02/23/2010 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB291 | |
| HB289 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 291 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 23, 2010
8:14 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 291
"An Act relating to the issuance of state-guaranteed revenue
bonds by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to finance
mortgages for qualifying veterans; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 289
"An Act authorizing state agencies to pay private legal fees and
costs incurred by persons exonerated of alleged Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing certain public officers
and former public officers to accept state payments to offset
private legal fees and costs related to defending against an
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act complaint; and creating
certain exceptions to Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
limitations on the use of state resources to provide or pay for
transportation of spouses and children of the governor and the
lieutenant governor."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 291
SHORT TITLE: GUARANTEED REVENUE BONDS FOR VETERANS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
02/02/10 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/02/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/10 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/04/10 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/04/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/04/10 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/05/10 (H) MLV RPT 4DP 1NR
02/05/10 (H) DP: LYNN, T.WILSON, BUCH, GATTO
02/05/10 (H) NR: KAWASAKI
02/23/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 289
SHORT TITLE: EXEC ETHICS: LEGAL FEES/FAMILY TRAVEL
SPONSOR(s): GRUENBERG
01/15/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/23/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
BRYAN BUTCHER, Director
Government Relations & Public Affairs
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 291 on behalf of the House
Rules Committee, sponsor by request of the governor.
JOE DUBLER, Finance Director
Bonds
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
291.
LAURIE HOLTE, Residential Lending Officer
Urban and Residential Loan Programs
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
291.
JUDY BOCKMON, Assistant Attorney General/State Ethics Attorney
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
289.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:14:55 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:14 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Gruenberg, Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representative Wilson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 291-GUARANTEED REVENUE BONDS FOR VETERANS
8:15:40 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the first order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 291, "An Act relating to the issuance of state-guaranteed
revenue bonds by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to
finance mortgages for qualifying veterans; and providing for an
effective date."
8:16:19 AM
BRYAN BUTCHER, Director, Government Relations & Public Affairs,
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), presented HB 291 on
behalf of the House Rules Committee, sponsor by request of the
governor. He stated that the proposed legislation would place
on the 2010 general election ballot a vote asking voters to
approve an additional $600 million of state-guaranteed bonds to
be issued by AHFC for the veterans' program.
MR. BUTCHER related his understanding that "the veterans'
program" was created in the U.S. Congress, and there was a small
window during which states could take advantage of that program.
Alaska was one of only five states to sign up, he said. The
other four states were: Oregon, California, Texas, and
Wisconsin. He indicated that prior to 1977, in order to
qualify, a veteran could not have been out of service for more
than 30 years. He said the veterans' program is the only one
for which AHFC needs a general obligation pledge of the state in
order to sell bonds.
MR. BUTCHER said AHFC has worked with the U.S. Congress for 15
years to lift the restrictions and open the program up to more
veterans. He indicated the reason for the lengthy effort was
because only five states were involved. He stated, "We thought
there might be interest in having all the states give this
program for their veterans. Unfortunately, that's not the way
most of Congress saw it." The requirement of 1977 was lifted
from federal law, but only through an agreement that AHFC would
be limited in selling only $10 million in bonds a year. He
remarked that when considering homes that cost $300,000-
$400,000, $10 million does not go far. After the restrictions
were lifted, there were more eligible veterans in the state, but
there was not much money.
MR. BUTCHER reported that two years ago, the limit on AHFC was
increased to $100 million, and now the program flourishes. He
continued:
And at this point, as we ran numbers, we realized that
2002 was the last time we had it go to a vote of the
people. It was $500 million authorized. Over 70
percent of the state voted to have it done. And once
we realized we now had a more brisk loan portfolio, we
realized that in all likelihood, sometime in 2011 we
were going to run out of funds for the program. So,
if we didn't get it on the general election ballot
this year, we may have to shut the program down well
before we get to a 2012 general election.
8:20:07 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he retired from the military in 1976, and he
asked if he would be eligible today for the program.
8:20:22 AM
MR. BUTCHER answered no, because currently a veteran cannot have
been out of active duty for more than 25 years.
CHAIR LYNN asked what the rationale was behind choosing 25 years
as a cut-off point. He remarked, "A veteran is a veteran is a
veteran."
8:21:04 AM
MR. BUTCHER reemphasized the challenges of working with U.S.
Congress as one out of only five states that adopted such a
program. He explained that U.S. Congress was concerned that tax
exempt bonds would take money out of the treasury. He said the
program from 1977 ended, and he said the chair of the federal
Ways and Means Committee told him he believes that everything
that sunsets should do so. Mr. Butcher said that sentiment is
frustrating those trying to keep this successful program
running. To illustrate that success, Mr. Butcher relayed that
Standard & Poor's reported a few weeks ago that AHFC's last bond
issuance for its veterans' program had the lowest delinquency
rate of any of the programs across the country. He indicated
that the veterans' program is AHFC's most successful program.
CHAIR LYNN responded, "I understand that, but ...
philosophically it's discriminating against a whole bunch of
veterans, and that discrimination really is age discrimination,
too."
8:22:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is a Vietnam War veteran. He
asked if a veteran is only allowed this loan once in a lifetime.
8:23:02 AM
JOE DUBLER, Finance Director, Bonds, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), answered no. He said a veteran may
participate multiple times, but may have only one loan out at a
time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG declared a conflict of interest related
to his forthcoming line of questioning.
CHAIR LYNN declared a conflict of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that "this definition" is in federal
law, not state law; therefore, the committee has no authority
over it, but may comment on it.
8:24:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if AHFC could run a program at
the state level that was identical to the federal program, but
without [the 25-year] requirement.
8:25:12 AM
MR. BUTCHER answered that the federal program allows AHFC to
sell tax exempt bonds, which in turn allows AHFC to obtain a
lower interest rate than it can through its "general program."
Anyone who did not qualify under federal law would not be
eligible for tax exempt bonds, so AHFC would have to sell
taxable bonds.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "So, is there federal money
involved in this, or just tax exempt status?"
MR. BUTCHER responded, "Just tax exempt status."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that was not clear from the
information provided. He said he had been under the impression
that there was a "federal guarantee or federal money."
8:26:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the bonds are retired or are
cycled into AHFC for reissuance of additional mortgage.
8:26:33 AM
MR. BUTCHER responded that the payments AHFC gets from borrowers
are used to pay off debt. He explained that under federal tax
law and with certain restrictions, to the extent AHFC pays off
debt, it is able to reissue debt. He continued:
When we do that, for the purposes of state law and the
voters' authorization under the guaranteed program, we
reduce the amount of the voter authorization by the
refunded amount, as well. In other words, we're not
double counting for the state purposes. We do for the
feds because they allow it, but for the state we're
very conservative and do not.
8:27:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that although
AHFC can reissue, it has to go back to voters to get approval to
guarantee the additional amount.
MR. DUBLER confirmed that AHFC cannot issue general obligation
bonds without the approval of the voters.
8:28:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Butcher if he foresees AHFC
having a similar problem with U.S. Congress regarding a sunset
of the current federal law.
8:28:24 AM
MR. BUTCHER answered that the five states involved are
continually working with U.S. Congress. Currently, AHFC is
working to get the 25-year limit lifted so that the program
would apply to all veterans and to obtain permission to have
refinancing "as something that would qualify in the program."
He credited Congressman Bill Thomas from California for his work
on this issue.
8:29:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like an explanation of how
the issue of active duty relates to [the Alaska National Guard].
8:30:08 AM
LAURIE HOLTE, Residential Lending Officer, Urban and Residential
Loan Programs, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), stated
that if a [National] Guard member has been called to active duty
by the President for duty other than training, then he/she
becomes eligible for the program upon completion of that
obligation. Being called to duty by the State of Alaska is not
considered federal duty, she specified.
8:31:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that active
National Guard members, having completed their initial period of
duty, which would entitle them to honorable discharge or
release, would qualify. He asked if they would remain eligible
if they went off active duty status.
MS. HOLTI answered yes.
8:32:48 AM
MR. DUBLER, in response to Representative Wilson, said if a
borrower does not pay back his/her mortgage, the corporation has
options. In most cases, there would be a Veterans
Administration or Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
guarantee, and AHFC would be able to receive from those entities
the difference between what AFHC is able to resell the house for
and what the borrower still owes on the mortgage. In the mid-
to late-'80s, the value of the homes being foreclosed was
smaller than the balance on the mortgages; however, currently
there is not a big decline in home value, so AHFC does not
anticipate that problem in the current environment. In response
to a follow-up comment from Representative Wilson, he confirmed
that bonds are paid off using the payments received from
veterans.
8:34:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG shared that he participated in the Navy
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) program, from which he
graduated in 1965. He noted that those in military academies
are qualified, and he stated his assumption that is because
people attending those academies are considered on active duty.
He offered his understanding that ROTC participants are also
considered on active duty during their college years, and he
asked if any consideration had been made to include those in the
ROTC.
8:36:38 AM
MR. BUTCHER said he would bring that issue up during the next
conference call between the five aforementioned states and get
back to Representative Gruenberg with a response.
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that ROTC participants do
not qualify as being on active duty.
8:38:02 AM
MS. HOLTI, in response to Representative Petersen, said a
qualified veteran could use the program loan for a duplex,
triplex, or fourplex, as long as one unit is occupied by the
borrower.
8:38:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN offered his understand that this is a
good time to have a bond sale, especially considering Alaska's
"credit worthiness." He said he supports HB 291 and thinks a
majority of Alaskans will vote to continue supporting this
program.
8:39:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned if the language in bill
should be changed to reflect that the veteran who borrows money
may do so for a multi-unit dwelling. She said, "So, what we're
really saying is we're helping them start a business."
8:40:10 AM
MR. DUBLER responded that the vast majority of loans given in
this program are for single-family homes. The definition of
residence for this purpose is "less than a fourplex". He stated
his understanding that that language is found also in federal
law. He said AHFC's first-time homebuyer program includes the
same stipulation. He concluded, "So, it's a federal issue, I
believe."
CHAIR LYNN proffered that sometimes the ability to get income
from the other units helps a person qualify for a home loan.
MR. DUBLER confirmed that is correct.
8:41:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is any state subsidy in
this program.
MR. DUBLER replied yes. He relayed that the current interest
rate is 4.625 percent.
8:42:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there would be an explanation
of the proposed ballot measure in the election pamphlet.
MR. BUTCHER said he believes there was an explanation in the
2002 election information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants a definition of
"veterans" and "residences" provided to voters.
8:45:13 AM
MR. BUTCHER said AHFC could provide those definitions.
8:45:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that even though this is related
to a federal program, the State of Alaska will be funding it
and, therefore, will be responsible.
MR. BUTCHER responded that that is correct. He clarified that
there are federal restrictions. Federal law allows the state to
choose whether to participate in the program.
8:46:18 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
8:46:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 291 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 291 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:47:02 AM to 8:50:04 AM.
HB 289-EXEC ETHICS: LEGAL FEES/FAMILY TRAVEL
8:50:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the final order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 289, "An Act authorizing state agencies to pay private legal
fees and costs incurred by persons exonerated of alleged Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing certain public
officers and former public officers to accept state payments to
offset private legal fees and costs related to defending against
an Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act complaint; and creating
certain exceptions to Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
limitations on the use of state resources to provide or pay for
transportation of spouses and children of the governor and the
lieutenant governor."
8:50:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 289, Version 26-LS1304\C, Wayne, 2/22/10,
as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR LYNN stated his intent to work from Version C.
8:51:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version C was before the committee.
8:51:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in explanation of the function of the
proposed legislation, paraphrased the first sentence of the
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HB 289 sets forth in statute the substance of the
Attorney General's proposed regulations establishing
standards for (1) reimbursement of legal fees and
costs for any executive branch employees accused of
ethical violations, and (2) payment of travel expenses
for the families of only the governor and lieutenant
governor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the reason he became involved with
HB 289 is that he believes these issues should be dealt with by
the legislative branch, not the executive branch - particularly
the attorney general, who is appointed by the governor and
determines whether the governor's family or people in his own
department can get reimbursed by the state for costs and fees
resulting from being charged with an ethics violation.
8:54:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN said, "So, this is basically to prevent the
appearance of conflict of interest."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded yes.
8:55:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding legal fees, said he was
concerned that there is language that could be interpreted as
allowing reimbursement even if a person was not exonerated, if
he/she simply paid the money back. He said he does not think it
is fair for someone who is guilty to get back his/her full
attorney's fees and costs. In response to a question from Chair
Lynn, Representative Gruenberg confirmed his intent is for only
those who have been exonerated to be reimbursed. He said the
term exonerated is defined on page 4, lines 12-18, of Version C.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that there is a
recommendation for corrective action and one for preventative
action. He explained that corrective action is something that
would occur when a person has been found guilty, whereas
preventative action would be taken in a situation in which a
person was not found guilty, yet the situation should be avoided
in the future.
8:59:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 4, line 4,
of Version C, which includes "former public officer". He said
he wanted to ensure that a former public officer cannot come
back much later and get his/her costs and fees. He then
directed attention to page 4, lines 26-28, of Version C, which
read as follows:
APPLICABILITY. AS 39.52.470, enacted by sec. 4 of
this Act, applies only to complaints under AS
39.52.310 - 39.52.390 that are initiated or filed on
or after the effective date of this Act.
9:00:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said a third change that was
incorporated into Version C is in language on page 4, beginning
on line [19], which read as follows:
(2) "fees and costs of private legal
representation" means reasonable fees and related
costs of legal representation that are necessarily
incurred in defense against the allegations in the
complaint and may include fees for services
customarily performed by an attorney but delegated to
and performed by a person working under the
supervision of an attorney licensed to practice in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that that would preclude
someone from attempting to get money for "a fishing expedition
or all kinds of things that aren't related to it." Furthermore,
the person would have to be reasonable from an attorney's point
of view.
9:02:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the fourth change incorporated
into Version C would make the process of making claims less
cumbersome. He said theoretically, a person could be paid money
and then found guilty, or something equivalent, and then the
agency would have to come back to recoup the money, and the
person could be judgment proof. He indicated that the change in
Version C would leave the application for costs and fees to the
end, so that it is done once with no recouping "or anything like
that." He explained that this change is the reason that Version
C is much shorter in length than the original bill version.
9:04:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for clarification regarding
recommendations for preventative action.
9:04:55 AM
JUDY BOCKMON, Assistant Attorney General/State Ethics Attorney,
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law, echoed Representative Gruenberg's previous
statement that corrective action recognizes that there has been
some sort of violation, while exoneration would include those
situations where there has been no violation, even if it was
decided that preventative action was necessary. She said an
example of preventative action may be to distance the employee
from "the situation," which would be done through the ethics
supervisor of the agency involved.
9:07:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if those actions that may have the
appearance of impropriety would be a violation or would "flow
under preventative action."
9:09:52 AM
MS. BOCKMON explained that when the department reviews Ethics
Act matters, it looks at the actual situation. She said there
is a regulation that states that the appearance of impropriety
is not a violation, so the department would not base a violation
on appearances alone. A decision is made as to whether there is
an actual violation or not.
9:11:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that there is a
statutory requirement not to have appearance of impropriety. He
stated, "I'm just wanting to get clarified that what we're
saying here is that if you are guilty of generating the
appearance of impropriety, the appearance of a conflict by the
executive officer's action, that that's going to be treated as
an exoneration or it will be treated as a recommendation for
preventative action."
9:12:35 AM
MS. BOCKMON reiterated that judgments are not made by
appearances. She said, "We encourage employees to step up and
report situations in which they might potentially violate the
Ethics Act." For example, someone might be assigned to review
grant proposals and see that the name on one of the submittals
is that of a family member. At that point, the reviewer should
stop, report the problem, and be removed from the situation. If
the reviewer continues his/her participation in the review of
the application submitted by the family member, that would be a
violation and there would be no exoneration. She concluded,
"It's hard to envision a situation where the result of the
investigation turns on just the appearance of the situation."
9:14:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN offered a hypothetical example of an
executive who submits paperwork for reimbursement of travel
expenses for a family member who was not required to be on the
trip, but withdraws the submission when it is pointed out to
him/her that this was not something for which there should be
reimbursement. He asked if that is an example of preventative
action.
MS. BOCKMON indicated that the answer would depend upon whether
or not there had been an ethics complaint. If there had been an
ethics complaint, then the situation would involve corrective
action. Prior to there being a complaint, if the officer
submitted the request for reimbursement and then realized it was
inappropriate and took action to withdraw the request, that
would be viewed as a person "stepping up" to meet his/her
obligations, having recognized there was a problem. She said
that behavior should be encouraged.
9:17:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Ms. Bockmon to confirm that if the
aforementioned executive from the hypothetical example
voluntarily withdrew the request for reimbursement, then there
would be no violation.
MS. BOCKMON replied that she is uncertain that that would be the
ultimate conclusion. She explained, "We could say it's a
violation, but the person took appropriate action to correct the
situation and that addresses it absent there being a complaint
to follow through on."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a review of the sectional
analysis [included in the committee packet].
9:19:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG paraphrased the first part of the
sectional analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 1. Deletes definition of "for partisan political
purposes." This definition section is moved to section
3 on page 3, lines 22-27.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued as follows:
It's permitted if ... the person who is transported
with the governor or lieutenant governor reimburses
the state for the actual cost or if the cost is not
reasonably calculable for the fair market value of the
person's transportation. Alternatively, if they are
not reimbursing the state, the standard is whether the
person's attendance is a benefit to the state. And
that is a ... general concept impossible to determine
with just a facile definition. So, what we give here
- and this is pretty much given from the regulations
this time - ... it's presumed. In other words, the
presumption is that it's okay, and the burden of proof
would shift to the prosecution, to the people who were
bringing the complaint, to show that it wasn't a
benefit to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there are four situations in which
a person's attendance is considered a benefit to the state, and
they are listed in language on page 3, lines 12-21, of Version
C, [Section 3(g)(2)(A)-(D)], which read as follows:
(A) the person's attendance at the event is
required for official action of the state;
(B) the event is state-sponsored and the
person's attendance is customary;
(C) the person is attending as an official
representative of the state; or
(D) the person is invited by the event's
sponsor before the transportation occurs, the
invitation and the person's attendance are customary,
the event is related to issues important to the state,
and the governor or lieutenant governor attend.
9:23:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Gruenberg for an
example of when a child or spouse would be required for official
action of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG deferred to Ms. Bockmon.
CHAIR LYNN asked if there is an age range for "child".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that it could be any child,
including an adult child. He deferred to Ms. Bockmon for
further comment.
9:24:17 AM
MS. BOCKMON, regarding Representative Seaton's question, said
there are a lot of situations in ethics that are not foreseen.
She said she cannot offer a concrete example; however, she
stated, "It seemed to us when we were drafting the regulations
that we should allow for this."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is not expressing opposition, but
he just does not understand when the state would require a
spouse or child of the governor for an official action of the
state.
9:25:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the language was included because
it was in regulation and "seemed like a reasonable proposal."
He recollected that when Lady Bird Johnson was in the White
House, she was in charge of certain highway beautification
projects.
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks many First Ladies have taken on causes
without being in an official capacity.
9:26:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said in some instances the governor and
lieutenant governor are invited to numerous ceremonial events,
and if they are invited to more than one event happening
simultaneously, they may need to assign a family member to go in
their stead.
9:27:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said it should be acceptable for the
governor's spouse to join him/her on a trip to a community in
Alaska, because that really pleases the public.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that he is not opposing the
language, but rather is trying to understand through example
what subparagraph (A) means. He asked if the language in
Section 3(g)(2)(A)-(C) [text provided previously] is addressing
travel independent of the lieutenant governor or governor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered yes. He said subparagraph (D)
requires the attendance of the governor or lieutenant governor,
while subparagraphs (A)-(C) could include independent travel.
9:32:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Chair Lynn, said the
bill language does not include parents, siblings, or in-laws of
the executive.
9:33:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Bockmon to address his
previously stated question regarding the meaning of "as an
official representative of the state," and he asked what it
would take to designate someone as such.
9:34:02 AM
MS. BOCKMON prefaced her answer by noting that trying to draft
standards to address this issue was difficult. She said the
desire was to draft language "that was narrow and related to
circumstances where there was an identifiable benefit to the
state to have the person there." She said the use of the word
"official" [in Section 3(g)(2)(C)] refers to a situation in
which the governor or lieutenant governor cannot attend a
function and designates his/her spouse, for example, to attend.
Furthermore, the term also applies to the context in which first
ladies and first gentlemen take on causes, such as education,
which are important to the state.
9:35:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there were two U.S.
Presidents - one a bachelor and the other a widower - who
depended on young relatives to represent them.
CHAIR LYNN asked if the proposed legislation would allow for a
similar situation in which a governor of Alaska did not have a
spouse and needed a relative to serve as a host.
9:37:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered no. He asked Ms. Bockmon if
she would have a problem with an amendment to include such a
possibility.
9:37:50 AM
MS. BOCKMON responded that that would be a policy choice for the
legislature. She said she would have no objection, assuming
there were no legal issues presented in the language of an
amendment. She said, "There are situations in which we as a
state and the citizens would expect there to be a host/hostess
situation perhaps, and it wouldn't be necessarily inappropriate
for the state to decide as a matter of policy that it would
cover such a person."
CHAIR LYNN suggested that that amendment could be considered in
the next committee of referral.
9:39:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there would be some kind of
public declaration that someone is acting in the official
capacity [of the governor or lieutenant governor].
MS. BOCKMON said she does not believe that is what was
contemplated under the regulation. She stated, "These
situations are all so specific to the circumstances and ...
every time you think that you know what the range is, there's
something new." She said if someone is serving as an honorary
chair of a committee, she expects there would have been some
sort of declaration made, whereas in a situation where someone
is going to fill in for a governor unable to attend a function,
she assumes that would be the result of a decision made in the
governor's office.
9:41:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks the presumptions being made
should be clarified.
9:42:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his intent as sponsor that "if
somebody's an official representative, there must be something
in the official records to do that." He asked Ms. Bockmon if
his stated intent would be sufficient or if there needs to be an
amendment.
MS. BOCKMON answered that there is always a record kept of
someone traveling; however, she recommended that the legislature
would need to clarify if it wanted a record of any declaration
that someone would be acting as an official representative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that that is his intent. He
opined that the best practice would be to put it in writing.
9:45:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON warned that the terms "spouse" and
"child" have already been specified in subsection (g), so "we're
going to have to adjust it there also."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that his intent is for an
amendment to be made to address that issue in the next committee
of referral. He asked Representative Seaton if he would be more
comfortable with the addition of a definition of "official
designation".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered yes.
9:46:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reemphasized the need for clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to work on amendments to bring
back to the committee.
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks "that might be better." He explained
that he would like to amend the bill to be "as complete as
possible" before moving it out of committee. He opined that HB
289 is an important bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would get input from the bill
drafter and Ms. Bockmon when working on the amendments.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that a memorandum could be required for
certain "special cases."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks [appointments of
official representatives of the state] should at least be in
writing.
9:48:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to subparagraph (B) in
Section 3, which read:
(B) the event is state-sponsored and the person's
attendance is customary;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that means a certain event or
would include a "similar" event.
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that customary means
something that has been done one or more times before.
9:49:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated he thinks the language would
include similar events. He offered an example.
9:50:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON concurred, and he recommended adding "at
similar events" to subparagraph (B).
9:50:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG invited more input from the committee,
and he said he could have the amendments ready by the next
committee meeting.
9:50:55 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining there was no one else who wished
to testify, closed public testimony.
9:51:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 289 was held over.
9:53:51 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:54
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0291A.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 291 |
| 02 HB 291 Vets Bonds Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 291 |
| 03 HB291 AHFC Vets Sec Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 291 |
| 04 Updated AHFC Vets Loan Activity.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 05 HB291-DOR-AHFC-2-10-10.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 291 |
| 06 HB0291-1-1-011910-GOV-Y.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 291 |
| 01 HB 289 - Full Text.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 2/25/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |
| 02 HB 289 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 2/25/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |
| 03 HB 289 Sectional.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 2/25/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |
| 04 Proposed Reg Changes.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 2/25/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |
| 05 Legal Opinion 2-12-10 - Exec Ethics.HB 289 pdf.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 2/25/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |
| 01A CS for HB 289.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |
| 01B Explanation of Changes HB 289.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |
| 06 HB289-OOG-EO-2-19-10.pdf |
HSTA 2/23/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 289 |