Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/21/1998 08:17 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 1998
8:17 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL 244
"An Act relating to polygraph or other lie-detecting testing for
certain correctional officers."
- MOVED SB 244 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL 257(STA)
"An Act relating to voter qualification, disqualification, and
registration; relating to voter registration officials and election
personnel; relating to election notices; relating to mail
elections; relating to certain election procedures; relating to the
transportation of ballots; and relating to the official election
pamphlet."
- TECHNICAL CHANGES TO CSHB 257(STA)
CS FOR SENATE BILL 105(FIN) AM
"An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics;
relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office;
relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to
public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain
state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the
definition of 'public official' for employment security statutes;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 105(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 244
SHORT TITLE: POLYGRAPHS FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD, Taylor
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/16/98 2217 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/16/98 2217 (S) STA, JUD
2/17/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
2/17/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
2/18/98 2561 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
2/18/98 2561 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD NR: DUNCAN
2/18/98 2561 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COR)
4/06/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
4/07/98 3177 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 1NR
4/07/98 3177 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, MILLER, PEARCE
4/07/98 3177 (S) NR: ELLIS
4/07/98 3178 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COR)
4/08/98 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
4/08/98 3199 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1NR 4/8/98
4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/08/98 3200 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 244
4/08/98 3200 (S) PASSED Y19 E1
4/08/98 3205 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/09/98 2936 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/09/98 2936 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
4/21/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/21/98 (H) STA RPT 1DP 3NR
4/21/98 (H) DP: JAMES; NR: IVAN, RYAN, HODGINS
4/21/98 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COR) 2/18/98
4/21/98 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
BILL: HB 257
SHORT TITLE: VOTING & ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/22/97 1263 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/22/97 1263 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
4/22/97 1264 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
4/22/97 1264 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
4/07/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/09/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/21/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 105
SHORT TITLE: ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE ETHICS COMMITTEE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/25/97 494 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/25/97 494 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
3/11/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/11/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/13/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/13/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/18/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/25/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/25/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/26/97 873 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
3/26/97 873 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD
3/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM)
3/26/97 873 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB (LAA)
3/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM)
4/10/97 (S) FIN AT 5:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/10/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/10/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/15/97 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/15/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/16/97 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/16/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/16/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/16/97 1163 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 5NR NEW TITLE
4/16/97 1163 (S) DP: PEARCE; DP IF AM: PHILLIPS
4/16/97 1163 (S) NR: SHARP, PARNELL, ADAMS, TORGERSON,
4/16/97 1163 (S) DONLEY
4/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA)
4/16/97 1163 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (LABOR, LAW)
4/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA)
4/18/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
4/18/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/18/97 1276 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 4/18/97
4/18/97 1279 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/18/97 1279 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/18/97 1280 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED AND WITHDRAWN
4/18/97 1281 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y4 N13 E3
4/18/97 1282 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y4 N13 E3
4/18/97 1283 (S) AMENDMENTS 4, 5 NOT OFFERED
4/18/97 1283 (S) AM NO 6 ADOPTED Y12 N5 E3
4/18/97 1285 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y7 N10 E3
4/18/97 1286 (S) AM NO 8 FAILED Y5 N12 E3
4/18/97 1287 (S) AM NO 9 ADOPTED Y17 N- E3
4/18/97 1291 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/18/97 1291 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 105(FIN) AM
4/18/97 1292 (S) PASSED Y15 N2 E3
4/18/97 1292 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/18/97 1292 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/21/97 1334 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
4/21/97 1335 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 10 UNAN
CONSENT
4/21/97 1335 (S) AM NO 10 ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1
4/21/97 1336 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
4/21/97 1337 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N2 E1
4/21/97 1337 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/21/97 1370 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/22/97 1232 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/22/97 1233 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
2/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/12/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/12/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/17/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/17/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/19/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/24/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102
2/24/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/26/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102
2/26/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/03/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102
3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/05/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102
3/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/12/98 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 102
3/12/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/19/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102
3/19/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/26/98 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 102
3/26/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/04/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/04/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/07/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/09/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/16/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/18/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/21/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Senator Ward
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4921
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Ward, sponsor
of SB 244.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the technical changes to HB 257.
BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Senator Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 101
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4823
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 105.
SUZIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant
Legislative Ethics Committee
P.O. Box 101468
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 258-8172
POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer questions on SB 105.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-56, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Ivan, Ryan and Hodgins.
Representatives Elton and Berkowitz arrived at 8:25 a.m. and 8:32
a.m. respectively.
SB 244 - POLYGRAPHS FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is SB 244, "An
Act relating to polygraph or other lie-detecting testing for
certain correctional officers," sponsored by Senator Ward.
Number 0007
CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator
Ward, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He said
SB 244 is a very simple bill, basically it would allow that
correctional officers are administered polygraph testing as a pre-
employment screening device, investigations, etcetera. Currently
the only people that the state allows to take polygraph tests are
police officers and certain transportation officials. Those would
be the security guards at the airport. This basically brings
correctional officers who are armed and exhibit a great amount of
power over their subjects to be brought under that same capability
of having that test administered. He indicated it is supported by
both the unions that represent their correctional officers and
there has been no opposition as of yet to this piece of
legislation.
Number 0016
CHAIR JAMES asked what is the accuracy factor of lie detector
examinations.
MR. JOHNSON said he couldn't speak to that because he isn't an
expert on lie detectors. He indicated he knows they are used in
pre-employment screening for police officers. They are not the
definitive answer but it might lead to a further investigation, it
may not be the only thing that disqualifies an individual for
employment, but it might lead to further research into the
background of that individual. Generally they're accepted, by the
police department and the employment, as acceptable - with
acceptable measures, certainly not a 100 percent.
Number 0024
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN noted there are cultural differences and
backgrounds in some areas which this may cause confusion for some
Alaska Natives. He used Bethel as an example, he asked where the
tests are taken and who pays for them.
MR. JOHNSON replied the cost would be absorbed by the state. He
noted there is no fiscal note, so it would be very much like
filling out the application, the application is provided by the
state. In terms of the cultural differences, there's nothing in
this bill that mandates the lie detector. Currently they can
administer it to correctional officers - this gives them the
ability to.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated it's not mandatory, it's just an option.
MR. JOHNSON replied yes.
Number 0037
CHAIR JAMES indicated that there might be something else in the
application that would make them determine that (indisc. -
coughing) to do a lie detector test, some trigger, or would they
just choose to do it all the time. Chair James indicated she had
a problem with not everybody filling them out because if you don't
you're discriminating against people. She said, "I have a little
problem with giving a lie detector test to this person but not this
person."
MR. JOHNSON explained it's not mandatory. He stated he can't speak
to how the department will administer it that would be a policy
decision, they may choose to only do it in case of an investigation
where they've got a problem inside an institution and then they
chose to administer a lie detector test. They might use it as pre-
employment screening. He reiterated that he can't speak to how
they would use it, but this gives them the capability of using it.
They might not use it for pre-employment.
Number 0048
CHAIR JAMES clarified it's currently allowed for police officers
but not for correctional officers.
MR. JOHNSON replied, "Yes, and no one else in the state with the
exception of those limited transportation officials who are police
officers in terms of airport security. So, technically have all
the rights of police officers - are armed. Those are the only two
categories right now that can take the lie detector test, this just
adds correctional officers into that."
Number 0052
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN made a motion to move SB 244, with
individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There
being no objections, SB 244 moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 257 - VOTING & ELECTIONS
Number 0057
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 257, "An Act
relating to voter qualification, disqualification, and
registration; to voter registration officials; to election notices;
to mail elections; to certain voting procedures; to the
transportation of ballots; and to the official election pamphlet
and certain immunity from liability regarding claims arising from
publication of the official election pamphlet."
Number 0060
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor, came forward to explain the technical
changes that need to be made in HB 257. She said, "The Committee
Substitute that is before you, was heard at a hearing, I believe it
was two weeks ago. When it was taken to Legislative Legal
[Services] for official drafting of the CS, there were a couple of
technical changes that needed to be made and that's what we would
like to present to you. I believe everybody has a copy of an
amendment sheet... It merely changes the manner in which the title
is written. The drafter at Legislative Legal Services felt this
better covered the scope of the intent of the bill. There was a
section that was omitted in the original draft of the bill -
changing the word 'question' to 'special review' so that is added."
Number 0068
GAIL FENUMIAI concluded, "In order to clarify what type of testing
that the State Review Board would be doing of the ballot counting
equipment, we we're including, to add in there, in accordance with
the regulations adopted, because testing procedures - so that means
it would be detailed out in regulation. That's the effect of this
proposed amendment."
Page 1, lines 1-4:
Delete all material and insert:
An Act relating to voter qualification, disqualification, and
registration; relating to voter registration officials and
election personnel; relating to election notices; relating to
mail elections; relating to certain election procedures;
relating to transportation of ballots; and relating to the
official election pamphlet.
Page 4, line 24:
Delete (a)
Sec. 13 AS 15.15.198(a) is amended to read:
Page 4, line 25:
Insert before "(a)":
Sec. 15.15.198. Voter not on official registration list.
Page 4, following line 28:
Insert:
(b) A person whose registration is inactive under AS
15.07.130(b) and who votes a special review [QUESTIONED] or
absentee ballot shall have the ballot counted if
(1) the person was registered to vote for either of the
two most recent general elections;
(2) the person signs a statement to that effect; and
(3) the earlier registration is verified by the director.
Page 15, line 8:
After "accuracy":
Insert:
in accordance with the regulations adopted under (a) of this
section
CHAIR JAMES noted for the record Representative Elton is present.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 0076
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There
being no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0079
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move CSHB 257(STA), with
individual recommendation and attached zero fiscal note. There
being no objections, CSHB 257(STA) moved from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 105 - ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Number 0088
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is CSSB 105(FIN)
am, "An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics;
relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office;
relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to
public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain
state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the
definition of 'public official' for employment security statutes;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0090
BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Kelly
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He stated he
distributed the revised work draft, LS0079\Q, Cramer, 4/20/98, that
incorporates all the amendments made at the last meeting of the
State Affairs Committee.
MR. BROWN also distributed Amendment Q.1 that reflects some
concerns that other members of the House had, who probably won't
have an opportunity to look at the bill in committee themselves.
Number 0096
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked if travel at state expense is
included in the amendment.
MR. BROWN replied it is in both sections, the legislative ethics
section and the executive branch ethics section. Mr. Brown
referred to Section 17, page 15, AS 24.60.031 adds a new subsection
on fund-raising during session. Section 74, page 48, AS 39.52.120.
The provisions of the two are very similar and they do allow you to
"double-back" as long as you pay for your trip - the most recent
time you travel somewhere, then there's no 48 hours...
Number 0109
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS had a question on Section 17, page 15,
beginning on line 10.
(2) legislator made a trip at state expense to a place,
returned from that place, and then, within 48 hours, made a
second trip to the place and the cost of the second trip was
not paid for at state expense;
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "If I was in Fairbanks on state
business, flew into Anchorage on my normal course of going home,
and then I flew down to Kenai, and then returned, I haven't really
returned to the place that I came from at state expense - which
would be Fairbanks. ... I just wanted to make sure there's no
problem. ... Let's say that I live in Fairbanks, and I flew on
state business to Anchorage and then decided I was going to have a
fund-raiser, and it was a heck of a lot cheaper for me to fly to
Kenai at my own money and back ... or I even traveled by car to
Palmer and back at my own expense. Does then that absolve me from
having to go back to Fairbanks before I have a fund-raiser?"
CHAIR JAMES stated she didn't believe the intent of this is to have
you go back to Fairbanks.
Number 0127
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS gave another example. He said, "Let's say
that I lived in Kenai and I'm flying into Anchorage on state
business, and then while I'm there I think, well I'm going to have
a fund-raiser, there's a fund-raiser planned. Rather than go to
Kenai again, if I just rented a car and drove to Palmer and back,
made a trip out of town and back at my own expense, I guess that's
what I'm asking. As long as you make a trip out of the location,
and back at your own expense, it doesn't really matter where you
go."
CHAIR JAMES indicated what she would do is reimburse the state out
of her campaign money, the cost of getting from Kenai to Anchorage.
If you're going to have a fund-raiser, you take your fund-raising
money and pay your way to get there.
MR. BROWN stated if you look back at the beginning of prohibition,
you may not travel at state expense to a place where you plan to
hold a campaign fund-raising event. That's the initial rule you
have to look at -- it's a matter of planning. He said, "The best
way to protect yourself is to have the most - the leg immediately
prior to the fund-raiser, not be paid for at state expense.
Someone still might try to challenge you under this but that would
be your best first line of defense. Don't pay the last leg of your
journey with a state TR [travel request]."
Number 0149
MR. BROWN remarked, "I'm more concerned actually, because it just
occurred to me while you were talking, that second might not work
if you're really busy going back and forth, and it almost seems
(indisc.) subsequent. (Indisc.). So I don't know that we've
perfected this language yet, it's a thorny issue. And I don't
think I see a problem sequential legs like you do. I think as long
as your most recent leg -- we can only close it so tight and
there's still going to be a tiny loophole and I think that's
probably as tight as we can get it."
Number 0153
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said he agreed with Mr. Brown. Under the
provisions, as amended, he believes the simplest way out the bind
in that example would be, when you travel to Fairbanks at state
expense, either drive to Anchorage at your own expense or fly to
Anchorage at your own expense. Then you don't need to worry about
it because you haven't arrived in Anchorage on a state TR.
Number 0159
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said his point is, can you cleanse it by
taking a shorter trip someplace and going back. obviously it's
cheaper to buy a ticket to Kenai, and back and forth, or to drive
to Palmer, back and forth, than it is to pay your own way from
Fairbanks.
Number 0175
CHAIR JAMES stated she doesn't believe this amendment will stay in
the bill until the end. But it's very important to her because she
doesn't believe they should be traveling on state expense for
campaign fund-raising activities. She indicated she feels very
strongly about it both on the legislative and governor's side. She
would like to leave it in there.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS mentioned he agrees wholeheartedly, he's
just looking at the loopholes.
Number 0181
CHAIR JAMES said she would be happy to take an amendment.
Number 0187
MR. BROWN explained the first provision of Amendment Q.1 (page 3,
line 17, Version Q). He said the Campaign Finance Act currently
allows you to raise money for 45 days after your election
concludes. For most elections, those that occur the first Tuesday
in November, that's pretty much the end of the year (within a week
or two), so the concern that was brought to him was, "Why should it
just be the end of the year." Well, if it were the end of the
year, in the state, that would be the end of the year even for
April elections and that would be undoing what the voters and
legislature passed.
Delete: to any candidate later than the 45th day
Insert: to any candidate after the earlier of December 31 of
the year of the election or the 60th [LATER THAN THE 45TH] day
MR. BROWN said, "So the compromise language to address that concern
was that it would be either the 31 of December or the 60 day. It's
about 60 days from a November election to the end of the year, it
expands it a little bit - logically in people's minds that's not,
I don't think a huge change, giving them another week and a half,
giving you another week and a half basically to retire (indisc.) is
what it is. Or I suppose raise money to roll over to your next
account, but there's a limit on how much you can do that any more.
So this changes the timing deadline to continue raising money after
your election is concluded to 60 days after the race is over as
opposed to 45, or the end of the year so we don't have people going
60 days into January."
Number 0198
CHAIR JAMES said that does make sense.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Brown to explain how this would work
if you're defeated in a primary election, it would then be 60
days...
MR. BROWN interjected you'd have 60 days to wrap it up, yes.
Number 0200
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked, "Do we have any failsafe language in
here, that if the case is presently before the court, it determines
that a lot of this stuff is an evasion of our free speech, and so
forth, and throws it out. That we're not going to pass this
(indisc.), we're going to put it back in."
MR. BROWN responded he doesn't have failsafe or severability
language yet. He said he doesn't believe it's going to matter
because this is not putting any new sections into the Campaign
Finance Act, this is amending current section of the Act, but we're
not creating any new sections. Mr. Brown concluded, "If the law
(indisc.) throws those out, the changes just made would be moot
because the law they were changing would be moot - the changes that
makes the Legislative and Executive Branch Ethics Act would still
be made. Maybe we want to put specific severability language in
though, in the next committee of referral to ensure that."
Number 0208
CHAIR JAMES said that's a very good point because what we have
done, is we have done some things in this ethics act that parallel
the campaign finance, and so if the campaign finance goes away, it
doesn't automatically take this away.
MR. BROWN replied no it doesn't. He said he doesn't know that the
legislature wants to vacate its policy on fund-raising during
session if the Campaign Finance Act is thrown out.
CHAIR JAMES asked "If the Campaign Finance Act is thrown out, we
already had, before that a requirement that you couldn't raise
money during session - previous to that. That's one issue that
wouldn't - it still would go back to the way it was before wouldn't
it."
MR. BROWN replied it's changed a little bit, but that's correct.
The prohibition on raising money during session in the ethics law
predated the campaign initiative passed by the voters, so it
wouldn't change at all. No one has challenged the ethics Act as
being a violation of their constitutional rights.
Number 0216
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Brown to look into the severability clause
for a possible amendment. She believes an amendment would be a
good idea.
MR. BROWN indicated he would.
Number 0226
MR. BROWN referred to page 4, lines 25 and 26, Version Q. He
explained the amounts for the victory party and thank you gifts for
the volunteers of $500 and $50 respectively were not really
appropriate amounts. Mr. Brown said, "That a $500 party for a
large campaign might not be a very good party, and that a $50 gift
didn't necessarily restrict payment to volunteers, but is under
[AS] 15.13.116(a)(1), you can pay bills incurred for expenditures
reasonably related to your campaign, and that could really be a
contrast for personal services to any of your volunteers, or
nonvolunteers who'd be paid during the course of the campaign for
any amount you named. I mean really any cash payment for someone
who worked in your campaign in a substantial capacity would be
reasonably be related. So, putting in a gift amount just seemed
kind of unnecessary. Instead of changing the amounts there, it was
thought that it was easier just to just delete (2), on lines 25 and
26, because those gifts and victory parties are reasonably related
to your campaign under (1). And you're going to have to disclose
what you do with it anyway, so there's going to be public
disclosure of how you spent the money."
Delete:
(2) pay for a victory or a thank you party costing less than
$500, or to give a thank you gift of a value of less than $50
to a campaign employee or volunteer;
Insert:
(2) [PAY FOR A VICTORY OR A THANK YOU PARTY COSTING LESS THAN
$500, OR TO GIVE A THANK YOU GIFT OF A VALUE OF LESS THAN $50
TO A CAMPAIGN EMPLOYEE OR VOLUNTEER;]
Number 0237
MR. BROWN referred to page 4, lines 13 and 14. He said the changes
change the references to the public office expense term account and
public office expense term reserve options later on in the list.
He said we're changing line 13, to (a)(8) and on 14, to (a)(9). He
explained we are altering references to the disposal of assets
language later in the bill because the amendment seeks to delete
option (2) which is on page 4, lines 25 and 26, referring to paying
for a victory party or gifts for a volunteer.
Number 0245
MR. BROWN continued. He stated, "The rest of the page here, all
the changes on page 4, lines 13, 14, 22, 25 and 26, and then if you
flip to page 2 of the amendment, all of those changes going down
there, go through and renumber the following subsections
accordingly - as a result of taking subsection (2), which refers to
the victory parties, out."
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said he doesn't know why he didn't do the
normal "renumber accordingly."
MR. BROWN replied he didn't either, that's the way the drafter
drafted it.
Number 0250
MR. BROWN stated, "The next substantive change is on page 3 of the
amendment, line 6 (page 10 of version Q). But everything up to
that point reflects this removal of the victory party and volunteer
gift language."
MR. BROWN referred to page 10, line 2 of the bill. He said, "This
deletes 'upper-level employee' and reinserts the language
'Legislative Director.' Amendment Q.1 removes the requirement that
staff, in the legislative branch (compensated at range 19 and
above) disclose like legislators and legislative directors
currently disclose." He reiterated that it removes the disclosure
requirement for legislative staff.
Number 0256
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked where did the inspiration for this
change come from.
MR. BROWN replied Speaker Phillips - and many other people have
said why this disclosure is being implemented, it's going to be
costly, it's going to be cumbersome, and staffs don't make
decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated we had made that same point earlier
and it would have been easier if you had just done what we wanted
at that time rather than going to the Speaker.
CHAIR JAMES said good point.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, as a former staff member of four years
experience, staff make lots of decisions.
CHAIR JAMES noted that some staff do and some staff don't.
MR. BROWN replied the buck stops at the legislator, the disclosure
ought to be incumbent upon the legislator. Staff still has to
disclose on receipt of gifts, close economic associations,
membership on boards, just not to APOC [Alaska Public Offices
Commission].
Number 0270
MR. BROWN referred to page 19 of the bill. He said, "The bill
currently changes the legislative ethics disclosure deadline from
the 15 of April to the 15 of February, so it's earlier in the
session.
under (c)(6) of this section that has a value of $250 or more
shall be disclosed to the committee annually on or before
February 15 [APRIL 15] of the following calendar year;
MR. BROWN stated, "The concern is that's a little too early for
people to disclose. The compromise was to move the deadline to the
15 of March - in between, which is when the executive branch public
official disclosures are currently reported to APOC." He asked
when are those going in now.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied April 15.
MR. BROWN said, "I believe we've actually changed the reference
later in the bill so it's the 15 of March for everyone."
Number 0279.
CHAIR JAMES asked why we have it as March 15 instead of April 15.
MR. BROWN replied right now the bill changes it from April to
February. The proposal in the amendment is to change it to the 15
of March so you have one more month to turn this stuff in.
CHAIR JAMES asked what did we go from April 15 to February.
MR. BROWN stated because that was an attempt to standardize it, it
was an attempt to go from the APOC deadline back to the legislative
ethics deadline (February 15).
Number 0286
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why are we doing two forms when one
would do.
MR. BROWN replied that's the way the law was passed a long time
ago.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if they could do just one form
because he hates filling out forms. You can do one form and it
could go to whoever needs it, but it's just one form.
MR. BROWN replied but they're different forms.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ told Mr. Brown to do something to make
them one form.
Number 0292
SUZIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant, Legislative Ethics
Committee, said, "There is that possibility and people have looked
at blending the forms. First let me say that I don't think you can
eliminate the big APOC conflict of interest form, all elected
officials in the state fill it out, I don't think the legislature
would want to eliminate that form."
MS. BARNETT stated, "On our side, one of the most important forms
that I would strongly urge you to keep in is the gifts of travel
and hospitality, there is a lot of interest in that and it's a 30-
day disclosure and we give that information out all the time to
people if they ask for it. They want to know who is taking you
where, and what, and who paid for it.
MS. BARNETT continued. She said, "You fill out forms saying your
close economic associations on an annual basis, and within 30 days
of any new associations. It's the update of the forms that is
valuable. With the APOC reporting things that happened in the
previous year - this year, the ethics disclosures are things that
are happening this year and it's current so that, Representative
Berkowitz, as you're in a committee, if you want to know what so
and so's interests are in this, you should be able to come back and
see that that person has a close economic association, or serves on
that board, or that kind of information should be available to you
concerning 1998."
Number 0304
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he's just interested in paper-
minimization, he believes that's some federal mandate that they
ought to subscribe to. He said, "It seems to me that the two forms
can be consolidated because there's substantial overlap. And as
far as the reporting of all our gifts, and such, we do that anyway.
All I did when I filled out the form this year was go back into the
file and pull out everything that was over 100 bucks that I'd
already filed anyway."
MS. BARNETT stated this bill actually does change that, all the
gift reporting ends up over with ethics and not with APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "We do do it twice, even under this
agenda. ... Someone flies me out to say, up to the Slope, I fill
out a form saying the spent $300 on me to take me up to the Slope
and show me around and you get that form promptly. And then, with
this end of the year report, I give it to you again bundled with
all the other trips."
Number 0311
MR. BROWN remarked you won't have to after this bill passes.
MS. BARNETT reiterated you only report gifts once.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he's not saying do away with
legislative ethics or do away with the APOC. He stressed what he
is saying is combine the two.
MR. BROWN replied there is no combination possible if staff isn't
filing APOC reports.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated you can do a form that the staff
has to complete for legislative ethics. He reiterated he just
don't want to fill out the information twice. It's a waste of
time.
Number 0318
MR. BROWN said, "For the gift information, that's already been
taken care of. It would be possible to go ahead and take the
conflict of interest information and maybe assume that that was --
but then again you've got the timeliness issue. Does the public
have to wait until next year to know about your conflict of
interest now?"
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said some of the stuff that is held to be
conflict of interest is absurd. Family property, that's out-of-
state, there's no way that impacts any decision he would make in
this legislature. All it serves to do is notify people of his
financial situation, or what they perceive to be his financial
situation just because he might have a minuscule interest in
something. This stuff gets reported everywhere. He said, "I've
never had anyone come to me and say ... because you and your
brother are co-owners of something, somewhere, it's going to impact
you. No one's called me on it, no one's ever done anything, and to
my knowledge no one in this body has ever been called on something
like that."
Number 0324
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked why can't you have one form and have
two parts in it. If you're a legislator you fill out part 1 and 2,
and if you're staff you fill out part 2. It comes due on one day,
there's one mailing, you send it back to one place, you can have
the last years stuff and you can have the current stuff. That
would be parts 1, 2 or 3, however it works. But the point is, is
we only get one packet, we fill it out, we send it off and we're
done with it. Then they can go ahead, they can send it off to
however many people they want to internally, but it isn't your
fault if it doesn't go from ethics to APOC and vice versa because
you send it to one place and that's it. Representative Hodgins
thanked Representative Berkowitz for the good idea - let's put it
into law.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said APOC and ethics could have a "home page."
They could use it to fill out their forms and anybody could access
that information.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned not everyone has an Internet.
Number 0338
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Barnett if it's possible to make
April 15 the magic date for everything, and then they come up with
a form that is capable of what they have been discussing.
MS. BARNETT replied, "I think it's possible. I caution you folks
in the legislature that it is not just the public who wants this
information ... I am more often asked by legislators for the
information and you may not want to wish to wait until April 15.
It's always possible to combine paper and forms, I think Brook
[Miles, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices Commission,
Department of Administration] will be able to speak to it, but I
worry about you waiting until April 15 to have that information."
CHAIR JAMES suggested March 15.
MS. BARNETT said, "February 15 would be my recommendation, you've
done a lot of work by March 15."
Number 0346
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if February 15 work for everything
going into one massive form. Does that give everybody enough time
from the year-end to get all that information forward?
MS. BARNETT responded it may not be possible, you probably don't
have all of your financial information that is required for APOC,
you have all the information for us by February. She thought Ms.
Miles might be able to better answer the question.
Number 0351
CHAIR JAMES said, "I don't know what we wouldn't have. Almost all
the deadlines for everything that you would be getting, W2's or
1099's or other reports except small business, corporations, and
tax, and stock things - you probably wouldn't have those
necessarily."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, if he owned one share of something,
that they can support it the same as if he owned 100,000 shares.
Number 0366
MR. BROWN said he thinks it's probably unlikely that this amendment
can affect the change in consolidating the forms. He indicated
they could pick the date though, and March is considered to be a
compromise - it's earlier than APOC is currently getting the
information and it's later than ethics is getting their
information.
CHAIR JAMES noted Ms. Barnett indicated she didn't like the March
15 date either because by then they would have done a lot of
business and that might be too late for the information that
they're reviewing. She asked Ms. Barnett if that's what she said.
Number 0372
MS. BARNETT replied yes. She said, "I have to speak to something
that I think is a good idea, and there is an updating requirement
in our disclosures, it doesn't exist in the APOC forms. So that,
as you're dealing with people in the legislature, you are able to
call me and say, 'Does so and so have this conflict of interest.'
Within 30 days you have to notify us of certain things. So, I
again, I think February 15 is preferable and I still like an
updating of information throughout session at least."
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked do we need to put in a lot of
amendments in this to make this work or can most of that stuff be
done through your endeavors and regulations. What is the best
mechanism to be used at this point?
MS. BARNETT said, "I think we would actually have to change the
statute, I didn't think this will do it. But certainly APOC and I
can sit down - we have in the past talked about this and played
around with it. So we could come back to the legislature with a
proposal, but I think the way this reads - and Brook could say one
way or the other, I think we will need to change statute."
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Chair James when was she planning on
moving this bill out of committee.
Number 0388
CHAIR JAMES replied today, it next goes to House Finance but they
don't want to spend a lot of time on it. Chair James said how do
we get from here to there. She suggested they not fix it right now
because it needs intense review. She indicated what she would like
to request President Miller and Speaker Phillips each appoint
someone to work on that during the interim with APOC and
legislative ethics to see what kind of streamlining can be done.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stressed he is not comfortable with that, he
wants it done in the next committee. If Mr. Brown can come up with
the information and have an amendment ready, Finance can look at
it, say yea or nay, and be done with it.
MR. BROWN said he can do that.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated the disclosure is a presumption of
disclosure to make sure I'm not buttering my own bread, is that the
reason he has to disclose. If that's a presumption, what is the
problem of making this disclosure at one time...
CHAIR JAMES said it's curiosity.
Number 0402
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understood what Representative
Ryan was saying, do a one-time full disclosure, and if something
changes, rather than having to fill out a new form every year just
do the addition, deletion, update because the (indisc.) information
doesn't change that much from year to year and Ms. Barnett said we
have to do updates anyway.
TAPE 98-56, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIR JAMES said, "... things that maybe we do or do not need.
Therefore, I think we need to take a look and see whether or not we
have required by statute these things to such an extent that they
ought not to be. That's why I'm interested in taking a look at the
statute and the requirements as well as the reporting. Once you
make the requirements in the statue - that's why we've gotten
ourselves here. Maybe there is a simpler way to do it, and that's
why I was suggesting -- and (indisc.) to stop anybody from doing
that anyway, if they want to do it on their own."
Number 0014
CHAIR JAMES asked the committee if they were okay with changing the
date from February 15 to March 15.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if they are talking about a future
amendment that tries to accomplish a lot of what they talked about
today, then making a decision on the date is probably premature.
Number 0020
MR. BROWN said, "I didn't know that it is because the bill already
makes a change from the 15 of April to the 15 of February. So the
bill is already written with the minimal consolidation of only the
gift information and not the rest of the form(s) -- already moved
it back two months. So I think you can independently decide that
moving it forward again a month is a good idea even with two forms
- it might be a better idea..."
Number 0029
CHAIR JAMES asked the committee if someone wants to amend the
amendment on line 9 through 11, then please make a motion to amend
the amendment, otherwise they are going to go on.
Number 0031
MR. BROWN referred to page 22, line 30, of the bill. He explained
this is another change in the deadline, it's changing it everywhere
in the Legislative Ethics Code.
Number 0035
MR. BROWN referred to page 26, lines 16 through 18, this deals with
the rights of a person to attend an executive session of the
Legislative Ethics Committee when its deliberating concerning an
advisory opinion. Delete the following:
A person who requested an opinion, including a legislator, may
not require admittance to an executive session of the
committee when it is deliberating concerning the advisory
opinion.
MR. BROWN explained the committee wanted specific language that
kept people out of those executive sessions and this amendment
would delete that language which would arguably give you the right
to request the attendance at a meeting where they were debating an
advisory opinion. He indicated the advantage to having a ban on
attendance by persons, who request the opinions, is it probably
increases the candor of the conversation about the advisory opinion
being debated. The disadvantage is that you may feel like it's a
depravation of your rights to be present when something you asked
is being answered.
Number 0043
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated what bothers him, if they use that
assumption, the logical extension of that would be that they could
sit in on jury deliberations. It does change the tenor of the
discussion. He said he would like to hear from Ms. Barnett on this
issue.
MR. BROWN mentioned this is for an advisory opinion, this is before
you're in trouble so to speak, this is when you're saying, "Will I
get in trouble if I do this."
Number 0049
MS. BARNETT responded, "I think that there is a concern about
allowing people in during deliberations. Most people who, when the
topic doesn't have a concern, a lot of people waive the
confidentiality and we have a great discussion out in the open
which is wonderful when that gets to happen. A few of these
opinions, people ask for some very touchy information and we may
actually have to find that if they took that action, they would be
in violation. And sometimes they have already taken that action.
A complaint doesn't get filed at that point, but it's very tricky,
and at that time you don't want - I don't think the legislature
wants someone sitting in the room, trying to sway the opinion of
the committee away from reading the law, and saying this is the way
it is."
MS. BARNETT said, "I would encourage you to understand that the
committee invites people into their advisory opinion executive
sessions and into other executive sessions. You have access to the
committee up to the point of the actual deliberation. I would
encourage you not to adopt this [part of the] amendment."
Number 0065
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated the aspect of this committee being a
jury troubles him. He said, "If I'm in a criminal procedure, and
I have a jury, I have a right to council, and the council has the
right to challenge the perspective jurors, have numerous rights.
And then here we have a committee appointed by somebody in the
courts and they're taking on the characteristics of a jury, and I
have nothing but to sit back and wait until they decide what
they're going to do. And then appeal it to whatever body I happen
to be a member of. It's pretty (indisc.) and I don't feel
comfortable with that. ... Anybody can file an accusation against
me, I'm a sitting target."
Number 0073
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the distinction is at the different
levels of process, and the evidence gathering, and evidence hearing
stage. It's his understanding that the object of the complaint is
permitted to be present. And it's only after evidence has been
gathered, and the committee is in deliberations, that their seeking
or the possibility of going into a closed session. He asked if
that was correct.
MR. BROWN replied we're not looking at that right now, we're
looking at advisory opinions, it's a different part of the process,
it's when you say can I do this, if I did this would it be okay.
We're not looking at hearings or complaints. There's nothing
really related to advisory opinions in the judicial system, you
never ask a judge, if I went out and shot this person would I have
committed murder. They would never impanel a jury and have that
jury give you an advisory opinion. At this point, they are giving
you preliminary advice.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he wonders why this committee has to have
this exclusive power to exclude people from their deliberations
when everybody else, except a criminal trial doesn't have that.
Why do they have all this protection, let them stand up and be
counted? If they make a decision that affects other people, people
should know who made the decision and which decision was made so
they can be accountable for their actions.
Number 0096
CHAIR JAMES said she has gotten advisory opinions in the past. It
seems to her the whole issue of advisory opinions shows that we
don't have enough structure to be able to mend everything. Chair
James said, "It seems to me, like if I was asking for an advisory
opinion ... I am probably not there, but I don't see any reason for
me not listening into this discussion. I don't think I should
participate, ... but I would be there to ask any questions if it's
not clear exactly what kind of an opinion I'm asking for. I think
that the deliberating in this case, and I know that Suzie [Barnett]
disagrees with me on that because she's already stated that she
feels like the conversation, or the deliberation would be persuaded
by the person being there. I don't necessarily think that is true.
On top of that, I think it's necessary for the person to see how
that deliberation ended up with this opinion, because otherwise you
could question and have asked another advisory opinion. I guess I
support this amendment here, but I do understand that concern
because it's much easier to talk about somebody when they're not
there..."
Number 0114
MS. BARNETT indicated she believes the committee ought to deal with
it. She said, "In fact, when I looked at the amendment this
morning I thought ... compromise language might be that the
committee may allow the requester to attend while it is
deliberating, because right now the committee would find that they
can't. In general, the committee can deal with the person in
there, it's just that - when they are deliberating on some of
these, the person could try to influence the outcome."
Number 0122
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands the need to exclude
someone. You're going to make in all probability comments about
credibility and impressions that necessitate open discussions. And
if you are to take a devil's advocate role in order to formulate an
opinion in an open session, you might not arrive at the best
conclusion. He understands the need even here to close down
deliberations.
CHAIR JAMES jokingly said she was so pleased to hear him say that
because he has been pounding and pounding on us having open
caucuses and now you see why we don't.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that you can close the caucus
when strategy is being discussed.
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he sat in on these sessions and read
advisory opinions in the past. He indicated he sees this as less
an issue of what is right or wrong, as it is an issue of let the
committee do its work in a timely manner, if we adopt this portion
of the amendment things get slowed down. Representative Elton said
he can't remember this being an issue in his brief time with the
committee. He asked Ms. Barnett if it has been an issue for the
committee before.
MS. BARNETT replied no one has ever requested to sit in. The
committee members themselves have asked for advisory opinions and
they just excuse themselves from participation. She reiterated her
response and indicated she can't remember where this came from.
Number 0145
CHAIR JAMES asked how did this get in the bill in the first place
if it's never been a problem.
MR. BROWN stated this was a request by the ethics committee at the
beginning of last session.
MS. BARNETT indicated this was requested by Senator Donley.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Barnett, "If there is anything
unclear in the request, you always work with the legislator or the
legislative employee that has made the request so that before it
gets to the deliberation stage you have a good sense and can
present to the committee, a good sense of what the question
actually is, right."
MS. BARNETT replied yes, and again, the requestor is invited to
join the committee up until the point of deliberation. So if there
was any question, we would invite them in.
Number 0155
CHAIR JAMES addressed Ms. Barnett. She said, if we take this out,
we're back where you were, and that's not a problem you say.
MS. BARNETT stated, "If you take it out - I guess I'd recommend
saying that the committee is allowed to invite the requestor in
when it is deliberated. So in other words, if they really want the
person in, to continue even when they're deliberating then the
committee can ask you in. Right now I think they'd say, 'Oh gosh,
we can't do that.' So I'd take a different approach, but if you
take it out, it's fine, but if you leave it in."
Number 0161
CHAIR JAMES interjected then we can agree that we need to take it
out.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS noted that it's 9:10 a.m., and if she wanted
to move this out today...
CHAIR JAMES said she understands that. She said she also wanted to
inform Theresa Obermeyer that they will not have time to take
testimony because they are going to be adjourning at 9:30 a.m. and
that they have to get this bill out.
MR. BROWN stated, "It's not in the amendment right now, it takes it
out and it's not the end of the world and it can be revisited if
need be."
CHAIR JAMES clarified that they are moving along. They have not
made any amendments to the amendment at this point.
Number 0170
MR. BROWN referred to page 26, lines 21 and 31 of version Q. He
explained this changes the statute of limitations for the
Legislative Ethics Act from "five" to "two" years. That is the
statute of the limitations for the Executive Branch Ethics Act,
it's the term of office for one representative and it was suggested
that was a fair amount of time for an ethics complaint to be
(indisc.) over your head. After two years, it's no longer
prosecutable. The committee is getting the right to reinstitute
things though, if you quit and come back, if it's (indisc.) your
window, they can still (indisc.) you.
Number 0177
MR. BROWN referred to page 33, line 21, of version Q. He stated,
"This specifies who the appointing authority for employees of House
Records and Senate Records are, the Speaker thought we had not
specified that. They would have been Leg. Council, this puts them
on the appropriate side of this capital ... the Finance Committee
for House Records, and the Finance Committee for Senate Records."
Page 33, line 21, following "finance committees"
Insert: employees of house records and senate records,
(4) the appropriate rules committee for employees of standing
committees of the legislature, other than the finance
committees, employees of house records and senate records, and
employees of the senate secretary's office and the office of
the chief clerk of the house of representatives;
Number 0180
MR. BROWN referred to page 34 of version Q. He explained this
deletes the reference to upper-level employees disclosing, since
only legislators, public members of the committee and legislative
directors are going to be disclosing under the legislative code.
Delete:
Financial disclosure by legislators, upper-level employees,
and public members of the committee {LEGISLATIVE DIRECTORS].
A legislator, an upper-level employee, and a public member of
the committee [LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR]
Insert:
Financial disclosure by legislators, public members of the
committee, and legislative directors. A legislator, a public
member of the committee, and a legislative director
Number 0183
MR. BROWN noted the following changes:
Page 34, lines 15 and 16:
Delete: an upper-level employee [A LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR]
Insert: a legislative director
Page 35, line 30, through page 36, line 16:
Delete all material and insert a new section to read:
Sec. 24.60.210. Deadlines for filing of disclosure
statements. A legislator and a legislative director shall
file an annual report with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, covering the previous calendar year, containing
the disclosures required by AS 24.60.200, on or before March
15 [APRIL 15] of each year.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 36, lines 18 and 19:
Delete: upper level employee
Insert: legislative director
Page 36, lines 27 and 28:
Delete: upper level employee
Insert: legislative director
Number 0187
MR. BROWN explained the next change deals with a report by APOC to
appointing authorities for legislative employees who didn't file
their disclosures in time. Since they're not filing disclosures
anymore, we no longer have to have as much language about whom APOC
would tell if they didn't file the disclosure. He reiterated,
"We're getting rid of my disclosure requirements, so we can get rid
of the language that mandates who APOC tells that I'm not in
compliance."
Page 36, line 29, through page 37, line 3:
Delete:
the appropriate committee of the legislature. For the
ombudsman and employees of the office of the ombudsman, the
appropriate committee is the Alaska Legislative Council. For
upper-level employees who are not employed by the Legislative
Affairs Agency or the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee,
the commission shall notify the Rules Committee of the
appropriate legislative body.
Insert:
the Alaska Legislative Council or Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee, as appropriate. For the ombudsman, the Alaska
Legislative Council shall be notified.
Page 37, line 29:
Delete: ;
Insert: .
Page 37, line 30, through page 38, line 1:
Delete all material.
Number 0197
MR. BROWN referred to page 39, line 2, following ".":
Insert:
This subsection applies to employees in the exempt service,
except those listed below, notwithstanding AS 39.25.110.
MR. BROWN explained this deals with the ban on exempt employees
running for office. He stated, "Because the Personal Act does not,
by its nature, apply to exempt employees because they're exempt
from the Personnel Act, but we are putting in a provision that bans
their candidacy, Mike wanted to make sure that we had a reference
to the applicability of the ban on employee candidacy to the exempt
service as well as to the partially-exempt in the classified
service."
Number 0202
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if this was the amendment that they
passed.
MR. BROWN replied he didn't understand his question - in terms of
the language banning who can run.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he thought they opened up the
process.
Number 0205
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied we did, but then changed it at the
last meeting because there was concern that with the language where
we allowed exempt employees to run if they took leave, different
kinds of leave, we took that back out. There was concern that what
we had done is we had also opened up a huge window on the ban on
classified employees from running for partisan office.
Number 0210
MR. BROWN remarked that all those people can run, the ban doesn't
apply to them, this subsection is a section that bans persons from
running.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ verified that firefighters, youths
employed by DNR [Department of Natural Resources], including
students can run.
MR. BROWN replied yes, but the lead provision was taken out. This
reference just makes sure that we say that this section applies to
exempt employees. That's why they're called exempt, by nature,
they're supposed to be exempted from the whole Personnel Act. This
is one component of the Personnel Act that is going to apply to
them.
Number 0214
MR. BROWN noted the last of the changes is renumbering.
Number 0215
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to adopt Amendment Q.1.
Number 0216
MR. BROWN suggested the committee adopt version Q as a work draft
and then Amendment Q.1.
Number 0218
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS amended his motion to adopt HCS CSSB 105,
version Q, with the Amendment Q.l.
Number 0219
CHAIR JAMES said, "Before I accept that motion, let's say that we
did have an amendment on the floor of Q.1, which will be displaced
by this motion, to accept the CS Q and Q.1 the amendment, is there
any objection."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Chair James to explain the motion. He
indicated he heard a two-part motion that we adopt version Q and
the amendment [Q.1].
CHAIR JAMES replied that's what they did.
Number 0225
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to adopt HCS CSSB 105, version
LS0074\Q, there being no objections, that version was before the
committee.
Number 0027
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to adopt Amendment Q.1.
Number 0229
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He said he would like to offer an
amendment to the amendment on page 3, line 15 of the amendment.
Page 26, line 16 through 18:
Delete:
A person who requested an opinion, including a legislator, may
not require admittance to an executive session of the
committee when it is deliberating concerning the advisory
opinion.
Number 0232
CHAIR JAMES objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives
Berkowitz and Elton voted for the amendment. Representative
Hodgins, Ivan, James and Ryan, voted against the amendment. The
amendment to the amendment failed by a vote of 2-4.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections to Amendment Q.1.
There being none, Amendment Q.1 was adopted.
Number 0240
CHAIR JAMES noted, "We have a fiscal note here, it's a draft, it's
not signed, but we will probably have one signed before I move it
on for $5,000 from the Attorney General's Office for additional
staff time for the reporting that's required by this bill. So we
need to move this fiscal note with it was well."
Number 0243
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HCS CSSB 105, version
Q, as amended, with individual recommendations, and attached fiscal
note.
Number 0246
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
CHAIR JAMES requested a roll call vote. Representatives Ryan,
Hodgins, Ivan, James, Elton and Berkowitz voted to move HCS CSSB
105(STA). HCS CSSB 105(STA) moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0251
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee at
9:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|