Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/01/1993 02:00 PM Senate JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE February 1, 1993 2:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman Senator Suzanne Little MEMBERS ABSENT Senator George Jacko Senator Dave Donley OTHERS PRESENT Senator Al Adams Senator Judy Salo Senator Mike Miller COMMITTEE CALENDAR OVERVIEW: ETHICS LAW PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION NONE WITNESS REGISTER Terry Cramer, Attorney Legislative Legal Counsel Room 407 130 Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-5, SIDE A Number 001 Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. He introduced TERRY CRAMER, attorney for the Legislative Legal Counsel and the Standards of Conduct Handbook prepared by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics - for Legislators and Legislative Employees. MS CRAMER explained she would summarize the sections of the ethics code that address conduct on the part of legislators and legislative employees and to try to point out the changes the law made in the bill last year. She suggested the members should not rely on what she said without checking. MS CRAMER said the first section of the handbook served to set the manner in which the code should be interpreted rather than how conduct should actually take place. In reference to the Applicability section on page 2, she said it contained a major difference for legislative employees. Number 063 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MS CRAMER to give a brief explanation of the current transition and whether a complain brought to the committee today regarding an incident that occurred last year, would be considered under the current law or the law in existence at the time of the incident. MS CRAMER explained the transition section of the bill would allow the newly selected committee to consider complaints before the new law went into effect and should follow the procedures under the amended act. A penalty, or sanction would not be allowed, unless such a sanction was authorized under the previous law. She said the transition section does not specifically speak to the statute of limitation, and she spoke to the variations. MS CRAMER thought the new committee could only look back two years, but the previous code could be subject to scrutiny for five years. Number 098 SENATOR TAYLOR asked for clarification on the old code v. the new code in regards to complaints and sanctions. MS CRAMER said it was a question the committee would have to resolved as to what would constitute unethical behavior under the old code. She explained it should be a substantive matter which would be brought forward by the new committee for those kinds of proceedings. MS CRAMER said that ultimately all the Ethics Committee could do under either versions of the code would be to make a recommendation to the body. Number 139 SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the level of toleration from the old code to the new code. MS CRAMER explained the old code had a "thou shalt not" approach to a conflict of interest, but the new code gets much more specific. She said the new code was much more restrictive - particularly with legislative lobbyists. In the new code, MS CRAMER thought the fund raising and gifts from lobbyists had become more specific, which might be a surprise to some people. MS CRAMER explained the new definition section as being more inclusive, and broadly interpreted. She used the area of contracts to explain the reporting of tangible goods as well as intangibles, and suggested it might be difficult to apply. MS CRAMER lamented not having a body of advisory opinions from which to draw in answering questions. Number 190 SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the validity of the advisory opinions rendered by the Ethics Committees over the last several years. MS CRAMER, in reference to AS 24.60.061, answered there has never been an advisory opinion with a binding analysis on future committees but only binding to an individual for specific circumstances. She thought the new committee would be grateful to accept any previous analysis that would apply to present circumstances, but it would remain the discretion of the new committee. In reference to AS 24.60.030(a), STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, MS CRAMER discussed a list of prohibitions in the performance of official duties for both legislators and employees in campaign contributions, gifts, and volunteer services. She pointed out some areas of question in this section. In subsequent paragraphs, MS CRAMER reviewed the examples and prohibitions. SENATOR ADAMS asked about "policemen" and was referred to another section. MS CRAMER thought this section was stringently drafted, but she hoped the new committee would modify the interpretation. Number 256 SENATOR HALFORD questioned the definition of "work schedule" during the legislative session since work is done at all hours - particularly late in the session. MS CRAMER didn't have an answer, but thought those in authority should be involved in this decision using a common sense approach. She thought this was a questionable area to be decided by the new committee. In reference to AS 24.60.030(a)(5), SENATOR TAYLOR protested the disparity of calling for a "citizen legislature," where the legislator must earn a living at another job in addition, with the reality of running a business in various parts of the state. He gave the example of store owner legislators in such places as Kotzebue, Fairbanks, and Juneau, and suggested it placed unfair limitations on a citizen legislator who serves from a more remote part of the state. Number 299 MS CRAMER agreed this was a problem area. SENATOR TAYLOR asserted a person living in a remote area and running for the legislature would pay a penalty for being in Juneau. SENATOR HALFORD announced the first half of the book was incorrect and asked MS CRAMER who the first 33 pages represented. MS CRAMER replied it was written by the staff from the previous ethics committee to be given to new members. She quoted from the "Purpose of this Handbook" on page 1 to answer SENATOR HALFORD'S questions. Number 324 SENATOR HALFORD concluded the questions and answers on the first 34 pages were immaterial, so he ripped them out. He admitted to SENATOR ADAMS he had been on the conference committee, but he said they had written the law not the book. MS CRAMER said another campaign prohibition, not in the old law, was one which would not apply until the next election. She explained that beginning 90 days before an election and running until the day after the election, the only state funds permitted to be used for a mass mailing would be from the legislator's office allowance. MS CRAMER also explained some variations of this prohibition. From AS 24.60.030(d), MS CRAMER reviewed a prohibition preventing a legislator from distributing or posting campaign literature in public areas of buildings, but she said "public areas" was not a defined term. She thought it wouldn't include the legislator's personal office, but it should be more defined. SENATOR TAYLOR initiated a general discussion about the posting of campaign literature in relation to the Democratic Skits. He decided it was another section which would need definition by the new ethics committee, and MS CRAMER agreed. Number 384 On the subject of membership on boards, AS 24.60.030(f), MS CRAMER said employees may not serve on boards requiring legislative confirmation such as the Board of Education. Also, legislators or legislative employees must disclose to the Ethics Committee in a letter, if they are a member of a board, and if the board has substantial regular interest in the activities of a legislator or an employee. She said there was no provision for publishing the letters, but thought the letters would be kept by the committee as public records. SENATOR SALO initiated a discussion with MS CRAMER as to whether reimbursable money spent on board meetings should be declared by a legislator who is a member of a board. MS CRAMER was not clear as to the responsibility of the board member and admitted she didn't know. Number 416 SENATOR TAYLOR thought it was a good question and would require an answer by the new Ethics Committee. He stated that some boards paid a stipend for each meeting. MS CRAMER explained why it would not be treated as a gift or as partial payment in the person's capacity as a legislator. SENATOR TAYLOR stressed the legislator would have to disclose membership on the board. MS CRAMER demurred, and SENATOR TAYLOR explained why the legislator should disclose any substantial interest. Number 427 SENATOR SALO gave an example as being in the grey area where the interest factor would be debatable. MS CRAMER thought for some boards the interest would change over time, and she read the definition for "substantial interest," which would include a financial interest. SENATOR TAYLOR said there would need to be further clarification on the subject of legislators on boards. SENATOR TAYLOR moved the meeting on to subsection (g) where MS CRAMER explained that a legislator or legislative employee with a substantial ownership interest must refrain from participating in any official legislative, administrative, or political action. The exception would be where the Uniform Rules would require the legislator to take action, and she gave an example. Number 461 The first sentence of AS 24.60.031 outlined campaign fund raising in which, "a legislator or legislative employee may not request or accept a contribution, or a promise to make a contribution, for a state legislative campaign while the legislature is in session." MS CRAMER said the old ethics code restricted fund raising events in the capitol city during the session, but she described the new code as being more restrictive. SENATOR ADAMS asked for some clarification. MS CRAMER also explained a legislator or a legislative employee would not be able to accept money from an event held during the legislative session either to raise money for the members or to raise money for state legislative political purposes. Money raised during the session, would have to go to people not covered by the code. SENATOR TAYLOR paraphrased her wording to answer SENATOR ADAM'S saying, "Normal political parties can't go out and raise money during a legislative session if that money is for state legislators running for office. They can't accept it." MS CRAMER agreed with his wording, and also agreed it was just for challengers - not present legislators. SENATOR HALFORD returned to AS 24.60.020 to ask MS CRAMER to read (a)(2) and explain what it means. She read, "This chapter does not apply to a person elected to the legislature who, at the time of election, is not a member of the legislature." She said it doesn't apply to a challenger but would apply to someone moving from the House to the Senate. Number 493 MS CRAMER said the code doesn't apply to candidates or people who have been elected to the Legislature - but have not yet been sworn into office. SENATOR HALFORD said the wording looked very strange, and it was the worst wording he had seen. MS CRAMER agreed. This produced some raillery among the committee members. SENATOR HALFORD asked for a written opinion on the real meaning of the wording, because he did not think it said what was intended when the law was passed. SENATOR TAYLOR confirmed the request and suggested there was possibly too much left to the new committee as to guidelines, definitions, and cleanup on the interpretation of the law. Number 525 SENATOR LITTLE asked that the opinion be distributed to all of the members of the committee, and SENATOR TAYLOR agreed. MS CRAMER returned to AS 24.60.031 to explain "you may not spend money in a state legislative campaign that was raised by or for a legislator during the session under a general letter of intent to become a candidate for public office." She posed a hypothetical example of a confused opinion and suggested there be very careful reading of the fund raising prohibitions. To emphasize the problems in the code, SENATOR TAYLOR described a situation in which he might raise money to run a statewide office. He decides instead to run for his Senate office, but the money, which he can't use, must be given to the Republican party, where it will be used for a non- incumbent to run for office. SENATOR TAYLOR exclaimed it would be an accounting nightmare. There was some discussion of the problems as outlined in SENATOR TAYLOR'S scenario. MS CRAMER said the legislators could not use money raised in events during the session for any campaign purposes. Number 559 SENATOR SALO questioned a mass mailing in SENATOR TAYLOR'S hypothetical example. MS CRAMER reiterated a prohibition, but SENATOR SALO didn't think it reflected the intent of the committee. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed with SENATOR SALO'S assessment, and MS CRAMER acknowledged it was an area to be explored. He didn't see why those running against the incumbents should get an edge. MS CRAMER drew attention to some new sections. The section concerning Legislative Employee Candidacies explained a situation in which a legislative employee, who wishes to run for a seat in the Legislature, must resign from their legislative job before initiating their campaign. MS CRAMER said the Protection of Whistle Blowers added legislative employees to the list of those protected for reporting a violation of the ethics law. MS CRAMER said the Open Meetings Law had not been applied to the Legislature ..... TAPE 93-5, SIDE B Number 001 .....but was now chosen to be an ethical violation for a member to take part in meetings that violate the Open Meetings Law. She said the Ethics Committee would adopt guidelines for the application of the Open Meetings Law to the Legislature, and she gave some interpretation of the section. Number 011 SENATOR HALFORD explained this area was one of the final issues discussed in the conference committee, and he said the opinion expressed at the time the bill was passed was that the Open Meetings Law applied only under guidelines adopted by the committee. Until the guidelines were adopted, he said there wouldn't be any blanket application of the Open Meetings Law. SENATOR HALFORD quoted the ethics committee chairman, SENATOR VIRGINIA COLLINS, as saying that was clearly her intent. SENATOR ADAMS asked if there was a letter of intent, but SENATOR HALFORD didn't think there was. He quoted then REPRESENTATIVE MIKE MILLER as remembering the same thing. MS CRAMER said once the committee has the guidelines in place, the problem would go away; however, she said it was a difficult area in which to advise people. SENATOR HALFORD said there was no transition with regards to the provisions of this law, and if AS 24.60.037 was being currently applied, the entire Open Meetings Law of the state would apply to the Legislature now. He said the exception was that the enforcement tool was totally within the control of the Legislature after recommendation by the committee. MS CRAMER agreed with his explanation. SENATOR HALFORD said the Open Meetings Act doesn't include the exemptions listed in the "Standards of Conduct Handbook," and he considered this a troublesome area. MS CRAMER suggested the use of the Uniform Rules until the new guidelines for the Open Meetings Law were adopted. SENATOR ADAMS accused the majority of not recognizing the Uniform Rules at this time, and SENATOR HALFORD objected. In reference to AS 24.60.039, MS CRAMER said it would put discrimination within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee, and she explained the relationship to a violation of the Unlawful Employment Practices Law in AS 18.80.220. Number 049 MS CRAMER said the provisions in AS 24.60.040 had stayed the same with the addition of a new definition of "direct or indirect benefits," but it was consistent with previous practices. She said the one major change was the inclusion of family members. SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether it would apply to "spousal equivalents" employed by the Legislature. She said the only spousal equivalent mentioned was in the nepotism section, .090. He clarified that a spousal equivalent would not be prevented from receiving a sole-source contract or participation in state contracts or leases. They agreed it prohibit only actual spouses. AL ADAMS asked for a ruling on a legislative spouse, who is a lobbyist, and the legislator is in charge of the Finance Committee. SENATOR TAYLOR and MS CRAMER agreed it would come under a Close Economic Associations which is covered in AS 24.60.070, and must be disclosed, but it wasn't prohibited. SENATOR HALFORD asked MS CRAMER for the proper procedure for a member of the Legislature, who received a request from a state agency to provide a service. After discussion with MS CRAMER, he clarified it couldn't be done unless it was done by competitive sealed bid. MS CRAMER gave him a couple of exceptions. In a case where the state wanted to buy something, such as a piece of land he owned, SENATOR HALFORD wanted to know what to do then. He wanted to know if the laws prohibit him from selling the parcel as long as he was in the Legislature. MS CRAMER said it could be condemned, and they discussed an arms length negotiation. SENATOR SALO asked if it included the University of Alaska, and she was told it did. There was a general discussion on all kinds of contracts, and SENATOR TAYLOR thought this would be important for the Ethics Committee to know. Number 130 SENATOR HALFORD offered a letter to MS CRAMER from a department in state government that wants to do something on his property, and he wanted to know if it could be done. He offered to share the correspondence with anyone who was interested, and SENATOR TAYLOR said there were obvious problems. He asked MS CRAMER for information that might cover the letter, and there was a discussion of applicable sections in the code. In a discussion of loan programs, AS 24.60.050, SENATOR TAYLOR gave a hypothetical example of a former speaker of the House, who got a buddy to create a loan fund, which was then borrowed by the speaker and his aides for seafood processing plant doing business with the state. MS CRAMER added other criteria, but generally it wouldn't be illegal. MS CRAMER reviewed AS 24.60.060 dealing with the Handling of Confidential Information section as applied to the Ethics Committee. There was a lengthy discussion of the instances in which this section would apply to confidential and priority information. Number 172 MS CRAMER explained how a person who misused the confidential information section could be subject to criminal prosecution under AS 11.56.860. SENATOR TAYLOR questioned MS CRAMER, in the light of current information problems, about the triggering point when something becomes confidential. There was a precise discussion between SENATOR TAYLOR and MS CRAMER as to when the confidentiality shield would go into effect. They also discussed possible abuses that could be perpetrated before the matter goes before the Ethics Committee. Number 234 MS CRAMER reviewed the provisions in AS 24.60.070 pertaining to Close Economic Associations. She listed five categories of people with whom a disclosure is required for a close economic association: a supervisor, a legislator, a public official, a registered lobbyist, or a legislative employee. MS CRAMER explained the most important point in the gifts section, AS 24,60.080, precludes a legislator or legislative employee from accepting a gift worth $100 or more, or any gift with any a value from a lobbyist during the legislative session. She reviewed the exclusions to this prohibition in subsection (C), and in the Lobbyist's Statutes, where a lobbyist may not make a gift during a session other than food or beverage for immediate consumption. MS CRAMER discussed with SENATOR TAYLOR some tips on the reporting of gifts. Number 278 MS CRAMER outlined in AS 24.60.085 the restrictions on earned income and honoraria by legislators or legislative employees. In AS 24.60.090 the subject was nepotism, taking into consideration during session and after session, which is more restrictive than during session. Spousal equivalents were treated in the same manner as all others related to the legislator. There was a lengthy discussion among the committee members when MS CRAMER read the opening explanation of AS 24.60.100 about representation. She read "A legislator or legislative employee, who represents another person for compensation before an agency, board, or commission of the state shall disclose the name of the person represented, the subject matter of the representation, and the body before which the representation is to take place to the committee." SENATOR TAYLOR gave a broad definition of "representation" and thought there was a definite change in the new code over the old law. He described how he had over reported business information under the old law, disclosed personal information, and asked if this would be the norm for attorneys, engineers, and real estate agents. Number 415 SENATOR LITTLE addressed cases where further clarification of the ethics code was desired and asked if it would be proper for the Judiciary Committee to begin some discussions on the interpretation of the code. MS CRAMER said this would have to be answered by the committee, but she thought the committee would be a logical place for such discussions. SENATOR TAYLOR listed some reasons why the Ethics Committee might not want the input from the Judiciary Committee, but he thought the committee should alert their fellow legislators about significant loopholes. SENATOR TAYLOR suggested there should be some clarity given to the ethics board, and MS CRAMER said there was a section in the revisor's bill that addresses an error in the drafting of the new ethics code in the close economic association section. Number 436 SENATOR LITTLE continued to question whether the Judiciary Committee could clear up some of the cloudy parts of the code. MS CRAMER said the legislature could pass a bill amending the code to provide more clarity, and they agreed that legislation would make it binding. SENATOR LITTLE suggested to SENATOR TAYLOR it be done, even if it was non- binding recommendations. SENATOR TAYLOR said he would be happy to work with a sub- committee on such legislation. Number 481 MS CRAMER explained, under the financial disclosure sections, AS 24.60.200 to .260, the legislators should be aware the financial disclosure sections had been moved to the Ethics Code from AS 39.50., but she thought the intent had remained the same. She said the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) would continue to be charged with the interpretation and enforcement of the sections. SENATOR TAYLOR noted there was a change in the amount, and MS CRAMER explained how it could become a subject of an ethics complaint. She reviewed the definitions which, she said, may have unexpected effects. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for advice on the five public members yet to be reviewed, if they were not all approved. MS CRAMER said replacement members would be selected by the chief justice to be ratified by 2/3 vote of the Senate and House. The members discussed several aspects of the procedure. SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS CRAMER and the members of the committee for reviewing the "Standard of Conduct Handbook." There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|