05/02/2007 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 2, 2007
1:53 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 109(JUD) am
"An Act relating to bribery, receiving unlawful gratuities, and
campaign contributions; denying public employee retirement
pension benefits to certain legislators, legislative directors,
and public officers who commit certain offenses, and adding to
the duties of the Alaska Retirement Management Board and to the
list of matters governed by the Administrative Procedure Act
concerning that denial; relating to campaign financing and
ethics, including disclosures, in state and municipal
government, to lobbying, and to employment, service on boards,
and disclosures by certain public officers and employees who
leave state or municipal service or leave certain positions in
state or municipal government; restricting representation of
others by legislators and legislative employees; relating to
blind trusts approved by the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS/BRIBERY/RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/30/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/07 (H) Moved CSHB 109(STA) Out of Committee
03/03/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/07 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1NR 3AM
03/07/07 (H) DP: ROSES, DOLL, LYNN
03/07/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN
03/07/07 (H) AM: JOHNSON, COGHILL, GRUENBERG
03/19/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/19/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/21/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/23/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/23/07 (H) Moved CSHB 109(JUD) Out of Committee
03/23/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 3DP 1NR 3AM
03/28/07 (H) DP: LYNN, SAMUELS, RAMRAS
03/28/07 (H) NR: COGHILL
03/28/07 (H) AM: GRUENBERG, DAHLSTROM, HOLMES
04/02/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/02/07 (H) VERSION: CSHB 109(JUD) AM
04/04/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/07 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
04/24/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
04/24/07 (S) Moved CSHB 109(JUD)am Out of Committee
04/24/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/25/07 (S) STA RPT 1DP 3NR 1AM
04/25/07 (S) DP: BUNDE
04/25/07 (S) NR: MCGUIRE, FRENCH, STEVENS
04/25/07 (S) AM: GREEN
04/26/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
04/26/07 (S) <Bill Moved Out of Committee 4/24/07>
04/26/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/02/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sectional analysis for CSHB
109(JUD) am.
JOHN FARLEIGH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on HB 109.
TOM BRICE
Alaska State District Council of Laborers
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on HB 109.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about CSHB 190(JUD) am.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:53:35 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senator Therriault, Senator McGuire, Senator
Wielechowski, and Chair French.
CSHB 109(JUD) am - DISCLOSURES & ETHICS/BRIBERY/RETIREMENT
1:54:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced consideration of HB 109. Before the
committee was CSHB 109(JUD) am.
DAVID JONES, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
Anchorage, reviewed the bill by section. He said HB 109 began as
a governor's bill and has gone through many changes in House
committees.
1:55:06 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE noted several Senate committees have also worked
on ethics legislation that has been sent to the House. She asked
if during his review Mr. Jones could point out differences
between the House and Senate versions of the legislation.
MR. JONES began with Section 1, page 2. The provision came
through a floor amendment in the House and would change the
definition of "benefit" in the criminal bribery statutes. It
would prohibit agreements between candidates or elected
officials to exchange campaign contributions for changing votes
or positions.
CHAIR FRENCH said the committee had discussed a similar
provision in SB 64.
MR. JONES said the difficulty with this version of the
definition change in Section 1, page 2, line 9, is it refers to
AS 39.52.960, the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA). The
provision would not apply to candidates for the legislature and
he does not believe that was the intent of the House.
1:57:18 PM
MR. JONES said the version the committee dealt with earlier
would resolve the concern.
CHAIR FRENCH noted a possible committee substitute (CS).
MR. JONES continued with his review. Sections 2 and 3, page 2,
would apply pension forfeiture provisions to the Teacher's
Retirement System which appears in Section 45. The reason for
two sections is to apply the provision to both the former
defined benefit system and to the current defined contribution
system.
MR. JONES said Section 4, page 2, would eliminate the disclosure
exemption that currently exists for campaigns raising and
spending less than $5000. Campaigns for delegates to the
constitutional convention, a judge seeking judicial retention,
and a candidate for election to a municipal office would still
be allowed to take advantage of the exemption.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if Section 4 makes every single candidate, no
matter how much money they raise, subject to Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC) reporting requirements.
MR. JONES answered yes.
CHAIR FRENCH said in the past if a candidate raised under $5,000
they were not subject to reporting.
1:59:23 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE asked what the rationale was for the provision.
MR. JONES said he would have to guess since he was not part of
the discussions for drafting the provision or in the public
hearings. He guessed that the opportunity to file reports
electronically would be less of a burden on the APOC and on the
individuals participating in the campaigns.
CHAIR FRENCH reiterated that this provision says even if a
candidate does not raise any money they still must file a report
electronically.
MR. JONES agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many candidates may be affected by this
requirement.
2:01:13 PM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, Anchorage, said very few exemptions are filed by
state candidates. Candidates that do take advantage of the
exemption do not generally conduct what she would respectfully
consider a competitive race.
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that occurs but believes anyone has the
right to run for office. He asked how many individuals who run
for office raise less than $5000.
MS. BROOKE said for municipal campaigns a high percentage, and
for state campaigns between five and twelve individuals per
election cycle.
SENATOR THERRIAULT thought the provision may have been added
because of growing concern about using the exemption to file for
election in conjunction with another person's campaign. If a
candidate must disclose where their money comes from a link may
be found between two candidates.
SENATOR McGUIRE said Senator Therriault's point is legitimate.
She thinks this is a good provision so long as it is not an
extraordinary burden on the APOC and remains consistent with
reporting requirements.
2:04:26 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said there is a perennial candidate for governor in
his district who lives in modest circumstances and might not
have the resources to file electronically. He thinks the
committee should try to be fair to individuals who genuinely run
for office and those that are misusing the system.
2:05:29 PM
MR. JONES said provisions in the bill allow the APOC to grant
exceptions to electronic filing.
MR. JONES continued with the section by section analysis. The
first two of the electronic filing provisions appear in Sections
5 and 6 of the bill and are based on provisions the Governor
proposed. Section 5, page 3, would apply to all municipal
candidates and campaigns and would delay the application to
legislative candidates until January 1, 2009.
CHAIR FRENCH said electronic filing is a hot button issue. He
asked what circumstances might warrant an exception.
MS. MILES said the APOC would prepare a form for an individual
to request exemption from electronic filing. The staff would
take that request before the five member commission and ask them
to make the decision. She expects the APOC would consider the
exemption request quite broadly early on since there are still
some areas in the state that don't have reliable internet
service providers.
CHAIR FRENCH asked which section contained the language that
described circumstances that would allow exemptions.
MS. MILES said there is none yet; the language just says
"circumstances."
SENATOR McGUIRE said Section 6, page 3, lines 24-25.
CHAIR FRENCH said the language is also in Section 5, page 3,
lines 10-11. He noted there are several dilemmas associated with
electronic filing, one being some people just don't like
computers. He asked if the APOC had considered posting hand
written disclosures on the web via scanners and PDF files.
MS. MILES said the APOC discussed the idea. A scanned document
is not searchable from the relational database however; it might
be helpful for mandatory electronic filing because many
handwritten reports are very poor quality and difficult to read.
CHAIR FRENCH said if the document is legible, or hand printed in
dark ink that might address the scanning problem.
MS. MILES agreed but a scanned document would still not be
searchable in the database.
CHAIR FRENCH said he had an idea he would discuss later with Ms.
Miles.
2:12:09 PM
MR. JONES continued with Section 6, page 3, which would apply
the electronic filing requirement to candidates for office in
municipalities with populations of 15,000 or more. Overall,
electronic filing would be mandatory for executive branch
financial disclosures July 1, 2007. Then it would become
mandatory for legislative offices, for legislative disclosures,
or for campaigns for offices in municipalities with populations
of 15,000 or more on January 1, 2009. The intent is to stagger
implementation to test the technology on the executive branch
first.
2:13:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the provision would only apply to
Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks.
MR. JONES answered he thought it would also apply to the Mat-Su
Borough and Kenai Peninsula Borough.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the rationale was for excluding
areas with populations less than 15,000.
MR. JONES said he would have to guess. He believes it was
because there is more likely to be candidates involved in races
in the large municipalities who will have easy access to
reliable internet service and for whom electronic filing is less
likely to be burdensome.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he disagreed with that delineation as
many rural communities are well "wired."
2:14:58 PM
MR. JONES continued to Section 7, page 3, which would apply the
pension forfeiture provision that appears in Section 45 to the
judicial retirement system. Section 8, pages 3-4, would require
the APOC to provide annually updated ethics training courses for
lobbyists and their employers.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the training would consist of.
MS. MILES said she envisions a partnership with the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics to conduct a January in-person
training session for lobbyists and lobbyist's employers. Since
some lobbyists are not registered in January a PowerPoint
presentation of the training could be made available on the APOC
website for later access.
CHAIR FRENCH said this sounds like a full day class.
MS. MILES said it could be, but may be a four to six hour class.
SENATOR McGUIRE said training offered to lobbyists and lawmakers
should be meaningful and consistent from year to year to avoid
confusion.
2:19:08 PM
MR. JONES said Section 9, pages 4-5 requires lobbyists to file
annual affirmations that they attended the ethics training
course. Section 10, pages 5-6, would prohibit lobbyists from
making or offering gifts that the EBEA would bar the intended
recipients from accepting. It also makes conforming changes to
the legislative gift provision that appears in Section 22 of the
bill. Section 11, pages 6-7 would prohibit former executive
branch members from lobbying or registering as lobbyists when
the EBEA bars them from doing so. It has the same intent as
Section 1 of SB 19 as amended on the Senate floor. The language
in Section 11 is a bit more precise as it refers to registration
as a lobbyist rather that just performing work as a lobbyist.
Section 11 also prohibits lobbying by spouses and domestic
partners of legislators. This restriction has been a topic of
extensive discussion.
CHAIR FRENCH asked to what degree the legislature has power over
individuals who are not sworn into the legislative body.
MR. JONES said he is not sure the legislature has power over
individuals not sworn into the body but if a sworn member is
disqualified by virtue of that members' spouse or domestic
partner's activities then that would be the way the problem is
resolved.
2:21:53 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he would lose his seat in the legislature
if for example, his spouse did something wrong?
MR. JONES answered no. If a spouse decided to go into lobbying,
this provision would prohibit any spouse or domestic partner of
a legislator from performing lobbying work for compensation.
Therefore to not go beyond the reach of the body, one way to
resolve the conflict would be for the member to resign.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if his spouse lobbied for the American Cancer
Society or for VECO, and she were to take a paycheck, would he
be forced or asked to resign or be impeached from office?
MR. JONES said he was not sure of the logistics but he suspected
that when the spouse or domestic partner attempted to register
as a lobbyist with the APOC, they would point out the problem.
He is not certain if the APOC would refuse to accept the
registration. Or the person attempting to register could go
ahead and lobby, claiming their attempt was refused. Then the
legislative body might take action.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked how it would work if Senator French's wife
was lobbying but didn't tell him or if they were divorced.
MR. JONES said the restriction would only apply to a spouse or
domestic partner. He stressed that this provision was not
proposed by the administration.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked if constitutionality of the issue had been
discussed.
MR. JONES said he only had second or third hand information. He
recalled Representative Gruenberg had researched the issue and
found under proposed federal law a member of Congress would be
prohibited from dealing with his or her own spouse or domestic
partner where that person is a lobbyist. In this bill the
provision is a blanket prohibition that applies to all lobbying
activity.
SENATOR McGUIRE said the federal standard might be more concrete
and reflective.
CHAIR FRENCH said committee members were provided legal analyses
of various provisions of the ethics bill. An opinion dated March
22, 2007, suggests prohibiting a spouse or domestic partner from
lobbying is unconstitutional. The committee needs to reflect on
the balance of the appearance of impropriety and constitutional
impingement.
2:27:20 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said perhaps the electorate needs to be
relied on to turn a person out of office.
CHAIR FRENCH said there are good and bad lobbyists and good and
bad legislators and at some level the public process must be
trusted to sort them out.
2:28:48 PM
MR. JONES said Section 12, page 7, also relates to the previous
section by defining domestic partner. Section 13, page 7,
includes clean up language regarding provisions that apply to
former legislators and former legislative employees. This
provision is identical to Section 1 of SB 20 that has been
through this committee.
MR. JONES continued on to Section 14, pages 7-10, which includes
conforming language for the changes to the legislative gift
provisions that appear in Section 22. Section 15, page 10, would
reduce from ninety to sixty days the length of the pre-election
blackout period for use of state funds for legislative
communications with constituents. He said the intent of the
reduction is to deal with extended special sessions that can
creep close to scheduled elections.
2:30:11 PM
CHAIR FRENCH opened public testimony on CSHB 109(JUD) am.
2:30:30 PM
JOHN FARLEIGH, Anchorage, suggested that Section 11 says the
state would not be allowed to register a spouse or domestic
partner as a lobbyist, so the spouse or domestic partner would
be the one breaking the law by lobbying unregistered. He also
suggested that this section does not prohibit any lobbying that
is done on a volunteer basis.
MR. FARLEIGH believes the prohibition should be expanded and
replaced with the term "immediate family member." He stated that
children, parents, and siblings are also possible conduits for
bribery. He said the House State Affairs Committee liked the
idea but more than one definition of immediate family member in
the law caused confusion. He would be satisfied if parents,
siblings, and children were included.
MR. FARLEIGH said he appreciates the great lengths the
legislature and administration have gone to tighten up ethics
guidelines. However, he would hate to see it all be an exercise
in futility because there is no section in the bill that
increases sanctions for misbehavior other than the loss of
pension. He suggested that for the worst possible violations
incarceration is a valid option. He also believes fines should
be increased dramatically to give meaningful teeth to the
legislation.
2:37:33 PM
TOM BRICE, Alaska District Council of Laborers, Juneau,
testified against the state's current nepotism policy, which was
based on an attorney general opinion written in March 2005. The
policy redefines workplace relationships so that family members
can no longer work together in any employee relationship. This
standard is entirely too high for people who perform flagging
and other road crew functions for the state. Alaskans should be
employed based on merit and not dismissed because of family
relationships. He supports the policy that supervisors, as
defined in regulation, cannot and should not hire family
members, but prohibiting family members from working on the same
road crew it too strident and creates an unnecessary barrier to
state employment.
2:40:50 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he is working with legislative drafters in an
effort to craft a measure that allows individuals to continue
working for the state without there being any appearance of
impropriety.
2:41:14 PM
MR. JONES continued with a section by section review of the bill
including the following:
Section 16, pages 10-11, would require legislators and
legislative employees to disclose all board memberships.
Currently they are only required to disclose memberships with
organizations that have substantial interest in the legislative
activities of the legislator or employee, which requires a
subjective assessment.
Section 17, pages 11-12, would require publication of
legislator's and legislative employee's disclosures of interests
in state contracts and leases.
Section 18, pages 12-13, would address the timing of publication
and legislator's and legislative employee's disclosures of their
participation in state programs and loans and would address
procedures for exemption from the disclosure requirement where
there are reasons for confidentiality.
Section 19, page 13, would eliminate a current exception for
reporting close economic associations between legislators and
legislative employees with municipal officers.
Section 20, page 13, includes conforming language for the bar on
lobbying by legislators, spouses, and domestic partners.
Section 21, pages 13-14, would allow an exemption for gifts to
legislators and legislative employees of up to $250 in cases of
medical or other emergencies. Disclosure and written approval
would be required from the chair of the Legislative Council and
from the chair or vice-chair of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
Section 22, pages 14-15, increases the restrictions on gifts to
legislators and legislative employees.
2:44:01 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Section 22 was new or if it was
language included in one of the other bills that passed.
MR. JONES said to his knowledge it did not appear in either SB
19 or SB 20.
CHAIR FRENCH said he assumed Section 22 was addressed previously
and asked what changes the provision makes.
MR. JONES said on page 14, lines 27-28, the exception for food
and beverage for immediate consumption is moved to the following
page so there is really no substantive change there. New
language on page 14, line 30 is included to apply the gift
restriction to gifts from immediate family members of lobbyists.
Currently the restriction applies to gifts from lobbyists only.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if it was correct that food for
immediate consumption is broken into a new subsection so he
could still go to a reception and eat a boiled shrimp.
MR. JONES said yes.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that is separate issue from charity
events like the Thanksgiving in March fundraiser.
MR. JONES said that was his understanding.
2:46:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if other states or the federal
government ban lobbyists from buying legislators food.
MR. JONES said he did not know.
SENATOR McGUIRE said Legislative Council will take applications
for approval for charitable events. They will then issue a
report outlining those events for which a legislator is allowed
to accept tickets.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said some exceptions are already allowed but
wasn't clear what the argument was for this new provision.
MR. JONES said he was not certain but believes it was a clean-up
attempt to try to get everything in one section.
SENATOR THERRIAULT hoped that Joyce Anderson would be available
at some point to respond.
CHAIR FRENCH was told that she is due back next week.
2:48:34 PM
MR. JONES continued to Section 23, pages 15-17. The provision
includes conforming language for the restrictions on gifts in
Section 22, defines immediate family, would bar the Office of
Victims Rights from receiving session discounts that other
members of the legislative branch may accept, and allow
legislators and legislative employees to give each other rides
in personal boats, planes, and other vehicles.
Section 24, pages 17-18 would require disclosure of gifts of
legal services to legislators and legislative employees, and
gifts to immediate family members received because of their
connections to legislators or legislative employees. Disclosure
would be required within thirty days of receipt of gifts worth
$250 or more.
SENATOR McGUIRE thought this was already the rule.
2:49:54 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if Ms. Miles could respond to Senator
McGuire.
MS. MILES said the provision simply adds other gift disclosures
that legislators and legislative employees already provide the
Select Committee.
MR. JONES said the requirement to disclose gifts within 30 days
is new. Currently those disclosures must be filed by March 15
each year.
2:51:14 PM
MR. JONES continued with Section 25, page 18. It would clarify
that the disclosure requirement for gifts received by
legislator's and legislative employee's family members applies
to immediate family members.
SENATOR McGUIRE said some discussion of the definition of
immediate family member was necessary. The definition has
changed and is very far reaching.
CHAIR FRENCH said Senator McGuire brings up a good point. He
noted that the definition of family members on Page 16, lines 1-
11 is very broadly defined.
2:53:47 PM
MR. JONES continued to Section 26, page 18. It would bar
legislators from accepting outside compensation for legislative,
administrative, or political work.
Section 27, pages 18-19, was the product of a floor amendment.
It would bar legislators and legislative employees from
representing themselves or others before legislative or
executive branch agencies, committees, or other entities except
when they are doing so for their official duties. It would
require disclosure of their representation for compensation if
they appear before municipal boards and commissions. He said a
concern that has come up is this would, if the language was
taken to a ridiculous extent, prohibit a legislator from going
to the Division of Motor Vehicles to apply for a driver's
license or from calling the state troopers for an accident. He
does not believe that was the intent and as written it may have
unanticipated and absurd effects.
2:56:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said this section has been the subject of much
discussion.
2:56:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI wondered if Section 26 would ban a
legislator from doing any kind of attorney work.
CHAIR FRENCH replied this topic was previously addressed by
Legislative Legal Affairs and the answer was no.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he wanted further clarification.
CHAIR FRENCH said the language in Section 26 of this bill was
contained in SB 64 that came through this committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI restated his question.
MR. JONES said no, the provision would not bar a legislator from
performing legal work.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what kind of legal work it would ban.
MR. JONES thought the intent was to prohibit legislators from
getting paid by others for doing their official state duties
whether that involves legislative, administrative, or political
action.
2:58:51 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said previous discussions also included
preventing a legislator that holds some sway over an agency from
getting paid to represent clientele in front of that agency. He
asked who made the amendment on the House floor.
MR. JONES said it was Representative LeDoux.
SENATOR McGUIRE said it is clear that legislators should not get
paid for doing their state work or hold an unfair advantage by
using their office in a way that would influence a particular
result. She is trying to understand what Section 27 is trying to
get at.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he thinks this section unfairly
singles out one particular group.
CHAIR FRENCH said he recognized the concerns raised in Section
26 but needs an example of an abuse of this kind of
representation to be convinced there is a problem.
3:02:32 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE said public opinion poll results say 65% of the
public wants a citizen legislature. When lawmakers are working
there are always going to be possible conflicts. She believes a
point is being reached where in order to serve, a lawmaker must
take a sabbatical from their employment and commit to serving
the public with no appearance or reality of conflict. She said
Senator Wielechowski brings up some good points, and if there is
an appearance of impropriety it exists by definition across all
sectors.
3:04:21 PM
CHAIR FRENCH recessed the meeting.
3:37:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and continued reviewing HB
109.
MR. JONES continued to Section 27, pages 18-19. It pertains to
representation by legislators and legislative employees before
legislative and executive branch agencies and requires
disclosure of their representation for compensation before
municipal boards or commissions.
CHAIR FRENCH said the committee will need to "chew on" this
section for some time.
MR. JONES continued with the following section by section
reviews:
Section 28, page 19, would require filing legislative
disclosures within thirty days after commencement of the matters
or interest disclosed. He said the intent was to require matters
be disclosed as you go along rather than disclosing them all at
once on March 15 of the following year.
Section 29, page 19, would require annual legislative
disclosures in addition to the thirty day disclosures.
Section 30, pages 19-20, was part of the Governor's proposal. A
similar provision appeared in Section 2 of SB 20. This provision
is designed to clear up an ambiguity by requiring final
legislative disclosures within ninety days of leaving service.
One of the concerns the drafter had about the language in
Section 2 of SB 20, was that it might create the impression that
someone leaving service in the legislative branch would have to
recap everything that was disclosed during the entire period of
service rather than just those things that had not been
previously disclosed.
Section 31, page 20, would establish procedures for using
alternates when regular legislative members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics are unavailable.
Section 32, pages 20-21, would define the majority
organizational caucus for those provisions that deal with the
Select Committee.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the next five or six were provisions
brought to the other body by request of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
3:40:17 PM
MR. JONES thought that was correct.
MR. JONES continued with his analysis. Section 34, pages 21-22,
would require the Select Committee to publish legislative ethics
materials and administer a legislative ethics course.
Section 35, page 22, would require legislators, legislative
employees, and public members of the Select Committee to take
the course. The ethics course would be required once per
legislature and be offered within the first ten days of the
first session but also be available to others who could not
attend it during that first ten day period.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this pertains to all legislators no matter
how long they have been in office.
MR. JONES answered yes.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested breaking the course into two sections,
one of them being a refresher course for those that were already
familiar with the information.
SENATOR McGUIRE agreed the idea needs work. The course should
refresh the rules and highlight hypothetical situations to cover
the grey areas. For returning legislators a refresher would be
appropriate.
3:43:55 PM
MR. JONES said the Select Committee would have flexibility to
adjust the courses to circumstances of participants so everyone
does not have to take the same course.
MR. JONES said Section 36, pages 22-23, was requested by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. It would authorize the
Select Committee and the APOC to request opinions of the Select
Committee. The committee wanted the ability to ask itself some
questions instead of having to wait for questions from
legislators or others before it could issue clarifying opinions.
The provision also would require the Select Committee to publish
its opinions with deletions to protect the identities of the
people involved, would make deliberations confidential unless
the people affected waived confidentiality, and the final votes
on opinions would be made public.
Section 37, page 23, would address the procedures for hearing
formal charges before the Select Committee.
Section 38, pages 23-24, would identify who would be
administering the remedies for violations of legislative ethics
provisions.
Section 39, pages 24-26, which was included in the Governor's
original bill, would require more detail about income and
deferred income in legislative financial disclosures. This
provision is similar to Section 3 of SB 20. It more specifically
includes an exception for confidential information and requires
public members of the Select Committee to disclose the amount
and source of income they receive over $1000.
Section 40, page 26, would require final legislative financial
disclosures within ninety days of leaving service. Public
members of the Select Committee, legislative directors, and
legislators appointed to fill vacant seats would be required to
file financial disclosures within thirty days of appointment.
3:46:39 PM
MR. JONES said Section 41, page 26, would make electronic filing
mandatory for legislative financial disclosures, effective
January 1, 2009.
Section 42, page 26, would require the APOC to notify the
Legislative Council if the victim's advocate failed to file a
timely financial disclosure.
Section 43, pages 26-27, includes conforming language for the
changes in section 22 to the legislative gift provisions.
Section 44, page 27, would give the Alaska Retirement Management
Board authority to administer the pension forfeiture provision
that appears in the Section 45.
Section 45, pages 27-28, provides for forfeiture of the state's
retirement contributions made on behalf of a public officer,
legislator, or legislative director after that person is
convicted of a felony such as bribery or perjury in connection
with official duties. It would also allow the Retirement
Management Board to award some or all of the forfeited amount to
the spouse, dependent or former spouse of the convicted person.
Factors that may affect the award are the role that the person
may have played in connection with the illegal conduct, the
degree to which the spouse, dependent, or former spouse may have
profited financially, or any restitution ordered by the court.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the language was modeled after a
congressional code.
MR. JONES said he did not know but Senator Therriault indicated
it was based on federal language.
CHAIR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation of spouse's claim to
an offending spouse's retirement account based on their
knowledge of the offense.
MR. JONES said he is not sure whether the Retirement Management
Board would take into account the knowledge of the spouse, but
guessed that they would.
CHAIR FRENCH said he agrees with punishing culpable conduct and
can see where the provision is aiming but does not think it hits
the mark.
MR. JONES said the language on page 28, line 7, refers to
considering the totality of the circumstances.
SENATOR McGUIRE said when a lawmaking body highlights sections
or factors for consideration those become dominating and
controlling. If a spouse were a party to illegal conduct then
that should be considered under the general totality of
circumstances. If the spouse or family member wasn't involved in
the illegal conduct restitution should not be a relevant factor.
3:54:15 PM
MR. JONES said he believes it would have more relevance if the
money that was being withheld would actually go to the person
that deserves restitution, but it is not clear that's what would
happen under this provision
MR. JONES said Sections 46 and 47, page 28, would make the
pension forfeiture provision applicable to the Public Employee's
Retirement System (PERS). The two sections apply to the old
defined benefit system and the new defined contribution system.
Section 48, pages 28-29, would require final financial
disclosures from public officials within ninety days of leaving
service. This was part of the Governor's original bill and has
the same intent as SB 19, Section 2.
Section 49, pages 29-31, also part of the Governor's original
proposal, would require more detail in public official's
financial disclosures.
Section 50, page 31, includes up-date language in various
statutes for limited liability companies (LLC).
3:56:56 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there was any intersection between this
section and the section modified by public initiative relating
to reporting requirements and amounts of income required to be
reported.
MR. JONES said no. The public initiative related to legislative
disclosure rather than for public officials.
3:57:38 PM
MR. JONES said Section 51, pages 31-34 and Section 52, pages 34-
35, relate to blind trusts. They reflect advice that the House
Judiciary Committee got from attorney David Shaftell who is an
experienced practitioner in the area of trusts. His suggestions
were aimed at making these provisions more effective in creating
a workable framework for blind trusts. Blind trusts are not
mandatory under the public official's chapter of Title 39. The
goal of the blind trust would be to allow public officials to
have outside assets managed by another to avoid conflicts of
interest.
3:59:31 PM
MR. JONES said Section 53, page 35, would require public
officials to file financial disclosures electronically. This
would be the first stage in the staggered implementation of
electronic filing.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there are any electronic filing mechanisms
now for putting disclosures online. For the record he noted that
Ms. Kempton shook her head no. He said there are two issues; one
being electronic filing and the other electronic posting, and
asked Ms. Miles which are implicated by these sections.
MS. MILES said both.
CHAIR FRENCH this is a new development in the electronic
landscape. At this point anybody who wants to see a public
officials disclosure form has to request a copy from APOC.
MS. MILES agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the administration supports the deadlines.
MR. JONES said yes.
MR. JONES added that this set of electronic filing requirements
were part of the Governor's original bill. Additionally, the
electronic filing requirements for these disclosures would be
subject to exceptions where circumstances warranted granted by
the APOC.
4:03:55 PM
MR. JONES said Section 55, page 36, contains additional clean up
language for LLCs.
Section 56, page 36, adds to the existing list of executive
branch boards whose members must file financial disclosures with
the APOC. This provision was not in the Governor's original bill
though it was in an amendment she sought.
4:04:19 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE said an exception to the electronic filing rule
should not be that someone is generationally challenged and just
does not like to use computers.
MR. JONES said that would be up to APOC to determine.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked why the boards and commissions listed in
Section 56 were added as opposed to others.
MR. JONES said a list of all the boards and commissions was
compared to the current list in AS 39.50.200. If the board or
commission has control of significant money or issues that make
it appropriate for the public to know what members' financial
interests are, it was added to the provision.
MR. JONES said Section 57, page 36, deals with the definition of
an insignificant financial interest in a business under the
EBEA. This was part of the Governor's original bill and is
similar to Section 4 of SB 19, but it expressly applies to an
option to purchase an interest in a business.
SENATOR McGUIRE said it would be helpful in the future if
examples were provided outlining what those interests might be.
MR. JONES said this provision applies to the Executive Branch
Ethics Act.
4:08:37 PM
MR. JONES said Section 58, pages 36-37, would bar executive
branch members and their immediate family members from accepting
most gifts from lobbyists. This provision is similar to what was
discussed in SB 64.
Section 59, page 37, would eliminate the exception for work on
legislation and regulations under existing restrictions that
apply to former executive branch members employment for two
years after leaving state service. This was also part of the
Governor's bill and similar to Section 5 of SB 19. The language
in this provision specifies "a" bill or "a" resolution. The
importance of this is the language in SB 19 could be interpreted
to mean if someone worked on any legislation during their
service they would be barred for two years from working on all
legislation after leaving state service.
Section 60, page 37, would extend the current lobbying ban which
applies for one year after leaving state service, to deputy
heads of principle departments and persons who hold policy
making positions in the Governor's Office. Mr. Jones said this
is one of the Governor's priorities and is similar to Section 6
of SB 19, but the provision in SB 19 applies to many more
positions than covered here.
Section 61, pages 37-38, would bar for one year after leaving
state service, former heads of principal departments and
Governor's Office employees in policy making positions from
serving on boards or other governing bodies of organizations
that they either regulated or worked with as part of their
official duties. The provision also defines "employee of the
Office of the Governor in a policy making position."
4:11:24 PM
MR. JONES said Section 62, page 38, would require the governor
to disclose any benefit to his or her own financial interest
before granting clemency. It would also require the attorney
general to publish a written determination of whether granting
clemency in light of those interests would violate the EBEA.
Section 63, page 38, would make the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA) applicable to the Alaska Retirement Management Board's
administration of the pension forfeiture provision in Sections
44 and 45 of the bill.
Section 64, page 38, repeals two provisions; existing procedures
for disqualification of legislative members of the Select
Committee and appointment of alternates, and the existing
definition of immediate family or family member.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the deletion of the definition of
immediate family member was because of the new provision
expanding the definition.
MR. JONES said yes.
SENATOR McGUIRE noted that if the committee does reconsider the
definition of immediate family member a concurrent change would
be necessary in this section.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed.
4:13:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification of the repeal of
Section 24.60.037(d).
MR. JONES said that section is being replaced by a new Section
33 which addresses procedures for disqualification of
legislative members of the Select Committee and for appointment
of alternates.
4:14:07 PM
MR. JONES continued with Section 65, pages 38-39. This provision
makes an addition to the uncodified law by addressing
applicability. It is similar to section 9 of SB 19.
Section 66, page 39, would apply the pension forfeiture
provision to the former elected public officers retirement
system. Section 67, page 39, establishes an effective date of
January 1, 2009, for the electronic filing provisions that
effect legislative offices and offices of large municipalities.
Section 68, page 39, establishes a July 1, 2007, effective date
for the electronic filing provision for public officials.
Section 69, page 39, establishes an immediate effective date for
everything else.
MR. JONES noted that he was working with Mr. Brice who testified
earlier regarding nepotism, on a proposed amendment. They hope
the amendment will address his concerns without compromising the
principals that underlie the ethics act.
4:17:16 PM
CHAIR FRENCH thanked MR. JONES for his efforts.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for a comparative list of SB 19 and
SB 20 provisions versus HB 109.
MR. JONES said he would provide copies for the committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 4:18:00 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|