurred or is occurring. Like Section 9, Section 10 would
require the complaint to be filed with five years after the date
of the alleged violation. It also would not allow an APOC
member or APOC staff who files a complaint to participate in any
proceeding of the commission related to the department.
11:56:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for confirmation that Title 24
addresses legislative issues, while Title 39 deals with
administrative issues.
CHAIR LYNN said he believes that is correct.
MR. SICA said, "Public officials." He continued with his review
of the sectional analysis. He said whereas Section 10 has to do
with a complaint filed to APOC, Section 11 involves public
officials with a complaint filed in court; it would allow a
person, not just a qualified voter, to bring a civil action to
enforce any of the sections of this chapter. Section 12 would
amend AS 39.50.100, relating to public officials, and would
create a statute of limitations of five years from the date of
the alleged violation for a complaint to be filed under this
section. Mr. Sica offered his understanding that "the code is
currently silent on that," and the sponsor is looking for
consistency through Titles 15, 24, and 39.
MR. SICA said Section 13 would establish an effective date for
the sections that have been amended and created in this act. He
stated, "I think all that language in there is an attempt to
capture the current investigations allowable under the existing
code, while avoiding retroactivity on these sections. I don't
know if it accomplishes that, but I think that's what we're
looking at." Sections 14-16, he observed, "just look like
boiler plate statements to me."
11:58:15 AM
BROOK MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), thanked the committee for considering the
request of APOC that the five-year statute of limitations be
expanded to all four disclosure laws administered by the
commission. The applicable statutes she listed as: AS 15.13,
campaign disclosure law; AS 24.45, lobbying law; AS 24.60.200-
260, including the Legislative Ethics Act - the financial
disclosure that is filed by members of the legislature, the
public members on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
and the legislative directors that work within the Legislative
Affairs Agency; and AS 39.50, executive branch financial
disclosure. She also thanked the bill sponsor for including the
same statute of limitations across all of those codes, as well
as including a six-year retention of records, codified within
each statute. Having that records retention requirement in law
will aide APOC in searching through records further in the past.
MS. MILES, regarding the concern over changing qualified "voter"
to "person," stated:
It was only in the lobbying law, where the free
conference committee ... wrote this law in 1976 had
the words that you had to be a qualified voter.
Today, if a foreign natural visiting Alaska came into
our office and filed a complaint under the campaign
disclosure law ... this agency may have to accept it,
because under that law, it's always been [that] a
person could file.
12:02:31 PM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, said she concurs with Ms. Miles' remarks about making
APOC's statute of limitations the same and changing the statute
of limitations within the Legislative Ethics Code from two years
to five years for filing a complaint, in order to make it
consistent across the board, since both APOC and the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics work closely together.
MS. ANDERSON related that she had spoken with Mr. Sica about a
change to AS 24.60.170(a). She directed attention to page 4, of
Version M, to a sentence beginning on line 7, which read:
However, the committee may reinstitute proceedings
concerning a complaint that was closed because a
former employee terminated legislative service or
because a legislator left the legislature if the
former employee or legislator resumes legislative
service, whether as an employee or a legislator,
within five [TWO] years after the alleged violation.
MS. ANDERSON explained that because the proposed language
increases the statute of limitations from two to five years and
the statute of limitations is already five years for a
legislator, she thinks it is redundant to include "or because a
legislator left the legislature" and "or legislator" within the
proposed sentence.
12:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved Amendment 1 to Version M, as
follows:
On page 4, line 9, following "service":
Delete "or because a legislator left the
legislature"
On page 4, line 10, following "employee":
Delete "or legislator"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
12:06:28 PM
MS. ANDERSON asked the committee to consider that once a
legislator leaves office, there is very little left in the
sanction code to impose any kind of sanction upon a legislator
who is out of office. She offered an example of a former
legislator who failed to file his final disclosures that were
due at the Ethics Office and was fined $200. When he refused to
pay, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics referred the
case to the Office of the Attorney General; however, that office
does not follow up on fines unless they are over $500. She
questioned whether this issue could affect APOC in terms of that
agency's dealings with public officials. In response to a
question from Representative Johansen, she clarified that the
fine she referred to in the example had to do with disclosures,
and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is asking for an
increase in that fine through a separate bill. She said that
when it comes to an issue regarding a complaint that's filed
with the ethics committee, and the committee finds "probable
cause," it has the option under AS 24.60.178 to impose a civil
penalty of not more than $5,000 for each offense, or twice the
amount improperly gained, whichever is greater. That section in
statute also allows the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
to make a recommendation or take any appropriate measures. So,
the rest of the sanctions that are recommended in the statute
really have to do with individuals who are still legislators.
12:08:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN interpreted Ms. Anderson as saying there
are "no teeth," but he said if a fine is $5,000, for example, he
is going to pay attention to it.
MS. ANDERSON explained that the previous example was more about
a disclosure than a complaint. She continued:
I'm just saying that the only measure that seems to be
listed in the statute for a sanction would be ... the
dollar amount, versus any other type of sanction. So,
there [are] still some teeth there, but I guess I'm
just pointing out that once the ... decision of
probable cause is made ... it is just strictly the
dollar amount.
MS. ANDERSON asked Representative Roses if he, as a member of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, would like to
expound on that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES replied that it's a matter of making the
dollar amount high enough that it is worth the Office of the
Attorney General's pursuit of the matter.
CHAIR LYNN said he is disturbed that the attorney general is not
pursuing the issue no matter the monetary value.
12:11:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, regarding having a statute of
limitations on the ethics issue, stated that the fact is once
someone leaves legislative service, there may be little "teeth"
involved; however, should that person choose to file again, then
there are teeth, because it becomes "a huge character issue on
that particular individual." He expressed concern regarding how
authority given by the legislature may be used. He asked Ms.
Anderson, "What should we anticipate as a committee that was
worth keeping records for five years on?"
MS. ANDERSON offered an example wherein a legislator leaves
office at the end of 2008, and two years down the road it
becomes known that while he/she was still in office, legislation
had been proposed that directly benefitted that legislator. A
complaint could be filed against that legislator. Ms. Anderson
said this would not create more record keeping, but would mean
the committee would be looking at information that surfaced
after the term of the legislator that would have been in
violation of the Ethics Code. The Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics would be obligated to do an investigation and
make a recommendation if it found probable cause. In response
to a follow-up comment from Representative Coghill, Ms. Anderson
said if the committee found probable cause, the only option in
the Ethics Code currently would be a penalty of $5,000 or less.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concluded that the question is whether or
not the penalties are sufficient, because with the extended
statute of limitations, the accountability measure would be kept
alive for a period of five years after public service ended.
MS. ANDERSON answered that's correct.
12:17:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to page 3 of Version M,
Section 6, lines 19-21, which read as follows:
(d) If a member of the commission or a member of its
staff files a complaint, that member of the commission
or member of its staff may not participate in any
proceeding of the commission relating to the
complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if there are ever any complaints
brought forth by APOC, or if the complaints are brought only by
citizens outside the board.
MS. MILES replied that in the past, APOC staff members have
filed complaints; however, she offered her understanding that
that has not happened since the late '80s.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question from Representative
Roses, clarified that the statute related to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics is a little bit different from
that of APOC. The ethics statute allows the committee to bring
forth a complaint; the chair signs the complaint on behalf of
the committee. A situation where the committee initiates its
own complaint, she explained, is when information becomes known
to the committee, but no complaint has been filed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he wanted it clear on the
record that the limitation related to APOC, in which a committee
member is not allowed to sit in on the complaint hearing if
he/she is the one to have brought the complaint forward, has
nothing to do with the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
He added, "Otherwise, if they brought it on behalf of the entire
committee, there would be nobody there to hear the complaint."
MS. ANDERSON responded that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated, "I just want to make sure that's on
the record that that's not the intent of this bill."
12:20:06 PM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
12:20:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to hear for the record
the definition of "person" found in Alaska Statute.
12:20:28 PM
JANET DeYOUNG, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil
Division (Anchorage), in response to a request from
Representative Johnson, provided the definition of "person" as
it appears in AS 01.10.060(a)(8), which read as follows:
(8) "person" includes a corporation, company,
partnership, firm, association, organization, business
trust, or society, as well as a natural person;
12:20:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "Can you think of anything other
than a government entity in a state that would not be a person?"
MS. DEYOUNG responded, "I'm not even sure that a government
entity wouldn't be a person, to tell you the truth."
CHAIR LYNN surmised that the intent behind the discussion is to
decide if the committee does not want a corporation to be able
to file a complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that his concern is that a
group or an individual may form a corporation, file a complaint,
disband, and disappear.
12:21:49 PM
CHAIR LYNN stated that he has concern regarding Section 5. He
suggested changing the language to read: "a resident of the
state of Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that then it would be
necessary to know if the corporation was a resident. He stated
that he would like the language to specify "registered voter" -
someone who has at least enough vested interest in the state to
register and participate in the system - because he said he
thinks that would serve the purpose of eliminating corporations
and partnerships.
CHAIR LYNN concurred, but questioned how to phrase that in the
bill.
12:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved Amendment 2, as follows:
On page 3, line 13:
Delete "person"
Insert "registered voter"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. He
said he appreciates the offer of Amendment 2, but wants first to
ensure that it would not leave the word "person" elsewhere in
the bill.
12:25:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection, reiterating
that he would like the amendment to be conceptual.
12:25:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL withdrew Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 3,
which would replace the word "person" wherever it appears in the
bill with the words "registered voter".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES suggested that the amendment should specify
the change is to "person" as applies to a person filing a
complaint. He explained that there are other areas in the bill
where "person" applies to someone who is on the board or serves
on the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that he is not sure he wants
anyone serving on the commission who is not a registered voter.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, in response to Chair Lynn, clarified that
he had not just moved to adopt an amendment to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 3. He highlighted
the following in the bill: "any person" - on page 3, line 13;
"A person" - on page 3, line 23, and page 4, lines 15 and 25;
and "Any person" - on page 5, line 4. He recommended that the
amendment be drafted by Legislative Legal and Research Services.
CHAIR LYNN said, "In other words, we know what we want to do,
[we're] just trying to figure out how to get there."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asserted, "And that's why it was
conceptual was my understanding."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "If that's your intention on
those lines, then I will withdraw my objection."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that he had objected, and he
removed his objection to [Conceptual] Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, [Conceptual] Amendment 3 was
adopted.
12:28:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to page 2, Section 4,
which read as follows:
*Sec.4.AS 24.45.111(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person required to register or report as a
lobbyist or as a person who employs, retains, or
contracts for the services of a lobbyist shall
preserve all accounts, bills, receipts, books, papers,
and documents necessary to substantiate the reports
required to be made and filed under this chapter for a
period of at least six years [ONE YEAR] from the date
of the filing of the report containing these items.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he can understand requiring
lobbyists to keep records for six years, but questioned whether
it is necessary to require the same for those who retain
lobbyists.
MS. DEYOUNG responded that employers of lobbyists are
accountable presently under law; they file disclosure
statements. [Section 4 in the proposed legislation] would, she
said, permit the enforcement of those provisions in addition to
enforcement of the lobbying reporting requirements. She said,
"The record-keeping requirements facilitate the prosecution of
the requirements for both employers of lobbyists and a lobbyist
himself." In response to a request for clarification from
Representative Coghill, she said, "The requirement for record
keeping is new, but the obligation for the employer or retainer
or contractor of a lobbyist to report is longstanding. So, that
underlying disclosure requirement already exists."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he was not aware of that.
12:31:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to the second
paragraph on page 2 of a memorandum from Alpheus Bullard of
Legislative Legal and Research Services, included in the
committee packet, which read:
Your draft serves to increase the statute of
limitations for the filing of administrative
complaints with the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
Please be aware that these extended statutes of
limitation for the filing of complaints alleging
violations of AS 15.13 do not serve to amend the
existing law pertaining to criminal prosecution of
related election law violations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said it seems like Mr. Bullard is
telling the committee that "these two things don't quite
comport." He asked for feedback.
12:32:41 PM
MR. SICA responded that Ms. Miles, Ms. Anderson, and Mr. Bullard
agree that "with the revisions in this Act now codifying in the
various sections themselves - everything from ... retention
schedules of six years to the statute of limitations for five
years - there's no longer a need for [AS] 15.56.130."
12:33:04 PM
MS. MILES responded:
Yes, the conflict with [AS] 15.56 would no longer
exist if we repealed that. ... Although the
commission may conduct an investigation that would
resolve in their referring their findings to the
Criminal Division of the Department of Law,
prosecution under campaign misconduct, of course, is
not within the jurisdiction of the commission.
MR. MILES suggested the question be asked of Ms. DeYoung.
12:33:56 PM
MS. DeYOUNG stated her concern is that if AS 15.56.130 covers
other election violations, there would definitely be an impact
if that provision is repealed. She said she would like the
opportunity for the Criminal Division of the department to
consider the issue.
12:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that particular issue belongs in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee. He recommended that the
committee refrain from deleting any language as yet.
12:34:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES echoed that sentiment, suggesting that the
House State Affairs Standing Committee send a note along with
the bill, asking the House Judiciary Standing Committee to take
a close look at this particular provision to determine whether
or not it should be repealed.
12:35:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his intent to "keep a real tight
handle on the money." He asked if the fiscal note is money that
is included in the governor's proposed budget.
MS. MILES answered no.
12:35:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it seems that the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, to a certain extent, and the Alaska
Public Offices Commission have become judge, jury, and hangman,
without the oversight. He said he is uncomfortable with putting
too much power in one place, without some type of check and
balance system in place.
12:38:35 PM
CHAIR LYNN said he would ensure that this issue is addressed
when the House Judiciary Standing Committee hears the bill, as
three of the legislators on the House State Affairs Standing
Committee also serve on the House Judiciary Standing Committee,
including himself.
12:39:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated that as a member of the [House
Administration Finance Subcommittee], he will track the fiscal
notes for HB 281.
12:39:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report CSHB 281, Version 25-
LS1115\M, Bullard, 1/18/08, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 281(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 12:40:20 PM to 12:43:23 PM.
HB 260-STATE OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
12:43:26 PM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 260, "An Act relating to a State Officers Compensation
Commission and establishing how legislators, the governor, the
lieutenant governor, and executive department heads shall be
compensated; providing for an effective date by repealing the
effective dates of certain sections of ch. 124, SLA 1986; and
providing for an effective date."
[Amendment 1 was pending before the committee with an
objection.]
12:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, Alaska State Legislature, reviewed
the bill, which he had introduced at the last committee meeting
on Thursday, January 17, 2008. He said the proposed legislation
attempts to recreate a salary commission similar to the one that
existed at the end of the 1970s. The commission would consist
of five members [appointed by the governor], with one of those
members chosen from a list provided by the Speaker of the House
and one chosen from a list provided by the President of the
Senate. The commission would make recommendations at least
every two years regarding the salaries of the governor,
lieutenant governor, legislature, and commissioners of the State
of Alaska, and those recommendations would become law within 60
days unless specifically rejected by the legislature. The
recommendations would be subject to appropriations.
12:46:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, at the request of the chair, reviewed
Amendment 1, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 18, following "not":
Insert ", in the four years preceeding [sic] that
member's appointment,"
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES explained that the amendment would not
disallow former legislators or commissioners from serving. He
said he felt it is important to allow people to serve who know
the background of the jobs they are reviewing.
12:47:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said his intent was to prevent criticism
of the commission for "helping out their friends."
Notwithstanding that, he said he does not object to Amendment 1,
because four year's time seems appropriate for anyone who has
been involved to have been out of office.
12:48:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
12:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to language on page 3,
beginning on line 23, which defines the duties of the
commission, and he asked if there is a reason why the sponsor
chose to have the administration only in the review process and
"not include some staff support, since we're the ones
instituting this."
12:49:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered that his choice was simply a
matter of keeping the legislature at arm's-length.
12:49:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that executive branch members
are in the equation, too; therefore, the arm's-length
consideration is one-sided.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said Representative Coghill is absolutely
right. He explained that the arm's-length arrangement in this
case is based on the history of the past salary commission,
where the problems have all been related to legislative
compensation.
12:50:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to page 3, lines 23-25,
which read:
Sec. 39.23.530. Staff. The director of personnel in
the Department of Administration shall serve as ex
officio secretary to the commission and provide
research, technical, and administrative services.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES pointed out that an ex officio member does
not get to vote; therefore, the staff would not be in a
decision-making position.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN confirmed that it is not his intent that
the Commissioner of the Department of Administration or his/her
designee would be a voting member on the salary commission.
12:51:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL turned to page 4, line 5, which proposes:
"The commission shall prepare its preliminary findings and
recommendations for the compensation of state officers by
November 15." He asked Representative Doogan if this would be
done annually.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that the recommendation would
need to be made every two years.
12:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, regarding the November 15 date, observed
that another section of the bill proposes that the
recommendation of the commission would automatically take effect
in 60 days, unless the legislature rejects it. He said, "Well,
60 days from November 15 would put us into January 15, and that
would be the day we usually gavel in, if our 90-day session date
that we have remains ... the same. So, we'd have to have a
special session in order to act on it if ... indeed the 60 days
kicked in."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN explained that November 15 would be the
date for preliminary findings, with the assumption that there
would then be time for public comment and other activity before
the commission completed its report and handed it over to the
legislature. He said the timing is intended to ensure the
recommendations are given to the legislature "and there are 60
days."
12:53:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the language [in subsection
(d)], on page 4, proposes that the commission will submit its
findings and recommendations during the first 10 days of a
legislative session. He surmised that the language requiring
the commission to "give reasonable public notice" [on page 4,
line 7], refers to reasonable accommodation, not reasonable
time.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to the phrase, "a bill
disapproving all the recommendations", one page 4, line 15, and
he offered his understanding that the legislature can only
reject through a resolution. He indicated that that is the case
concerning the constitution. He asked Representative Doogan if
he has considered that.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN replied that he had not. He committed to
sorting that issue out before the bill leaves the next committee
of referral, which is the House Finance Committee.
12:56:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to page 4, lines 24-
25, which read:
(e) The commission may prepare amendments to the
report submitted under (d) of this section and notify
the legislature that the amendments are available.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Representative Doogan how he
envisions that process working.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered:
The amendment portion is intended to take care of a
situation in which the commission has made a final
report and subsequently finds out that it made a big
mistake. ... It's simply to give them a mechanism to
fix that while the bill is still before the
legislature, so that, essentially, the final product
is not flawed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with that; however, he
said that through his years of service with the legislature, he
has found that "every door that lets something in, also lets
something out." He asked the sponsor to ponder possible areas
of misuse.
12:58:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved on to page 5, lines 15-17, which
read as follows:
Sec. 39.23.560. Policy of the legislature. It is
the policy of the legislature that the commission
recommend an equitable rate and form of compensation,
benefits, and allowances for legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that was the original intent of the
first commission. He asked Representative Doogan if he intends
to leave it to the commission to decide what equitable means.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered yes. He said he thought it
important to have a statement in HB 260 describing the intent of
the legislature in establishing the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL drew focus to page 6, lines 19-21, which
read as follows:
(b) If the first recommendations submitted by the
State Officers Compensation Commission under (a) of
this section are disapproved or are not fully funded,
the commission may continue to submit recommendations
under (a) of this section until secs. 1-5 of the Act
take effect.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "Because of the amendment
capacity and the recommendation capacity, now we have somebody
knocking at the door, kind of in perpetuity." He asked the bill
sponsor if that was his intent.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN answered yes. He explained, "The failure
of the previous method is that it stopped."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the legislature could be
forced with the same question on a regular basis. He said, "I
guess we'll just leave that to reasonable people. And you're
expectation is that they would have that capacity."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that it is his fervent hope that
the governor will appoint reasonable people who will take
reasonable positions. If that proves not to be true, he stated,
the ultimate authority continues to rest with the legislature,
because it can always repeal a law, if fitting to do so.
1:01:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would look into his previous
concern regarding whether the rejection of the legislature would
need to be by resolution or by bill.
1:01:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said the crux of the problem is that the
legislature is reluctant to set new salaries because of
perception, and a commission would force the issue every two
years. He concluded, "I think the concept is ... well."
1:02:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 260, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
281(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
1:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reviewed the committee schedule for Tuesday,
January 22, 2008.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he is keeping a running total of the
amount of dollars sent out of committee through fiscal notes.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
1:04:14 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|