03/26/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123|| SB35 | |
| SB29 | |
| HB193 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2009
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Pete Petersen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act extending the termination date of the Statewide Suicide
Prevention Council; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 123(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 29
"An Act naming the Capitol Annex the Thomas B. Stewart
Legislative Office Building."
- MOVED SB 29 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to representation by a legislator or
legislative employee of another person in an administrative
hearing; relating to charity events under the Legislative Ethics
Act; requiring compensation of public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain information
from disclosure requirements of the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to the selection of alternate members and the
participation of members and alternate members in formal
proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and
its subcommittees; and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent
service,' 'legislative purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and
'private benefit' for the purposes of the Legislative Ethics
Act."
- MOVED CSHB 193(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION (APOC)
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND SUICIDE PREVENTION COUNCIL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FAIRCLOUGH
02/11/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/09 (H) STA, FIN
03/24/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/24/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/24/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 29
SHORT TITLE: NAMING THOMAS B. STEWART LEG. OFFICE BLDG
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) ELTON
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) STA
02/26/09 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/26/09 (S) Moved SB 29 Out of Committee
02/26/09 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/09 (S) STA RPT 4DP
02/27/09 (S) DP: MENARD, KOOKESH, PASKVAN, MEYER
03/02/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/02/09 (S) VERSION: SB 29
03/09/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/09 (H) CRA, STA
03/19/09 (H) CRA RPT 5DP
03/19/09 (H) DP: CISSNA, HARRIS, KELLER, HERRON,
MUNOZ
03/19/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/19/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/19/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/26/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
03/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/24/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/24/09 (H) Heard & Held; Assigned to Subcommittee
03/24/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Anna Fairclough
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined the changes proposed in the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 123, Version 26-LS0500\R,
Bullard, 3/24/09, and answered questions.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
123.
KRISTEN BRESSETTE, Staff
Senator Kim Elton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 29 on behalf of Senator
Elton, prime sponsor.
CALEB STEWART
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 29.
MICHELLE SYDEMAN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 29.
KATIE HURLEY
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 29.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered clarification during the hearing on
HB 193, on behalf of Representative Coghill, prime sponsor.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered input during the hearing on HB 193.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to Amendment 1 during the hearing on
HB 193.
TERRY L. THURBON, Chief Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
193.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:48 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Wilson,
Johnson, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 123-EXTEND SUICIDE PREVENTION COUNCIL
[Contains discussion of SB 35.]
8:06:33 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 123, "An Act extending the termination date of the
Statewide Suicide Prevention Council; and providing for an
effective date."
8:06:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 123, Version 26-0500\R, Bullard, 3/24/09,
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version R was before
the committee.
CHAIR LYNN noted that HB 123 mirrors a companion bill, [SB 35].
8:07:40 AM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Anna Fairclough, Alaska
State Legislature, outlined the changes proposed in Version R.
She said Section 1 would change the number of members on the
council from 15 to 16, by adding one public member.
Furthermore, the two members appointed by the Senate and the two
members appointed by the House would be nonvoting members.
Version R would change the number of members appointed by the
governor from 11 to 12. One of the members would represent the
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), while another
would represent the Department of Education & Early Development
(DEED).
MS. KOENEMAN reminded the committee that the requirement that
one of the council members must be a counselor of a secondary
school was problematic, and she said Version R proposes to
change that requirement so that the position could be filled by
any employee of a secondary school. The requirement that one
member must be an adult who is active in a statewide youth
organization would be changed to require a person active in a
youth organization. Finally, Ms. Koeneman noted that previously
there was a requirement that one member must be under the age of
18; however, Version R proposes that that person would need to
be enrolled in grade 9, 10, 11, or 12 of a secondary school in
the state.
8:09:45 AM
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to a question from Representative
Johnson regarding tie votes in an even-numbered council, offered
her understanding that someone from the Department of Health &
Social Services was present and could respond to that concern.
She recollected that [the council] had expressed that it had no
concern regarding the issue. In response to Chair Lynn, she
indicated that there is a provision whereby the chair of the
council could abstain from voting.
8:10:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the use of the word
"minority" on page 1, lines 11 and 14. He indicated that in "a
number of statutes," the phrase, "from each major political
party" is used. He asked Ms. Koeneman if she could explain the
reason for the changed wording.
MS. KOENEMAN responded that this wording mirrors the Senate
bill; however, she said she would not anticipate a problem with
an amendment to change the wording.
8:11:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested that the wording is such because
of the current make-up of the Senate.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that the Minority in the Senate is comprised
of Republicans, while the Majority party affiliation is a "mixed
bag." He said, "It makes things interesting."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "The Minority doesn't have voting
for committee rights, since there's less than twenty-five
percent Minority." He said that is "the questionable part."
8:13:11 AM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, in response to Representative
Seaton, said the division did not make specific recommendations
regarding changes to HB 123, but recognized the requirements
that needed to be incorporated. She indicated that [Version R]
would accomplish two critical points. First, it would establish
legislators as nonvoting members, which would mean their
presence would not be essential to making a quorum. Second, it
would broaden the criteria. She remarked that in four years'
time, [the council] will be reviewed once more to determine "how
it works."
8:14:33 AM
MS. DAVIDSON, in response to Representative Gruenberg, explained
that the reason for the four-year extension is that the council
does not have grant-making authority or a lot of specific
authority or the funding to allow for implementation. The
council is an advisory board; therefore, the interval between
reviews is kept shorter to keep the council "under the gun" to
demonstrate that it is being effective.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it is the policy of the
division to review boards with funding capabilities every eight
years and entities without funding capabilities every four
years.
8:16:31 AM
MS. DAVIDSON responded that it is not a policy. She said the
division looks at the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council as an
advisory body because of its statutory responsibilities. It is
an active body, which is why the division recommended it for an
extension. She stated, "These bodies need to demonstrate that
they are serving a public purpose." The council is an exception
to other boards and councils that are involved in very
structured activity, she remarked. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Gruenberg, she said an extension of
less than eight years could be assigned to, for example, an
occupational board working on substantive statutory changes to
mirror what is happening in the profession. Also, if a board is
not operating effectively, the division may recommend a shorter
time period between audits. She stated, "The criteria that we
use in evaluating these boards are set out in statute, and each
of those is considered and addressed during the audit. And at
the completion of the audit, the audit team makes a
recommendations for an extension."
8:19:37 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
8:19:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to discussion of the
aforementioned language on page 1, lines 11 and 14. He said he
wants to know if a member of the Minority means the official
Minority, so that "if there's less than 25 percent of the body,
there's just not a member." Another possibility would be that
[the council] "might end up with both Republicans from the other
body," since the President of the Senate is a Republican and
because "we have all of the minority members who are
Republican."
8:20:50 AM
MS. KOENEMAN said [the bill drafter] chose the language. She
suggested that a change could be made now, or she could research
the issue, which could then be addressed in the House Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee should address the issue, since it pertains
to policy.
8:21:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the language on page 1,
lines 11-14, is current language. He asked the members to look
at page 3 of [a legislative audit, control number 06-20055-08,
included in the committee packet], which shows the current
council members as of the last legislature. The report shows
that the two members of the Senate were both members of the
Majority, although they were Democrats, because "they were
members of the working group." The two members in the House
were both members of the Minority, and they were both Democrats.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested an amendment be adopted to
allow the Senate President to appoint two members of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House to appoint two members of the
House, irrespective of party affiliation. He explained,
"They're not following this anyway, and I think they have a
tough time, probably, getting members who are interested in
doing this."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed, "I think that looking at the
current membership and looking at the nonpolitical nature of
this, ... that would be a good idea."
8:23:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that if a change is made to
Version R, it would no longer mirror SB 35.
8:24:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version
R, as follows:
On page 1, beginning on line 10:
Between "senate" and ";"
Delete ", one of whom shall be a member of the
majority and one of whom shall be a member of the
minority"
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected. She said she thinks the current
language in Version R has been crafted thus for a reason.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG told Representative Wilson that "the
only changes they made in this ... section are on line 8."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON maintained her objection.
8:26:13 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Johnson,
and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 1 to Version R.
Representatives Wilson and Lynn voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 to Version R was adopted by a vote of 3-2.
8:26:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 123, Version 26-
LS0500\R, Bullard, 3/24/09, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 123(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:27:24 AM to 8:28:57 AM.
SB 29-NAMING THOMAS B. STEWART LEG. OFFICE BLDG
8:28:58 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the next order of business was SENATE BILL
NO. 29, "An Act naming the Capitol Annex the Thomas B. Stewart
Legislative Office Building."
8:29:13 AM
KRISTEN BRESSETTE, Staff, Senator Kim Elton, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced SB 29 on behalf of Senator Elton, prime
sponsor. She offered information from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
SB 29 would name the Capitol Annex the Thomas B.
Stewart Legislative Office Building in honor of Judge
Thomas B. Stewart and his countless contributions to
the State of Alaska. The Capitol Annex was formerly
known as the Scottish Rite Temple and is currently
under renovation.
Tom Stewart was known and respected throughout
Alaska. He served in the territorial House of
Representatives and was a driving force behind the
Alaska Constitutional Convention and Alaska
statehood. Tom then served as a state senator in the
first Alaska Legislature. The remainder of his
professional career was spent serving as a Superior
Court judge.
More than the distinguished positions he held, Tom was
known and respected for his character, wisdom, and
leadership. He led by example and remains an
inspiration to Alaskans. As we celebrate Alaska's
50th anniversary of statehood this year, it's an
appropriate time to honor Judge Thomas B. Stewart.
The estimated completion date of the renovation of
Capitol Annex is August 31, 2009.
MS. BRESSETTE noted that there are letters of support from
former Governors Walter J. Hickel and Steve Cowper [included in
the committee packet]. Governor Sarah Palin has also expressed
her support for the proposed legislation, she added.
8:31:18 AM
CALEB STEWART told the committee that he is the son of the late
Judge Thomas B. Stewart. He indicated that five out of six of
the children of Judge Stewart support the proposed legislation.
In response to Chair Lynn, he shared his memory of his father
splitting wood at the age of 74. He relayed that during the
time his father ran the territorial committee equivalent to the
House State Affairs Standing Committee, he wrote the bill which
established the Constitutional Convention.
CHAIR LYNN commented that the state is young enough, at 50 years
of age, that many of its founders are still alive.
8:33:42 AM
MICHELLE SYDEMAN specified that [although she works for the
legislature], she is testifying as a private citizen. She spoke
of having the privilege of knowing the late Judge Tom Stewart
and his many accomplishments. She stated:
In the deepest sense of the word, he was a public
servant; he devoted his life to serving his country,
his state, his community, his family, and his
extraordinarily large circle of friends. I doubt
anyone has ever compiled a complete list of the boards
and commissions on which Tom served or the
organizations to which he contributed his time and
money or the individuals to whom he lent a hand. Tom
was a marvelous, highly principled, and generous
person. He was a consummate gentleman.
MS. SYDEMAN stated her belief that it is a fitting tribute to
this founding father of Alaska to name the capitol annex after
him. It will be a small and daily reminder of his great
contributions to a state he deeply loved, she concluded.
MS. SYDEMAN, in response to Chair Lynn, recollected that Judge
Stewart passed away a year ago, December. She noted that he had
been writing a book about the constitutional convention, which
some have expressed interest in finishing.
8:35:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON directed attention to an entry [in a
compilation of remembrances, included in the committee packet],
which was written by a granddaughter of Judge Stewart [Jessica
Dillon], and which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I was stranded one day and could not get hold of
anyone to provide me with a ride down-town, including
Grandpa. So, I went to the bus stop and got on the
next bus. I found Grandpa sitting in the first seat,
first row, and was so surprised, because at that time
he had three cars. I asked him why he was riding the
bus. He responded that he had a lot of houseguests
who needed his cars, and that he enjoyed taking the
bus. His generosity and unselfishness never ceased to
amaze me. Since it was raining, I tried to persuade
him to get off the bus at a stop where it would be a
short walk to his house, instead of at his usual stop
that was several blocks further away. He turned to
me, and said, "of course it's raining, we live in a
rain forest and we need the rain." And he then
continued, "and we need the exercise too." Of course!
What was I thinking? So, we had a nice stroll up
through Evergreen Cemetery, and although I returned to
work soaked from the rain, I felt fortunate to have
had this additional time with him before I headed
south, and to have gained a few more "little life
lessons" from him.
8:37:20 AM
KATIE HURLEY testified that she thinks it is wonderful that a
building will be named after the late Judge Thomas B. Stewart.
She related that two reasons for the success of the Alaska
Constitutional Convention were Thomas Stewart's insistence that
it be held on the campus of the now University of Alaska - at
that time a college - and Bill Egan's election as the chair.
8:39:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:40:04 AM to 8:40:56 AM.
8:40:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report SB 29 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 29 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:41:30 to 8:45:34.
HB 193-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
8:45:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 193, "An Act relating to representation by a legislator
or legislative employee of another person in an administrative
hearing; relating to charity events under the Legislative Ethics
Act; requiring compensation of public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain information
from disclosure requirements of the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to the selection of alternate members and the
participation of members and alternate members in formal
proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and
its subcommittees; and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent
service,' 'legislative purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and
'private benefit' for the purposes of the Legislative Ethics
Act."
[HB 193 was heard and held on 3/24/09, with an objection to the
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 26-LS0656\S, Wayne,
3/23/09, left pending.]
8:46:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reported on the progress of the
subcommittee assigned to consider those items in HB 193 that
were highlighted by the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
Working with Version S, the subcommittee agreed that "private
benefit" [as used in Section 8 of Version S] should mean a
benefit, not just a financial benefit. Furthermore, the
subcommittee considered the term "legislative purpose" [defined
in Section 8 of Version S].
8:48:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 193, Version 26-LS0656\C, Wayne, 3/25/09,
as a work draft.
8:49:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
8:49:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would hence forth be discussing
changes to the bill as reflected in [Version C]. He continued
with his presentation of the subcommittee's report. He returned
the subject of the definition of "legislative purpose" - [in
Section 9 of Version C], on page 10, line 24. He said the
subcommittee adopted a definition in which legislative purpose
"means legislative action or providing constituent service". In
the definition of "constituent" found in Section 9 of Version C,
the subcommittee deleted the word "natural" before the word
"person". He directed attention to Section 1, on page 2 of
Version C, wherein he noted that the subcommittee had eliminated
wording. In Version S, the wording read as follows:
Section 1. AS 24.60.030(a) is amended to read:
(i) Except for supplying information requested by
the hearing officer or the individual, board, or
commission with authority to make the final decision i
the case, or when responding to contacts initiated by
the hearing officer or the individual, board, or
commission with authority to make the final decision
in the case, a legislator or legislative employee may
not attempt to influence the outcome of an
administrative hearing by directly or indirectly
contacting or attempting to contact the hearing
officer assigned to the hearing or the individual,
board or commission with authority to make the final
decision in the case unless the legislator or
legislative employee is representing another person in
the case for compensation and subject to AS 24.60.100
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the change to that language would
read thus in Version C:
Section 1. AS 24.60.030(a) is amended to read:
(a) A legislator or legislative employee may not
(1) solicit, agree to accept, or accept a
benefit other than official compensation for the
performance of public duties; this paragraph may not
be construed to prohibit lawful solicitation for and
acceptance of campaign contributions, solicitation or
acceptance of contributions for a charity event, as
defined in AS 24.60.080(a)(2)(B), or the acceptance of
a gift [LAWFUL GRATUITY] under AS 24.60.075 or
24.60.080 [AS 24.60.080];
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that was not a unanimous decision,
but passed in the subcommittee by a 2:1 vote.
8:53:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the subcommittee also changed a
the word "gratuity" in AS 24.60.030 to "gift", because "gift" is
"the word that is used throughout."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the subcommittee asked the bill
drafter, Mr. Wayne, to prepare a legal opinion regarding the
definition of the word "constituent" and the use of a
constituent e-mail list that is not available to the general
public.
8:54:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the reference to an e-mail
list occurs in language on page 2, lines 17-18, [of Version C],
which read as follows:
(B) the use of a legislator's legislative
mailing list for campaign purposes, or the use of
mailing lists, computer data, or other information
lawfully obtained from a government agency and
available to the general public for nonlegislative
purposes;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his belief that that language
was an amendment that is not formally listed [in the
subcommittee report].
8:55:42 AM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Representative John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Coghill, prime sponsor
of HB 193, related:
It was discussed with Mr. Wayne that if this language
did not cover that, he was to come up with some
language that did.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON confirmed that it is also his
understanding that a request had been made of the bill drafter
to research the issue to determine whether or not there was a
conflict or clarification was needed between the statute and the
legal advisory opinion. He said Mr. Wayne must have decided
that there was no conflict.
8:59:01 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, stated:
You certainly could use that address or that e-mail
address, but you could not use state resources to do
it if you were going to use it for campaign purposes.
CHAIR LYNN indicated that that information could be taken to a
home computer for "doing my campaign thing."
MS. ANDERSON replied, "Exactly."
8:59:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if this would work in reverse - "if
it would be covered" if he brought his campaign mailing list to
the legislature.
MS. ANDERSON responded, "Yes, it would be."
8:59:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON continued with the subcommittee report.
He said the subcommittee asked Mr. Wayne for a legal opinion
regarding the definition of a constituent and an interpretation
of duty of representation under the Constitution of the State of
Alaska. Mr. Wayne reported that he could find no explicit duty
of representation in the constitution, and he suggested one
interpretation may be that "you owe a duty under the
constitution." Representative Seaton indicated that the
subcommittee is comfortable having that legal opinion follow to
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
9:01:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the language on page 4,
lines 9-10, is similar to the language on page 2, lines 17-18
[text provided previously].
MS. MOSS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, confirmed
that the review of the subcommittee's proposed changes was
complete.
9:02:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to adopting
Version C as a work draft. There being no further objection,
Version C was before the committee.
9:02:46 AM
MS. MOSS said the bill sponsor feels strongly that when [a
legislator] takes the oath of office, he/she is taking an oath
to represent everyone in Alaska, to protect the rights given
them through the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
CHAIR LYNN commented that although he represents his
constituency, 99 percent of everything on which he has voted
affects the entire state. He asked, "Does one duty or
representation surpass the other?"
MS. MOSS opined that the answer is no, because all Alaskans have
equal rights under the constitution.
9:03:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that part of the subcommittee's
discussion revolved around the question of what makes up the
definition of an Alaskan. For example, would a company that has
activity in the state be an Alaskan? He mentioned financial
benefit and indicated that was part of "the ... moving natural
person discussion." He stated that one intent of the
subcommittee is to make clear for the Ethics Committee the bases
on which it makes its decisions. He said he thinks the entire
subcommittee agreed to identify the issue and request the
[legal] information, then pass that on to the next committee of
referral.
9:05:40 AM
MS. MOSS, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that
the subcommittee report currently in the committee packet
contains some notes unrelated to HB 193, and she said she would
e-mail an updated copy to each committee member.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:08:27 AM to 9:09:34 AM.
9:09:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS0656|S.1, Wayne, 3/25/09, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 7, following "subcommittees;":
Insert "establishing that persons who are subject
to the Legislative Ethics Act may rely without
prejudice on certain advice from employees of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics;"
Page 7, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 24.60.158 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 24.60.158. Informal advice. (a) The
committee shall authorize and train at least one
committee staff employee to respond to requests from
legislators, legislative employees, or public members
of the committee for advice about the legal
requirements of this chapter, including advice as to
whether the facts and circumstances of a particular
case constitute a violation of ethical standards under
this chapter. However, the advice provided by staff is
not binding on the committee except as provided under
(b) of this section.
(b) A person who is a legislator, legislative
employee, or public member of the committee may
request a written staff opinion as to whether the
facts and circumstances of a particular case
constitute a violation of ethical standards under this
chapter, and committee staff shall respond to a
request made under this subsection in a writing
entitled "staff advisory opinion." If the person who
requests the opinion provides with the request all
information that the person reasonably believes is
material to the request, and all information the staff
requests, and if the information provided is accurate
to the best of the person's understanding, then the
person may rely on the written opinion without
prejudice unless it is rescinded by the committee.
(c) The committee is bound by a staff advisory
opinion under (b) of this section to the same extent
it is bound by an advisory opinion under AS 24.60.160;
however, a staff advisory opinion may be rescinded by
a majority vote of the committee. An opinion under (b)
of this section, whether or not it is rescinded, is
subject to the redaction and confidentiality
requirements of AS 24.60.160(b)."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
9:09:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
9:10:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, spoke to
Amendment 1. He explained that according to current law, when
legislators or legislative employees ask for advice from the
staff of the Ethics Committee, they rely on that advice at their
own risk. The problem with getting fined related to an Ethics
complaint is that the public then thinks that the legislator
involved is unethical, when he/she may have been just following
the advice given by the Ethics Committee staff. Amendment 1
would allow legislators and legislative staff to rely on that
advice, provided they had given the Ethics Committee staff all
relevant information.
CHAIR LYNN asked how this might affect Ms. Anderson's position.
9:15:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he assumes Ms. Anderson is
already doing a thorough job in her response to ethics
questions; therefore, the only difference to Ms. Anderson may be
that her response would be in writing.
9:17:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she has called Ms. Anderson many
times and has been told various considerations that need to be
made rather than being given a yes or no answer. She said she
does not want to put Ms. Anderson into a position where she may
not have been given a detail that would have changed her
response, resulting in the matter becoming one of "he said/she
said."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that situation would be protected by
the language [found within subsection (b)] of Amendment 1.
CHAIR LYNN asked what use there would be for the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics if Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that the ethics committee would
still review the cases involving "close questions," the
remainder of the ethics statute would still exist, and the
Ethics Committee could still consider each situation
independently.
9:20:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said any time Ms. Anderson tells her she
is not 100 percent certain about an issue, she [Representative
Wilson] decides, "I'm not going to do it." She said
Representative Gara has not yet convinced her [of the need for
Amendment 1].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that current statute requires Ms.
Anderson to tell the inquirer that she is not 100 percent
certain. Amendment 1 would not change that.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated another concern that it costs those
in remote areas quite a bit of money to have a formal hearing.
9:22:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, regarding subsection (b) in Amendment 1,
asked Representative Gara how he defines "reasonably believes"
when what is reasonable to one person may not be to the next.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the goal is for the legislator to
provide the Ethics Committee staff with "all material
information." He said a person may submit 10 pieces of
information and not know that an eleventh piece existed;
therefore, the person would have submitted everything he/she
knew about. He said a legislator cannot be asked to do more
than provide information in all honesty and in good faith.
9:23:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that the language is ambiguous,
and he said he would like to know, "What exactly are we trying
to fix?" He asked for an example of a specific case.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered an example in which a legislator is
offered "some sort of event to go to," and he/she does not know
whether or not the event must be reported or is okay to attend.
The event is happening eminently. If the legislator goes to the
event based on the opinion received from Ethics Committee staff,
and subsequently the Ethics Committee decides that the event is
not sanctioned, the legislator could be accused of committing an
ethics violation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said there are various levels involved.
For example, he said he would feel comfortable defending his
attendance at his daughter's Girl Scout troop's jamboree.
However, there are some events that may result in a battle that
he does not want to fight. In those cases, he said, he wants
very specific information and would wait however long it takes
to get [an okay from the Ethics Committee]. He stated, "I have
a lot of confidence in Joyce, but ... if it rises to that level
to where I think it can cost me an election, that's a no-
brainer."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he also would not engage in a situation
that he thinks is a "close call." He offered another example in
which a legislator wants to work longer on a case for a
constituent in need, but there is a limit of 10 hours that a
legislator can give to one constituent's case. That constituent
needs help by the end of the week. The legislator asks [Ms.
Anderson] if it would be okay to help the constituent more than
10 hours and "the answer is yes." However, someone who knows
the issue has been one of contention files a complaint against
the legislator. The Ethics Committee then deliberates and
decides that although what the legislator did was motivated by
good intentions, the statute does limit the time to 10 hours,
thus, the legislator has violated ethics statute.
Representative Gara said that legislator would, for the rest of
his/her life, "walk around with the badge that says you engaged
in unethical conduct."
9:29:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the problem is that most of the
informal advice obtained will be "not 100 percent sure," which
means that those issues will be heard by the Ethics Committee.
Furthermore, he stated his belief that "they" would not be
issuing an opinion in the one-week time period used in
Representative Gara's example without the issue going through
legal review. He said it seems that [Amendment 1] is an attempt
for a "quick cure," but "we're putting in a bullet that's a
long, long bullet."
9:31:20 AM
MS. ANDERSON said she agrees with a lot of the comments of the
committee members thus far. She stated that if it is the
legislature's wish to change the process for informal advice,
she, and the Ethics Committee would take whatever action needed
to implement that process. However, she pointed out some areas
that she thinks may be problematic. She said she agrees with
Representative Seaton's comment that more people would request
her opinion in writing, which would increase her work load and
make it necessary to increase her staff from part time to full
time and hire an attorney. She stated, "I feel that if
someone's going to want to have binding advice, it's going to
involve just a little bit more; I might not have a yes or no
answer, because there is no yes or no answer with ethics."
MS. ANDERSON stated that sometimes when she gives advice, she
talks about the appearance of impropriety - that although the
statute does not prohibit the questioned thing, there are
concerns that she suggests the individual might want to
consider. She then leaves it to the individual to make the
decision. She stated that she would feel a little uncomfortable
doing that "if this was going to be binding advice," even if she
told the individual that it would be his/her choice.
MS. ANDERSON talked about the make-up of the Ethics Committee:
nine members, four of which are legislators and five public
members who vote on advisory opinions. The chair of the
committee is a volunteer, she noted. She stated that she would
be uncomfortable issuing advice in writing that would not be
"black and white," without running it by the chair. Therefore,
she said she thinks [the requirements in Amendment 1] would put
a burden on the committee. She pointed out that if she did have
to hire staff, her office would have to be moved to create more
space.
9:34:36 AM
MS. ANDERSON related that she receives hundreds of calls. Some
of the answers she gives are very black and white. She said she
does not anticipate that those answers would be required in
writing, but it would be the option of the legislator or
legislative staff person to request the answer in writing.
There are times when people call and ask questions, to which Ms.
Anderson says she does follow up in writing, because she feels
that the conversation was very complicated, and many facets were
involved in the answer. Ms. Anderson said she is confused as to
whether Amendment 1 would require that the advice be published,
which would then require a redaction of all the identifying
information. She said that would take time, but is possible,
and would perhaps be helpful to people looking to see what
advice has been given to other individuals. She noted that she
publishes advisory opinions every January. She continued:
That's a very positive part of this particular
amendment, because then it would get the information
out for questions that might be similar. On the other
hand, what we do on our web site right now with
advisory opinions is we say that if the facts and
circumstances are not exactly the same as in the
advisory opinion, you cannot rely on that advisory
opinion for your own particular situation.
MS. ANDERSON cited AS 24.60.165, which read as follows:
Sec. 24.60.165. Use of information submitted with
request for advice.
The committee may not bring a complaint against a
person based upon information voluntarily given to the
committee by the person in connection with a good
faith request for advice under AS 24.60.158 or
24.60.160, and may not use that information against
the person in a proceeding under AS 24.60.170. This
section does not preclude the committee from acting on
a complaint concerning the subject of a person's
request for advice if the complaint is brought by
another person, or if the complaint arises out of
conduct taking place after the advice is requested,
and does not preclude the committee from using
information or evidence obtained from an independent
source, even if that information or evidence was also
submitted with a request for advice.
MS. ANDERSON concluded, "So, there is some sort of protection
there right now, but it's not exactly what is in the amendment.
9:37:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if Ms. Anderson holds some people at
a higher standard than others. She explained that in the
medical profession, a nurse would be held to a higher standard
than a nurse's aide, because the former would know more than the
latter.
MS. ANDERSON answered no. She added that the only exception may
be that the language she uses to verbally explain a matter to an
attorney may be different from what she would use to explain the
same information to someone who is not an attorney.
9:39:30 AM
MS. MOSS said she has not discussed [Amendment 1] with the bill
sponsor, and whether or not to adopt it would be a policy call
for the committee to make. She predicted the amendment would
not pass through the committee, but she hopes the matter will be
discussed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
9:40:05 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Seaton, Wilson, Johnson,
and Lynn voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a
vote of 1-4.
9:40:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON [moved to adopt] Conceptual Amendment 2,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5 line 7 following "or witness in the matter"
insert "or responding to an interrogative from an
administrative officer"
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
9:42:10 AM
MS. MOSS, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that
an interrogative is a list of questions that are written and
responded to in writing. She likened it to a deposition, except
that the answers are written rather than given orally.
9:42:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the amendment is being
offered conceptually. He noted that there had been some
question regarding the language that had been proposed [at the
end of the first paragraph in Section 1, Version S, which read
as follows]:
(i) Except for supplying information requested by
the hearing officer or the individual, board, or
commission with authority to make the final decision
in the case, or when responding to contacts initiated
by the hearing officer or the individual, board, or
commission with authority to make the final decision
in the case, a legislator or legislative employee may
not attempt to influence the outcome of an
administrative hearing by directly or indirectly
contacting or attempting to contact the hearing
officer assigned to the hearing or the individual,
board, or commission with authority to make the final
decision in the case unless the legislator or
legislative employee is representing another person in
the case for compensation and subject to AS 24.60.100
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the question came up as to whether or
not a legislator or legislative office could respond if not
serving as a witness but asked for information by an
administrative officer. The purpose of Conceptual Amendment 2
is to clarify that a legislator or legislative office could
respond to such a request.
MS. MOSS said she thinks the use of the word "interrogative" may
be restrictive. She suggested using the word "inquiry" instead.
9:44:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to amend Conceptual Amendment 2, to
use the word "inquiry" rather than "interrogative".
9:45:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned which terms should be used:
"inquiry", "interrogative", or "interrogatory". Furthermore, he
questioned, "Should it also cover these kinds of formal
discovery requests or whatever, from another party?"
9:45:40 AM
TERRY L. THURBON, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of
Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, said she
would recommend using the word "inquiry". She offered further
details. She emphasized that "this shouldn't be happening to
begin with." She explained that if the administrative officer
who is sending an office inquiry of some kind is actually "the
neutral" who is ultimately going to decide the case, he/she
should not be outside the context of the hearing process on the
record with the other parties involved. Sometimes, she related,
a discussion changes course and suddenly pertains to an issue in
a case that will come before the administrative officer. When
that happens, it is time to end the conversation and make a
disclosure for the record that the mention of the topic was
inadvertent and no harm was done. If it will appear that the
administrative officer was influenced by the conversation,
he/she could recuse him/herself. The matter would be open and
transparent, so there would be no ethical problem.
9:48:29 AM
JUDGE THURBON stated, "So, with that in mind, I don't think the
amendment is necessary." She added that it also may not be
necessary because "earlier up in the section, we have the
legislator or legislative employee being told they may not
attempt to influence the outcome of the hearing by directly or
indirectly contacting the person who's going to hear the case."
9:48:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said if someone is asking a legislator or
legislative employee a question, "we shouldn't be under some
burden to ... figure out" whether or not it is okay to give out
the information being requested.
9:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that Judge Thurbon is saying
that it is a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics for a
judge or anybody who is a decision maker to contact a legislator
or legislative employee in an ex parte basis; therefore
[Conceptual Amendment 2] is unnecessary.
9:51:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he is not talking about
what "they" can do; he wants it clear what "we" can answer. He
offered an example.
9:51:38 AM
MS. MOSS described an instance where both parties may be asked,
separate of each other, to do something in the best interest of
a constituent. In response to Chair Lynn, she said she does not
think Conceptual Amendment 2 would hurt anything, and it would
help legislators and legislative employees feel better about
"acting when they are contacted."
9:52:48 AM
JUDGE THURBON stated that it is not always clear what the role
is of people in the executive branch; therefore, it will not
always be clear when such a person is talking about a case. She
said anyone else is okay to talk to, for example: a
representative from the oil and gas industry, the lawyer
representing that industry, a private party, or the private
party's lawyer. She stated:
The only bar that this provision that's currently on
the books was intended to bar was the inappropriate
contacts with a decision-maker. And I don't know that
adding this phrase, "or responding to an inquiry from
an administrative officer" cures that problem; I think
it muddies the water a little bit, perhaps, by
bringing back in some of the language that the ... CS
is getting rid of.
JUDGE THURBON reiterated that the ethical problem surrounding
responding to a question from an administrative officer who is
hearing the case being discussed is mostly the problem of that
administrative officer for having asked the question privately
in the first place. If the legislator or legislative employee
being asked the question becomes aware of the situation, then
he/she needs to disclose the exchange in order to solve the
ethical problem.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON questioned why Conceptual Amendment 2
could not read "for responding to an inquiry".
9:55:00 AM
MS. MOSS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, related that
in her previous example, one of the people of whom she spoke is
an employee who sits in hearings and makes decisions.
9:56:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG told Representative Seaton that when
the bill is heard by the House Judiciary Standing Committee, he
[Representative Gruenberg] would commit to working with the
parties and Representative Seaton. He said he has an amendment
that he will defer to the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like the committee to vote
on the amendment.
9:57:11 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Seaton,
and Lynn voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2, [as amended].
Representatives Wilson and Gruenberg voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted by a
vote of 3-2.
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that the amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 2 had previously been adopted.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:58:09 AM to 9:58:50 AM.
9:58:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 12 insert:
(i) Except when representing another person as a
licensed professional in the State of Alaska in the
case for compensation and subject to AS 24.60.100
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that he was moving the
amendment just to have it on the record that it had been
discussed during the subcommittee meeting.
9:59:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He stated that he thinks it
was improper for his own amendment to have been offered when
there is no time to debate the issue.
9:59:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that he did not intent to
advance the amendment, and he reiterated that the subcommittee
discussed the issue at length. He withdrew Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he appreciates that.
10:00:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 193, Version 26-
LS0656|C, Wayne, 3/25/09, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 193(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
10:00:48 AM
CHAIR LYNN discussed the upcoming calendar.
10:01:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 SB 29.pdf |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| 02 SB 29 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| HB 123 Legislative Audit 06-20055-08.pdf |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| CS for HB 123 Version R.pdf |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 123 |
| 03 SB 29 Memorial Quotes.pdf |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| 04 SB 29 Letters of Support.pdf |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| 05 SB 29 Hickel Letter of Support.doc |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| 06 SB 29 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| REVISED InsightOverviewLegCopy.ppt |
HSTA 3/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |