Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/25/1993 04:00 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE
JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES
February 25, 1993
4:00 p.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter
Rep. Jeannette James
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Sen. Robin Taylor, Chairman
Sen. Rick Halford
Sen. Suzanne Little
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Sen. Dave Donley
Sen. George Jacko
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Rep. Jerry Mackie
Rep. David Finkelstein
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearings - Public Members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics
WITNESS REGISTER
SHIRLEY A. MCCOY
P.O. Box 33475
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 780-6400
Position Statement: Nominee
VIRGINIA M. JOHNSON, DVM
12531 Old Seward Highway
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Phone: 344-4324
Position Statement: Nominee
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-23, SIDE A
Number 000
The Joint Senate and House Judiciary Committee meeting was
called to order at 4:12 p.m. on February 25, 1993. A quorum
was not present; consequently, a work session was called
until a quorum was obtained.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Shirley McCoy to come forward and
address the committee. He asked her to offer an opening
statement.
Number 032
SHIRLEY MCCOY said that she assumed that the committee would
want to know why she had applied to be on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. She noted that she,
herself, was wondering that at the moment. She spoke about
her decision making experience as a member of the Sitka
school board. She noted that since she had moved to Juneau
several years earlier, she had not been involved in
community or political activities in any way.
MRS. MCCOY stated that when she saw an advertisement
requesting applications for the public member seats on the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, she felt that it was
time for her to become involved again. She said she was
particularly drawn to the Ethics Committee, as it was a
nonpartisan body.
Number 060
SEN. LITTLE thanked Mrs. McCoy for applying to serve on the
committee. She asked Mrs. McCoy if she would have any
difficulty spending time in Juneau for Ethics Committee
business.
Number 080
MRS. MCCOY said that the fact that she lived in Juneau would
make her participation in committee business easy.
Number 087
SEN. LITTLE said that she erroneously thought that Mrs.
McCoy still resided in Sitka.
MRS. MCCOY explained that she had lived in Sitka for 27
years prior to moving to Juneau approximately three years
earlier.
Number 087
SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. McCoy if she had experience in the
past dealing with the tremendous media pressure that the
Ethics Committee members would probably endure.
Number 095
MRS. MCCOY responded that she had experience dealing with
the press, although perhaps not to the extent that she might
experience as a member of the Ethics Committee. She cited
her tenure on the Sitka school board, during which she was
responsible for making statements to the press on behalf of
the board. She said that she tried to make sure that her
statements to the press were not anything that she would
mind hearing repeated elsewhere.
Number 111
SEN. LITTLE inquired as to whether Mrs. McCoy had formed any
decisions on recent ethics allegations against legislators.
Number 122
MRS. MCCOY said that she had not. She commented that she
had read early news releases on the subject, but felt that
the Ethics Committee would respond to the allegations, and
that they therefore did not concern her.
Number 128
REP. BRIAN PORTER asked if Mrs. McCoy had received any
telephone calls from the press regarding her assessment of
the ethics allegations.
Number 134
MRS. MCCOY said that she had received several calls from the
media. She added that she had responded to one of those
calls.
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. McCoy about the general content of
her response.
MRS. MCCOY said that she had been asked if she had any
concerns about her confirmation. She said that her reply
had been that she had never bought or sold any ivory nor had
she employed any illegal baby-sitters, so she saw no problem
in getting confirmed.
Number 153
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. McCoy if she had been asked about the
specific allegations against certain legislators.
Number 157
MRS. MCCOY said that she recalled being asked how she would
respond to an inquiry about those allegations. Her response
was that at the time she read newspaper stories about the
allegations, she felt that it was none of her concern and
therefore did not spend much time thinking about it.
Number 164
REP. PORTER noted that Mrs. McCoy had listed Rep. Ben
Grussendorf as a reference on her resume. He asked Mrs.
McCoy if she were on the Ethics Committee and a complaint
were filed against Rep. Grussendorf, could she make an
impartial decision?
Number 175
MRS. MCCOY said that she would have no problem being fair in
such a circumstance. She noted that the people that she
listed as references, specifically Rep. Grussendorf and
former Sen. Dick Eliason, were not close personal friends.
However, because of their standing in the community of Sitka
and her long-term residency and community involvement in
Sitka, she felt that they could vouch for her background and
qualifications.
Number 187
REP. KOTT said that he was pleased that Mrs. McCoy had
applied to be on the Ethics Committee. He asked her if she
had any close economic associations or personal friendships
with anyone associated with state government.
Number 197
MRS. MCCOY said that an attorney who was a registered
lobbyist contracted with her employer and had also been
retained by her and her husband.
Number 204
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. McCoy how she had learned of the
Ethics Committee and the process for applying to serve on
it. She also asked if Mrs. McCoy had spoken with any
legislators regarding an appointment to the committee before
or at the time of her application.
Number 213
MRS. MCCOY said that she had seen a newspaper advertisement
seeking applications from members of the public who wanted
to serve on the Ethics Committee. She said that she decided
that, having been uninvolved in community and political
activities for three years, it was time to get involved
again.
REP. PHILLIPS again asked if Mrs. McCoy had spoken with any
legislators.
MRS. MCCOY replied that she had not.
Number 223
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. McCoy if she felt that legislators
should be held to a higher standard than a doctor, a
plumber, or a cab driver.
Number 231
MRS. MCCOY noted that she thought that they should not be
held to a higher standard, but she felt that the public
perceived that they should be. She gave an example of
herself and her pastor, saying that her standards ought to
be the same as her pastor's, but people held individuals in
leadership positions to a higher standard.
Number 241
REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mrs. McCoy were aware of how many
public member nominees had gone before her in the selection
process.
MRS. MCCOY indicated that she had been paying attention to
the selection process.
REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mrs. McCoy thought that there was
anything unethical about the manner in which the legislature
had dealt with nominees to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
Number 254
MRS. MCCOY commented that she did not think the legislature
was acting in an unethical manner. She cited a recent
statement by the speaker of the House in which she had said
that the legislature wanted people who would do the best job
and who were qualified to make decisions about legislators'
futures and presents.
Number 264
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. McCoy if she believed that any
nominees who were qualified were rejected for one reason or
another.
Number 269
MRS. MCCOY indicated that when she heard of the nominees who
were rejected because they were state employees, she felt
that it was unfortunate that the applicants were not told
up-front that their employment in state government would
cause their rejection. She noted that she could see where
their status as state employees could be a conflict of
interest, however.
Number 281
REP. DAVIDSON stated that he understood Mrs. McCoy to say
that the legislature had been unfair to appointees by not
indicating that there were unspecified preconditions
regarding their appointment or rejection.
Number 287
MRS. MCCOY replied that she did not think that the
legislature had been unfair. However, she said that it was
unfortunate that the conflict of interest of state employees
was not thought of before the confirmation process was
underway. She noted that the ethics law, the committee, and
the process for selecting committee members were all new,
and as such, unanticipated circumstances were bound to
arise.
Number 292
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. McCoy if she, as a citizen of the
state of Alaska who felt qualified to judge the ethical
behavior of anyone in the legislature, had no problem with
the process.
Number 299
MRS. MCCOY said that she did not see the process for
selecting public members as an ethical issue. She
reiterated that she did not have a problem with the way the
selection process was occurring.
Number 303
REP. NORDLUND commented that Mrs. McCoy was currently
registered as a Republican and was a former Democrat. He
asked if her party affiliation had any bearing on her
ability to effectively serve on the Ethics Committee.
Number 308
MRS. MCCOY said that she did not view her party affiliation
as an impediment to effectively serving on the committee.
Number 319
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mrs. McCoy for appearing before the
committee. He noted Mrs. McCoy's lengthy employment with
the Dawson Construction Company. Sen. Taylor said that he
held her employer, Mr. Dawson, in high regard and he felt
that Mrs. McCoy's lengthy association with Mr. Dawson
indicated that she was a person of the same caliber.
Number 352
MRS. MCCOY thanked Sen. Taylor for his comments. She added
that Mr. Dawson was very supportive of her application to
serve on the Ethics Committee.
Number 360
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. McCoy to tell the committee about
some of her life experiences.
Number 371
MRS. MCCOY stated that her experience serving on the Sitka
school board was probably her only experience that would
come close to what her tenure on the Ethics Committee would
be like. She noted that after completing her first term on
the school board she felt proud of the decisions that she
had made and the rapport that she had established with
teachers, despite her not being a supporter of the teachers'
union. She noted that she won both her races handily,
despite the fact that she was running against several other
candidates.
MRS. MCCOY said that it had been gratifying to have such
strong support from the public. She indicated her belief
that the support stemmed from her reputation as an up-front,
honest school board member. She mentioned that in six years
of service on the school board she had only missed one
meeting. She said that she probably never cast a surprise
vote, as people always knew where she stood on an issue.
MRS. MCCOY said that she had often voted against the
teachers' union, but she still enjoyed strong support from
the teachers in Sitka. She expressed her opinion that it
was not so much the decision that a person made, but how
that decision was arrived at, in terms of how the public
perceived elected officials.
Number 410
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. McCoy if she had a sense of the
term "ethical conduct" as compared to "criminal conduct" or
"immoral conduct."
Number 421
MRS. MCCOY said that ethical conduct and moral conduct were
closely linked. However, she noted that when discussing
ethical situations, oftentimes only a particular act was
discussed. She expressed her belief that ethics did not
stop with the performance of an act. Part of ethics was the
way in which a person addressed an act after it had been
committed, she added.
MRS. MCCOY noted that it might be unethical to speed, but
many people did it, sometimes without realizing what they
were doing. When caught, she added, people paid the
consequences for their actions. She said that speeding was
an unethical act because it was illegal. However, she
noted, speeding did not make someone a bad person. She
commented that every person could look back and see
unethical behavior in their pasts. But, how those past
experiences shaped people's lives was probably more
important than the act itself, she said.
Number 452
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. McCoy if she had read the ethics
law.
Number 455
MRS. MCCOY said that she had read most of the law.
Number 458
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that there seemed to be
significant questions on almost every provision of the new
law. He noted that those questions would probably only be
resolved by working under the law and through the
interpretations of the Ethics Committee members. He asked
Mrs. McCoy if she had experience in interpreting laws.
Number 466
MRS. MCCOY said that during her tenure on the school board,
she had been very active in rewriting the board's policy
manual. She noted that laws and policies always looked more
complicated before they were broken down into individual
paragraphs or lines. She expressed an opinion that any
person of normal intelligence and with an average sense of
right and wrong would be able to handle the ethics law.
Number 482
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. McCoy which parts of the ethics law
she had not yet read.
MRS. MCCOY said that she had probably read everything except
for the last page.
Number 486
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. McCoy to rate her own ethical
level, on a scale of 1 through 10, with 10 being the highest
level.
Number 488
MRS. MCCOY said that she would rank herself as an 8-1/2.
Number 490
REP. DAVIDSON inquired as to whether Mrs. McCoy's process
for arriving at decisions would be different if she served
on the Ethics Committee than it had been during her tenure
on the school board, and if so, how?
Number 502
MRS. MCCOY responded that her decision-making process would
remain the same. She would gather all pertinent
information, researching background, spending time to
evaluate, digesting material, and finally making a decision
based on what she had seen and heard.
Number 509
REP. MACKIE asked if Mrs. McCoy would view a charge that a
legislator had been driving while intoxicated unethical?
Number 518
MRS. MCCOY said that if she considered a speeding ticket
unethical, she would certainly consider driving while
intoxicated unethical as well. She noted that both
activities were against the law.
Number 523
REP. MACKIE asked about Mrs. McCoy's ability to apply
guidelines set forth in the ethics law, as opposed to
applying her own personal code of ethics to an individual's
behavior.
Number 536
MRS. MCCOY mentioned that she had once served on a jury for
a manslaughter case. She remembered thinking that it would
be hard for a juror to have trouble making a decision, as
the jurors were given absolute guidelines, and all the
jurors had to do was to make a decision based on those
guidelines. She noted her belief that making decisions on
the Ethics Committee would be a similar situation in that
Ethics Committee members would make decisions based on a
given set of guidelines.
Number 548
REP. MACKIE said he thought that the Ethics Committee would
undergo a different process, as no judge would advise the
committee in a step-by-step manner. He said that committee
members might be asked to read and understand the law, and
then apply it to situations before the committee. He noted
his concern that Mrs. McCoy might judge a legislator's
conduct according to her own personal code of ethics, in the
event that the legislator's conduct was not specifically
addressed in the law.
Number 565
MRS. MCCOY said she thought that Rep. Mackie might have
misunderstood her statement. She said that she did not need
a person to stand before her and explain guidelines. It was
her belief that the ethics law would serve as the guidelines
for the Ethics Committee. She noted that at times committee
members would need to interpret that law, and she cited the
importance of the committee working together and making
decisions as a team.
Number 578
REP. MACKIE asked Mrs. McCoy if she would be able to put
aside her own personal code of ethics and apply the ethics
law to a given situation.
Number 581
MRS. MCCOY said she thought that the point of a committee
was to work together.
Number 584
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed his opinion that the Ethics
Committee was somewhat of a star chamber, set up so that the
committee would be asked to, while acting under rather vague
guidelines, hire and fire an investigator, decide how far
the investigator should go or not go, judge, set rules of
conduct for itself and for legislators, and serve as a jury
and an executioner. He noted that these duties would be an
expansion of Mrs. McCoy's past experience as a juror.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mrs. McCoy for appearing before the
committee.
Number 608
REP. JAMES noted that it was not necessary to ask Mrs. McCoy
if spending a great deal of time in Juneau would be an
infringement upon her time.
SEN. LITTLE indicated that she had asked Mrs. McCoy that
question anyway, just for the record.
Number 616
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Virginia Johnson to come forward and
offer an opening statement. He commented that he had heard
many nice things about Ms. Johnson.
Number 629
VIRGINIA JOHNSON said that she was a veterinarian from
Anchorage. She stated that she was not a political person,
having never worked on any campaigns. She indicated that
she was nonpartisan. Ms. Johnson explained that she had
seen a newspaper advertisement requesting applications from
members of the public interested in serving on the Ethics
Committee. As a nonpartisan, she felt that service on the
Ethics Committee would be a good way to become involved in
state service.
Number 647
REP. PORTER asked Ms. Johnson if she had formed any opinions
about recent allegations against members of the legislature.
He also asked if she had made any comments to the media
about those allegations.
Number 653
MS. JOHNSON said that she had formed no opinions on the
matters. She commented that she believed that the media
represented one person's opinion of what he or she had
heard. She added that she had not spoken to any member of
the press about the allegations. She said that she received
a telephone call from a member of the press, but felt that
it would be inappropriate to comment.
Number 666
REP. PORTER asked Ms. Johnson if she were aware that, as a
member of the Ethics Committee, she would be applying not
her own personal code of ethics, but the code of ethics
outlined in statute and the interpretation of that code.
Number 672
MS. JOHNSON said that she understood that. She noted that
she had not yet read the ethics law, as she felt that it
would not be appropriate to read the law prior to appearing
before the committee. She added that she would understand
the law thoroughly if she were confirmed as a member of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
MS. JOHNSON stated that she thought of ethics as guidelines,
or codes, that were given to various people, including
doctors and lawyers. Codes of ethics were not all the same,
she noted.
Number 686
REP. PORTER asked Ms. Johnson if she had engaged in any
other form of public service.
Number 688
MS. JOHNSON said that she was a member of the Veterinary
Board of Examiners and the Anchorage Animal Appeals Board.
She noted that the Anchorage Animal Appeals Board was
similar to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, in
terms of the need to apply specific guidelines, and not her
personal code of ethics, to a situation.
Number 699
REP. PORTER asked if Ms. Johnson's service on either board
would be a conflict of interest with her service on the
Ethics Committee.
Number 703
MS. JOHNSON said that she had mentioned her service on the
two boards to Justice Moore, who did not indicate that the
board membership would be a conflict of interest.
Number 708
REP. PHILLIPS thanked Ms. Johnson for appearing before the
committee. She asked if Ms. Johnson felt that the code of
ethics for legislators was a higher code than the code of
ethics for people in other professions.
Number 712
MS. JOHNSON said that she did not believe that the code was
higher, although it was different in some ways.
Number 721
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Johnson if she had spoken with any
legislators about applying to serve on the Ethics Committee,
either before or after she submitted her name to Justice
Moore.
Number 724
MS. JOHNSON said that on the day she was notified of her
nomination, she placed a call to one Republican and one
Democrat, regarding a logistical question about the
confirmation hearing. One of those legislators returned her
call and briefly answered her question, she said.
Number 729
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Johnson if the logistical question
pertained to service on the Ethics Committee.
MS. JOHNSON said that her question was in regard to the
meeting currently in progress.
REP. PHILLIPS asked if Ms. Johnson had spoken with any
legislators about an appointment to the Ethics Committee.
MS. JOHNSON indicated that she had not.
Number 734
REP. PHILLIPS mentioned Ms. Johnson's earlier comment that
she had not worked on any individual's campaigns. She asked
Ms. Johnson if she had ever worked on any issues campaigns.
Number 737
MS. JOHNSON said that she had not actively worked on any
issues campaigns.
Number 740
REP. PHILLIPS asked if Ms. Johnson perceived a problem in
being in Juneau for long periods of time while serving on
the Ethics Committee.
Number 745
MS. JOHNSON said that she would need to adjust her schedule,
but that was not a problem.
Number 748
REP. MACKIE asked Ms. Johnson if she were required to file a
conflict of interest statement because of her service on the
Board of Veterinary Examiners.
Number 750
MS. JOHNSON said that she did not believe so.
Number 756
REP. MACKIE asked if Ms. Johnson had any religious or moral
beliefs that would impede her ability to apply statutory and
committee guidelines to a situation before the Ethics
Committee.
Number 764
MS. JOHNSON said that she did not believe so.
Number 766
SEN. LITTLE thanked Ms. Johnson for applying to serve on the
Ethics Committee. She asked if Ms. Johnson had experience
in dealing with media pressure.
Number 772
MS. JOHNSON said that she had an occasional experience with
the press regarding animal issues. She stated that she had
the presence of mind to be careful about what she said. She
mentioned her belief that the Ethics Committee members would
be held to a high standard of ethical behavior.
Number 782
REP. KOTT also thanked Ms. Johnson for appearing before the
committee. He asked her if she had any close economic or
personal associations with any state employees.
Number 789
MS. JOHNSON said that she did not.
Number 791
REP. KOTT noted that Ms. Johnson had changed her party
affiliation last year to nonpartisan. He asked if she had
been active in any party prior to that change.
MS. JOHNSON said that she had not been active in any party.
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Johnson about her involvement with the
Delta Chapter of the People Animal Connection.
Number 797
MS. JOHNSON commented that she had been involved in setting
up the People Animal Connection in the Anchorage area. She
mentioned that the group coordinated volunteers bringing
pets to various shut-in institutions. She said the Delta
Society was an international group that believed in pet
bonding and pet therapy.
Number 808
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Johnson if she perceived a difference
between unethical, immoral, and illegal behavior.
Number 811
MS. JOHNSON said that she did perceive a difference in those
three types of behavior. She commented that each person had
her or his own morals, but everyone could sit down with a
code of ethics and follow that code. Criminal activity was
what the law found to be wrong, she added. She said that
the three types of behavior were nuances of one another, but
not the same thing.
TAPE 93-23, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. MACKIE cited a hypothetical situation in which Ms.
Johnson was serving on the Ethics Committee and had to judge
the behavior of a legislator who was in favor of wolf
control. Rep. Mackie asked if she could be impartial in
such a situation, in light of her obvious love of animals.
Number 030
MS. JOHNSON said that a legislator's stand on the wolf
control issue might affect her opinion, but would not affect
her ability to honestly judge that person and impartially
apply the code of ethics to the situation.
Number 041
REP. MACKIE asked Ms. Johnson if she would have a biased
opinion about a legislator who was adamantly championing
wolf control.
Number 049
MS. JOHNSON said that she did not think that she would be
biased in that situation.
Number 055
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if it were correct that members of the
Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners were appointed by the
governor and received compensation for travel and per diem
expenses.
MS. JOHNSON indicated that Chairman Taylor was correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if she would consider resigning from
the Board of Veterinary Examiners if her service on that
board were in conflict with service on the Ethics Committee.
Number 073
MS. JOHNSON said that she would consider resigning from the
veterinary board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that he did not know if a conflict
existed, but wanted to make Ms. Johnson aware that a
conflict might exist.
Number 084
REP. FINKELSTEIN noted that any position which required a
person to file a conflict of interest statement would be in
conflict with service on the Ethics Committee. However, he
indicated that he did not know whether or not service on the
Board of Veterinary Examiners required that a conflict of
interest statement be filed, but suspected that it did not.
MS. JOHNSON noted that she had never filed a conflict of
interest statement.
Number 102
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that he was very impressed with
Ms. Johnson's resume. He asked Ms. Johnson to tell the
committee something about her life experiences.
Number 126
MS. JOHNSON stated that she had not had a very difficult
life. She indicated that she had been raised in Montana and
Oregon, and came to Alaska straight out of college. She
said she had worked as a medical technologist in Anchorage.
However, she became bored after a few years in that line of
work. She decided to return to school and become a
veterinarian. She said that it was a difficult decision to
leave a well-paying job and go outside of Alaska to return
to school.
MS. JOHNSON commented that she had never regretted going
back to school, as she thoroughly loved her job. She cited
her involvement in community issues, most of which pertained
to her profession. She stated that she liked who she was,
and felt that she could be an honest, unbiased, ethical
person. She noted that those qualities came into play every
day in her profession. She said that as part of her work
she had to listen to clients and discern what was and was
not true. She said that she had learned that there was
always more than one side to a story, and that the truth
often lay somewhere in the middle.
Number 175
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied that he had run into similar
experiences in his work as an attorney. He questioned Ms.
Johnson about her connections with anyone who had run for
office, was currently running for office, or planned to run
for office.
Number 203
MS. JOHNSON said that her business partner was considering
running for mayor of Anchorage, but she felt it would not
affect her work on the Ethics Committee.
Number 205
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that he was aware of that connection,
but feared that other members of the committee might feel
that Ms. Johnson had lied when responding to an earlier
question that did not specifically include candidates for
office. He thanked Ms. Johnson for clarifying her response.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Johnson if she felt that there was
a code of ethics to which legislators should adhere.
Number 220
MS. JOHNSON cited the ethics law recently passed by the
legislature.
Number 222
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Johnson if she thought that there
was an inherent code of ethics that legislators should
follow.
Number 226
MS. JOHNSON said that each person had her or his own code of
ethics. She added that she believed there to be a code of
ethics that legislators followed. She noted that citizens
of Alaska had the perception that unethical behavior
occurred in the legislature. She said the new ethics law
gave legislators guidelines to follow and that the Ethics
Committee would give the public assurance that legislators'
behavior was being monitored.
Number 261
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Johnson if she felt that her
perspective on the ethical behavior of legislators would be
affected in any way by her partner's potential bid for
elected office.
Number 264
MS. JOHNSON said she did not think her perspective would be
affected.
Number 273
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Johnson what her partner's name was.
Number 279
MS. JOHNSON said that her partner's name was Joyce Murphy.
Number 281
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Johnson if she were in partnership
solely with Ms. Murphy, or if there were other individuals
involved in the practice.
Number 284
MS. JOHNSON replied that she and Ms. Murphy owned the
practice together, but there were other non-owner
veterinarians involved in the practice.
Number 289
REP. KOTT told Ms. Johnson that service on the Ethics
Committee could entail spending long periods of time in
Juneau. He said that he wanted to make sure that she was
aware of the commitment required.
Number 297
MS. JOHNSON further explained how her veterinary practice
operated.
Number 300
REP. DAVIDSON commented that elected officials faced unique
situations and dilemmas. He asked Ms. Johnson how she
planned to learn about the uniqueness of legislators.
Number 322
MS. JOHNSON noted that although she could never be in a
legislator's shoes, it was possible that the Ethics
Committee would come under the same scrutiny that
legislators endured. She said that she would listen to the
legislators themselves and hear testimony. She added that
she did not know any legislators personally, and therefore
did not know what their lives were like.
Number 341
REP. DAVIDSON described a hypothetical situation and asked
Ms. Johnson if she believed that the elected officials
involved acted in an ethical manner. The situation involved
a public member nominee to the Ethics Committee, whom a
legislator had succeeded in rejecting, based on the
nominee's business or personal linkage with another
individual.
Number 369
MS. JOHNSON responded that she did not believe that the
legislator's behavior in that situation was unethical. She
said that she would be presupposing that legislator's
thoughts, and that there might be something else about the
nominee that the legislator found unacceptable. She said
that she would need to hear all of the facts before making a
judgment about the ethicalness of certain behavior.
Number 380
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Johnson why she felt that it was
necessary for there to be an ethics law and an Ethics
Committee.
Number 384
MS. JOHNSON said that the need existed because of the
public's perception of unethical behavior in the
legislature. She reiterated her opinion that the law would
give legislators guidelines to follow, and the committee
would reassure the public.
Number 403
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the public always had the final
say in the voting booth.
Number 406
REP. MACKIE asked Ms. Johnson if she had ever felt, or felt
now, that legislators were unethical.
Number 408
MS. JOHNSON said that she did not feel that way now, nor had
she in the past.
Number 409
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Johnson if she, as a single woman, would
be able to judge male elected officials fairly, given that
the legislature was dominated by males.
Number 420
MS. JOHNSON said that she could be fair toward men.
Number 426
REP. FINKELSTEIN commented that when he watched the House
leadership at work, he forgot that there was any male
domination in the House.
Number 438
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that the Ethics Committee might be
faced with complaints motivated solely by political or
vengeful purposes. He asked Ms. Johnson if she were aware
of that potential situation.
Number 453
MS. JOHNSON replied that she was aware that purely political
and vengeful complaints might come before the committee.
Number 459
REP. MACKIE mentioned that both nominees that had appeared
before the committee that day had been very candid, and he
appreciated that candor. He asked Ms. Johnson if she saw
her service on the Ethics Committee as similar to her
veterinary practice, in that while doing surgery on an
animal, she would investigate a problem and only take out
what needed to be taken out, leaving the good parts intact.
Number 469
MS. JOHNSON said that Rep. Mackie had made a good analogy.
Number 472
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Johnson if gender balance were
relevant to the issue.
Number 473
MS. JOHNSON said that it was not relevant.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that it was not relevant in his
opinion, either. He thanked Ms. Johnson for appearing
before the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|