Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/09/1998 01:35 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
March 9, 1998
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Sean Parnell
Senator Johnny Ellis
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Lyda Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to marriage.
- MOVED CSSJR 42(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Urging an appeal and an expeditious decision on the appeal of a
case concerning marriage.
- MOVED CSSCR 25(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 201
"An Act relating to prohibiting recovery of damages and prohibiting
a remedy to a person in a civil action."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 42 - No previous action to report.
SCR 25 - No previous action to report.
SB 201 - See Judiciary minutes dated 10/10/97, 1/28/98 and 3/6/98.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Loren Leman
State Capitol
Juneau, Ak 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 42
Mr. John Gaguine
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Ak 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 42
Professor Lynn Wardel
Brigham Young University
Salt Lake City, Ut
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 42
Professor Don Cecil
University of Alaska, Southeast
11120 Glacier Highway
Juneau, Ak 88901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Ms. Sara Boesser
9365 View Drive
Juneau Ak 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Ms. Marsha Buck
PFLAG Juneau
8445 Kimberly St.
Juneau, Ak 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Ms. Pam Northrip
2810 Fritz Cove Rd.
Juneau, Ak 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Mr. Peter Pinney
PO Box 82290
Fairbanks, Ak 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Ms. Ellen Twiname
5306 Caribou Ave.
Anchorage, Ak 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Mr. Michael Jones
PO Box 6185
Sitka, Ak 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Reverend Howard Bess
PO Box 2888
Palmer, Ak 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Michael Johnstone
Los Angeles, Ca
Ms. Liz Dodd
100 Parks St.
Juneau, Ak 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Mr. Tom Gordy
Christian Coalition of Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 42
Mr. Mike Pauley
Staff to Senator Loren Leman
State Capitol
Juneau, Ak 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 42
Mr. Larry Carroll
3510 Mendenhall Loop Rd.
Juneau, Ak 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 201
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-15, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:35 p.m. and called SJR 42 as the first order of
business.
SJR 42 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN came forward to present the resolution on
behalf of the Senate Health, Education and Social Services
committee. SENATOR LEMAN explained that both the resolutions
respond to the recent ruling by Superior Court Judge Peter
Michalski, which decided that our society's traditional definition
of marriage may be unconstitutional. He explained that SJR 42
proposes an amendment to the state constitution that defines
marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
SENATOR LEMAN said the judge's ruling ignores the clear public
policy statement made by the Legislature in 1996 when it
overwhelmingly passed SB 308, known as the definition of marriage
bill. SENATOR LEMAN said this bill helped establish important
social policy in Alaska. He said Judge Michalski argued the statute
disallowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional unless the state
can show compelling governmental interest to the contrary. SENATOR
LEMAN commented that the judge arrived at this decision through
some ironic reasoning, alleging the constitutional right to public
recognition of one's choice of a life partner under the right to
privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution. SENATOR LEMAN said our
laws have never permitted granting licences to same sex marriages
and these marriages are currently not recognized in any of the 50
states nor, to the best of his knowledge, any country in the world.
SENATOR LEMAN predicted that if the Alaska court forces the state
to recognize same sex marriage, state law would be in conflict with
federal law in a multitude of ways, creating an explosion of
litigation. SENATOR LEMAN noted that the word marriage appears in
more than 800 sections of federal statute and the word spouse is
used 3,100 times. In all these statutes and regulations the federal
government recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one
woman, regardless of what the Alaska court says.
SENATOR LEMAN concluded that same sex marriage would cause a host
of conflict with programs and services ranging from the Internal
Revenue Service to Social Security benefits. He said some may argue
this demonstrates the need to change the federal statutes, but
SENATOR LEMAN maintained his disagreement and said the 1996 vote in
Congress on the Defense of Marriage Act shows these proponents have
their work cut out for them.
SENATOR LEMAN advised CHAIRMAN TAYLOR he would hear arguments on
both sides of this contentious issue and his belief is that the
preservation of the definition of marriage as a union between one
man and one woman is so important its loss would break down the
very foundation of our society. He proposed that the issue is so
profound, the people of Alaska should decide.
SENATOR LEMAN noted there were amendments to both SR 42 and SCR 25
and offered them to the committee for consideration. He then
introduced PROFESSOR LYNN WARDLE as an expert witness.
MR. JOHN GAGUINE, representing the Department of Law, replied "no"
to a question from CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asking if the amendment to the
bill significantly changed the issue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR.
GAGUINE if it was appropriate to place this amendment on the
ballot. MR. GAGUINE answered that he did not wish to speak for the
administration, but said it appears to him that the amendment would
moot the litigation, which seems to him its intent.
Number 200
PROFESSOR LYNN WARDLE stated he has taught family law for 20 years
and has done extensive research on the same issue. He indicated he
was speaking on his own behalf. PROF. WARDLE said same sex marriage
is not recognized by any jurisdiction in the world. He mentioned
that about six jurisdictions, mainly in Scandinavia, have
established same-sex domestic partnership, an institution quite
different from marriage. PROF. WARDLE suggested that even these
jurisdictions make a strong point of the fact that these
partnerships differ from marriage. In the past 25 years in this
country, many lawsuits have been filed in dozens of courts seeking
same-sex marriage and until a short time ago, not a single court
had accepted any one of these claims. However, in Hawaii, in 1996,
a judge ruled that the refusal to give marriage licences to same-
sex couples violated the state constitution. A few months later the
Hawaii legislature proposed an amendment to the constitution to
essentially overturn that decision, according to PROF. WARDLE. He
said that amendment is now awaiting a vote.
PROF. WARDLE said the decision of the Alaska judge is even more
radical than that handed down in Hawaii. He said that court
rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to same sex
marriage, reaching their claim through a convoluted route of legal
analysis. In the Alaska case, Judge Michalski interpreted
provisions of the Alaska Constitution as granting a fundamental
right to same-sex marriage. PROF. WARDLE commented that no other
court has ever reached this decision, which he sees as quite
radical. He said the ruling is not yet final, but it does establish
a clear legal standard that tells the world this is the view of
marriage held by the people of Alaska. PROF. WARDLE sees this as an
inaccurate portrayal.
PROFESSOR WARDLE said marriage is the foundation of society and has
always been understood to be between a man and a woman. He said it
is unique and uniquely beneficial as men and women have a
complementary relationship. He sees this to be the major flaw of
the decision: the failure to recognize the heterosexual
relationship provides more societal and individual benefits than
any other.
PROF. WARDLE said there is an honest answer to the question same-
sex couples might ask about why their unions, meaningful to them,
cannot be recognized in the same way as heterosexual marriage. He
said the answer is that a man and a woman contribute fundamental
things to society, unique to their relationship. Marriages meet
social policy goals and that is why they have been singled out,
historically, for preferred status. PROF. WARDLE identified some of
the social policy purposes that merit special standing as
PROF. WARDLE stressed another flaw in Judge Michalski decision was
the tenet that all choices of life partners are equal. PROF WARDLE
said the judge's opinion is lacking in the support, evidence and
judicial precedence necessary for this type of dramatic conclusion.
He believes that a right to privacy does not mandate a state must
confer a preferred public status on anyone. He said the logical
extension of this opinion would open the door for incestuous and
multiple marriages.
PROFESSOR WARDLE concluded that this matter goes beyond Alaska, as
this decision will affect other states and prompt a constitutional
crisis. He said the state has a compelling interest in not
redefining marriage in such a radical way, especially in a way that
will result in years of costly and confusing litigation. PROFESSOR
WARDLE said the case will bring up questions of alimony, property
interests, child support, inheritance, succession and benefits,
among others. He said other states may refuse to recognize same-sex
marriages from Alaska and he believes it is important for the
legislature to act now.
Finally, PROFESSOR WARDLE summed up by saying the legislature, who
are also guardians of the constitution, must represent the people
by allowing them to make the final decision regarding the
definition of marriage. He urged quick action on this legislation.
SENATOR ELLIS asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR if he would afford the same
time to Alaskans as he did to this out of town guest. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR replied he absolutely would and asked if there was a
spokesman for the opposition, as there were far too many people
present to allow unlimited testimony from each person. SENATOR
ELLIS asked how many people were signed up to testify and CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR said, counting those in the room as well as teleconference
participants, it looked to be approximately 70 total. SENATOR ELLIS
asked if the plan was to take two people and then cut off
testimony. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he would take one or two after
that, and would have to as they were running out of time.
Number 375
REVEREND DONALD CECIL, a Professor of Communications at the
University of Alaska Southeast, said he wished Alaska's slogan was
"Live free or die." He moved to Alaska in 1980 in search of a place
where he could live free from interference by the government and
others to the greatest possible extent. He wanted to live in a
state uncluttered by excessive laws, in a place that allows people
to march to the beat of a different drummer so long as no one got
hurt. He quoted U.S. Supreme Court justice Lewis Brandice who said,
"the makers of our Constitution sought to protect Americans in
their beliefs, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred
the right to be left alone, the most comprehensive of rights and
the right most valued by civilized man." He mentioned other Supreme
Court Justices who validated these sentiments in other writings.
REVEREND CECIL said the right to choose a marriage partner is a
right of individual freedom and the people testifying in favor of
that right are not asking for an endorsement. He said only a small
percentage of Alaskans would evermake this choice and other
Alaskans would continue living their lives according to their
beliefs, freely honoring what is inside themselves biologically and
emotionally. Likewise, the small minority of Alaskans would be able
to honor what is inside of them and lead their lives according to
their deepest beliefs. REVEREND CECIL remarked that the only injury
would be to someone else's sacred idea of how others should live
their lives.
REVEREND CECIL affirmed that he would like to continue living in a
state that fully embraces the concept of personal freedom. In his
opinion, SJR 42 is an affront to freedom of choice. In the name of
freedom for all Alaskans, he recommends they throw out SJR 42 and
get back to the more important business before them.
In response to SENATOR LEMAN's remarks regarding decisions that are
out of the mainstream, REVEREND CECIL quoted Thomas Jefferson, who
said, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and
constitutions . . . laws and institutions must go hand in hand
with the progress of the human mind, as that becomes more
developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new
truths discovered and manners and opinions change, well, with the
change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep
pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still
a coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain
ever under the regimen of their ancestors."
MS. SARA BOESSER, representing the Statewide Committee for
Equality, said there were 30-40 people out in the hall and another
60 around the state who came to testify against this bill. She said
they worked hard to be there and all came expecting to be allowed
to speak against this amendment to the Constitution.
MS. BOESSER commented that if the remarks of the out-of-state
speaker were true, the Attorney General would have no trouble
showing the court a compelling reason why same-sex couples should
not marry. MS. BOESSER suggested if the committee took the time to
listen to all those assembled, they would hear plenty of reasons
why lesbians and gays should be allowed to take on the
responsibilities and rights of legal marriage. She said they'd hear
stories how the inability to marry hurts them and their children,
and also how gutting the constitution of fundamental privacy rights
is as unAlaskan a precedent as there could be.
MS. BOESSER emphasized that her point was the intense pain that the
ballot procedure itself will cause innumerable people. She does not
believe the committee understands how difficult it will be to face
the type of angry, anti-gay onslaught some Alaskans will mount. She
is sure over the next few weeks the legislators themselves will
receive many cards and letters asking them to drop this proposition
and let the court case proceed. Some of these letters may be from
angry, upset people; MS. BOESSER said there is nothing she can do
to control that, like there is nothing the legislature can do to
control the barrage of hateful, prejudiced rhetoric that will ensue
if this goes to the ballot. She said if they feel the
uncomfortable sting of angry words, they should realize that what
they suffer is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to the
hate speech, untrue stereotypes and misinformation that will be
spread about her and her partner of 17 years. She dreads that. She
suggested that when they feel stung, they should think about people
like her, hearing daily attacks in the coffee shop, on the radio
and in the press, attacks on themselves and their loved ones. MS.
BOESSER concluded that this bill, whether it is intended or not,
builds a podium for hate speech for eight long months of painful
discourse. She charged the committee to understand their personal
responsibility in unleashing that pain upon them and their loved
ones. She urged the committee to stop the bill now and allow the
courts to continue the appeals process.
MS. MARSHA BUCK, representing Parents and Friends of Gays and
Lesbians (PFLAG), said she is angry about SJR 42 and opposes it.
She said she is angry for two reasons: first, because she has a
daughter married to another woman and she knows this resolution
will increase the hatred, violence and name-calling against her and
she is a hardworking, churchgoing, voting person who doesn't
deserve that; second, she is angry because she understood the
Republican platform was to stay out of citizens' private business
and this gets into it in a way she never expected.
MS. BUCK noted that the legislature is now on resolution number 42,
meaning there are 42 ways in which this Legislature is trying to
change the Constitution. This also makes her angry, to see this
attack against the Constitution when there are so many other
important things to be done, like working on subsistence and school
funding. MARSHA BUCK stated that the Constitution protects
citizens' rights, including her daughter's rights. She wondered if
the Legislature sees the connection between this type of resolution
and the increase of hate crimes and violence against gays and
lesbians. MS. BUCK identified herself as a long time Juneau
resident and indicated she would use her time and resources to
oppose this legislation.
Number 475
MS. PAM NORTHRIP, a teacher of 25 years from Juneau, reflected on
the marriage of her Presbyterian son to his partner by a Catholic
priest in a Quaker church. She said the priest explained why he
performed the ceremony saying in a world filled with violence,
bitterness and hate crimes, it is inherent upon each one of us to
do what we can to promote love. She said she hopes none of the
committee, in the name of family values, would reject a son or
daughter who came to them and revealed that, in addition to all the
wonderful things they are, they are gay. MS. NORTHRIP said she has
learned in her experience that families come in all sizes, races,
and configurations. She said defining families as only mothers and
fathers with children excludes single parent, multi-parent,
divorced, widowed, multi-racial and adoptive families and tells
their children that there is something wrong with them. She said it
hurts families and increases our suicide rate.
MS. NORTHRIP suggested that acceptance and inclusion do not mandate
agreement, but only allow individual freedom and choice. She
indicated that the rights of the minority are as important as the
opinion of the majority and she is unable to see how the state has
any compelling interest to discourage caring, kindness, commitment
and love. MS. NORTHRIP hoped the committee would not pass this
resolution that defines marriage so narrowly and hurts so many
families.
SENATOR ELLIS asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR why he had set up what SENATOR
ELLIS saw as an artificial time constraint. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied
he only had about an hour and a half to take up three different
matters. SENATOR ELLIS asked why this matter, due to all the public
interest, couldn't be carried over. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he
intended to move the bill today. SENATOR ELLIS asked why, saying
there were Alaskans who had come to testify and would not be able
to do so due to this artificial scheduling crisis. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
agreed, saying if they were to take the time to allow every person
to speak, because of the deeply felt emotions on this issue, he
thinks every Alaskan would speak. He added he thought that may be
part of the agenda also.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if testimony could be faxed into the
committee and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said certainly, people could send
their comments right through the Legislative Information Offices
(LIOs).
Number 515
MR. WILSON VALENTINE, an appointed member of the Commission for
Human Rights (Juneau) and an Episcopal priest, did not address the
right or wrong of homosexual marriages, but came to speak about the
goal of the Human Right's Commission, protecting the rights of all
people. He fears that if you write into the Constitution a
discrimination against any group, you are against human rights and
the work that modern people in the human family have been striving
to accomplish. MR. VALENTINE said putting into concrete something
that discriminates against anyone is wrong. He said the real
question is the treatment and protection of the people of Alaska,
which should be protected in our Constitution.
MR. PETER PINNEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, where
he spoke on behalf of the 20 people there at the LIO who opposed
the bill. MR. PINNEY said he looked at the issue like gun control,
if you start placing restrictions on it, who knows where they may
end. He mentioned other bills under consideration by the
Legislature, including those relating to "charter marriage" and
behavior of people with HIV asked if this is how this Legislature
wants to be remembered. He said there are other pressing issues.
MR. PINNY said, as a long time Republican, he has always disdained
intervention in people's lives. He said this action is not an
economic one, but rather a moral one and the state needs to pay
closer attention to economic issues. MR. PINNEY said the committee
could not prove to him that any two people getting married creates
a negative economic impact. He said for long time in Alaska, before
the pioneers, there was no marriage in Alaska and nothing fell
apart. Mr. PINNEY stated he did not feel comfortable with a
government legislating against any group, and he especially did not
feel comfortable with this Legislature presenting legislation
against him.
MS. ELLEN TWINAME testified via teleconference from a room of 15
people opposed to the bill at the Anchorage LIO. MS. TWINAME said
she does not support this attempt to change the Constitution, which
she feels will unfairly deny same-sex couples access to benefits
that mixed couples take for granted. She remarked that married
people enjoy privileges that have nothing to do with religion or
procreation such as tax-breaks, health insurance benefits and
rights to make health care and burial decisions for one another.
She does not see how same sex marriages could hurt society, and
suggested heterosexual couples are enjoying special rights that
should belong to everyone. MS. TWINAME concluded by saying that our
judiciary should not be afraid to set a precedent because that is
how the world gets changed. She believes being the first state to
allow same-sex marriages would be a reason for Alaskans to be
proud.
SENATOR WARD remarked that the person who testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks said there was no marriage before
the pioneers. SENATOR WARD refuted this, saying Athabascans married
for thousands of years and did not have same-sex marriage.
MR. MICHAEL JONES testified via teleconference from Sitka. MR.
JONES suggested that publicity around this bill has expressed the
need for it in order to retain the sanctity of marriage. MR. JONES
said this amendment would not sanctify marriage, but only define
the exclusivity of marriage. He suggested if the act of marriage is
to be sanctified, perhaps outlawing divorce or making it more
difficult to obtain would be more appropriate. He said only one of
five dictionary definitions he looked at defines marriage in terms
of opposite sex partners. MR. JONES concluded by saying the
Legislature certainly has more important things to do and he urged
them to drop this proposal.
TAPE 98-15, SIDE B
Number 001
REVEREND HOWARD BESS, a Baptist minister, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su and said marriage is a part of our
society and stabilizes social structures and creates an orderly
society. However, when government seeks to interfere with a
person's choice of a life partner, it defeats the purpose of the
government, confuses property rights and disrupts orderly decision
making. REVEREND BESS believes the judge's ruling in this case was
right on target and was supported by sound legal reasoning. He
urged the committee to leave the ruling alone and allow the courts
to do their job.
MR. MICHAEL JOHNSTONE testified via teleconference from Los
Angeles, but said he had lived in Alaska for 23 years. MR.
JOHNSTONE is the head of a ministry dedicated to providing a
Christian view of homosexuality, and helping individuals who decide
to reject homosexuality. His ministry was founded in Alaska. He
serves on the board of the National Legal Council as well as the
Steering Committee for the National Campaign to protect marriage.
MR. JOHNSTONE stated he is a former homosexual, having rejected his
homosexuality in 1998. He is HIV+ and developed AIDS in 1997.
MR. JOHNSTONE said that the idea of rejecting same sex marriage in
terms of public policy is well entrenched, with 28 states already
having adopted legislation to prohibit the redefining of marriage.
He said the public is clearly against such a change, some would say
due to mass homophobia or mean-spirited religious bigots who want
to stomp on the freedoms of others, he says it is because people
instinctively understand that to redefine marriage is to destroy it
and to destroy marriage is to destroy the structure and meaning of
families, the glue that bonds society together. MR. JOHNSTONE said
despite the best intentions of some homosexuals to replicate the
family, they simply cannot, as the family bond is rooted in the
ability to create life. MR. JOHNSTONE said if traditional marriage
is the superglue of society, same sex marriage and the counterfeit
homosexual family is merely white paste. He said same sex marriage
is an experiment being played out by intellectual elites and social
scientists. He says we have been down this road before,
experimenting with marriage and the family through no-fault
divorce, which has resulted in destroyed homes, fatherless children
and serial marriages.
MR. JOHNSTONE said those who utilize the courts in an attempt to
thwart the fundamental understanding of the public are the same
people whose sexual philosophy is anti-family and anti-children,
and who envision a future that embraces the idea that all sex is
good and healthy recreation, without norms. MR. JOHNSTONE said
their belief is truly in sexual freedom and the ultimate extension
of this would be incest, pedophilism and other aberrations.
MR. JOHNSTONE concluded that the traditional family is the
foundation of strong society and deserves special social
privileges, providing fulfillment of important functions such as
procreation, education, protection and provision. He commented that
the right to privacy is not an absolute, and the state must foster
and protect the institution of marriage, as it has through the
ages. He believes this amendment does that.
MS. LIZ DODD, a local Juneau resident and representative of The
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said she was somewhat amused
to hear SENATOR LEMAN saying Alaska should defer to the federal
government on this issue. She hadn't counted him among those who
deferred to federal authorities on such things as subsistence,
management of the Tongass National Forest and others. She said she
grew up in Alaska and has seen a tendency to try and maintain
freedom from federal interference to the greatest extent possible.
MS. DODD also remarked that it was interesting that SENATOR LEMAN
had brought a key person from out of state to comment on this bill,
specifically from Utah. She commented that Alaska is not Utah.
Alaska is governed by a wonderful, carefully deliberated
Constitution crafted by great minds; she said we should not usurp
that work without thinking long and hard about it.
MS. DODD asked why this proposed amendment would be added to the
back of the Constitution rather than being included in Article 1,
Section 1, the declaration of rights. LIZ DODD said this amendment
seems to make a cataclysmic change to that section of inherent
rights, critical rights. These rights affirm that all persons have
a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the
enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons
are equal, and entitled to equal rights and opportunities under the
law. MS. DODD said the amendment before them drops a footnote to
this section excluding some people from its protection when it
comes to marriage. She believes this is a dangerous leap, and once
it has been made it may never end. She said regardless of a
person's belief in same-sex marriage, anyone who cares about the
Constitution should be worried that, when a piece of legislation
was found to be unconstitutional, this Legislature tried to go back
and change it.
MS. DODD said, growing up in Juneau, she encountered a lot of
strange people, but was trained by her parents to leave people
alone. She agreed that it will be a big deal if the state allows
same-sex marriages, but explained that this change is coming and
why shouldn't it come first in the state that most prizes
individual rights and where a person can live and let live. She
said she did not hold out much hope, but urged the committee to
come to their senses and reject this bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MS. DODD how she could characterize this as
a cataclysmic change when there has never been a different
interpretation than this amendment assumes. LIZ DODD replied that
there had never been a challenge to this assumption previously, as
far as she knew. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR argued that there had been a
ruling on benefit packages for same sex couples. He added that the
courts do not have a monopoly on interpretation of the
Constitution, as the Legislature must do it daily.
MS. DODD said what she meant was that it is an unprecedented idea,
as far as she knows, to take away from Article 1, Section 1, the
inherent rights of people. She said this amendment nullifies the
concept of inherent rights and allows for an exception that says
only some people are equal. She said this is a big change for
Alaska and that is why she used the term cataclysmic.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that the change could be made to Article 1,
Section 1, but the drafter of the legislation was the person who
chose where it would be included. SENATOR LEMAN clarified that this
is not his bill, but a resolution, which he supports, by the SENATE
HESS COMMITTEE, the true sponsor of the legislation. He also
remarked that he did not invite PROF. WARDLE, nor did he pay for
his trip, and had only met him that very day. Having said that, he
expressed appreciation for the Professor's testimony and his
knowledge of the issue. SENATOR LEMAN also mentioned an article,
written by MS. DODD, in which she referred to him as a "moralist
extremist," saying if he is extreme, along with the 80 per cent of
Alaskans who believe in traditional marriage, she should not be
worried about the amendment, since the people of Alaska would not
support it. SENATOR LEMAN said he is not the aggressor in this
case, he is only trying to defend the institution of marriage and
put it in the Constitution so a judge cannot misinterpret it.
MS. DODD asked to respond, and said the reason she referred to
SENATOR LEMAN as an extremist, is because a state legislator should
defend the Constitution, not the Bible. She clarified that she was
not making a personal attack on LEMAN, only meant to defend against
his attack on our Constitution.
MR. TOM GORDY, state Chairman of the Christian Coalition, said this
decision has opened up a can of worms that could destroy the
traditional meaning of marriage as we know it. MR. GORDY referred
to several portions of the decision and commented that the decision
is what brought everyone there today and necessitated a
constitutional amendment. He said the state already has laws
prohibiting bigamy and incest, and asked if these prohibitions
implicate the right to privacy. MR. GORDY asked if we were prepared
as a state to recognize multiple person marriages or incestuous
marriages. He said he sees on t.v. sickening things that are being
done in our society and added that they will be pushing for these
rights, all of which are possible due to this decision.
MR. GORDY asked how we keep these things from happening as a result
of a liberal judicial system seeking to legislate rather than
interpreting laws. He said we must change the Constitution to avoid
the crumbling of our society. He suggests we learn from history,
saying every single society who has weakened marriage or even eased
divorce all came crumbling down. He urged the committee to pass the
bill in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage and protect our
society.
SENATOR MILLER moved amendment #1. SENATOR ELLIS objected to ask
what the purpose of the amendment is. SENATOR MILLER said it just
cleans up the language. SENATOR PARNELL asked if the new work draft
had been adopted and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it had not and asked
SENATOR MILLER to remove his motion in order to do so. SENATOR
MILLER withdrew his motion and SENATOR PARNELL made a motion to
adopt the work draft (version "E") as a judiciary committee
substitute. SENATOR ELLIS objected, asking what the changes from
the previous version are. SENATOR LEMAN said it is an attempt to
clarify and ensure the amendment covers what it is intended to do.
SENATOR LEMAN said the amendment to the amendment just clarifies
things further with some simplified language.
SENATOR ELLIS asked about MS. DODD's question about the placement
of the amendment. He asked if there was any difference in weight
given to any section of the Constitution due to its placement and
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied that everything in the Constitution is
given equal weight, regardless of location.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was objection maintained to the work
draft and SENATOR ELLIS said there was. Roll call was taken and the
work draft was adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved the amendment and SENATOR ELLIS objected,
again commenting on what he saw as a false time constraint imposed
by CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. SENATOR ELLIS also said there was insufficient
time for people around the state to receive the relevant materials
and he believed it to be an uninformed decision. He cited these as
reasons why he needed to object every chance he could. SENATOR
MILLER remarked that the public will have the ultimate input, on
the November ballot, if this amendment goes forward. SENATOR ELLIS
replied that it is the job of the committee to scrutinize and
discuss these issues, and to push it through so quickly in the
space of one hearing does a disservice. He said they are not really
giving it the consideration it deserves. SENATOR ELLIS said it is
all very transparent and rushed and he does not believe the
committee is doing an adequate job.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR remarked they had spent an hour and 25 minutes on
the matter and he did not consider that rushed. He said the concept
is not rocket science. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that they had
testimony where every person in the room indicated they were going
to say the same thing. He said, in the room, there were three or so
witnesses in support and probably 15 in opposition. He concluded
that the testimony, in his opinion, was becoming repetitive and
there reaches a certain point where additional testimony is going
to do very little to embellish something that has repeatedly been
said before. SENATOR ELLIS countered that people on both sides of
the issue had taken off work and changed their schedules in order
to testify and in normal conditions would have been heard. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR said he was acting out of courtesy to people waiting to be
heard on some other matters that were supposed to come up.
Roll call was taken on the amendment and the amendment was
adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved CSSJR 42 out of committee with individual
recommendations and SENATOR ELLIS objected, saying he thinks those
supporting the bill would be better off doing what the judge asked
them to do, and show the judge a compelling state interest. SENATOR
ELLIS noted that if SENATOR LEMAN and the witness from Utah are
correct, it would be easy to prove and that is where they should
direct their energy and not attempt to subvert the court decision.
He said that this constitutional amendment seems like the easy way,
and when the decision was handed down he thought there would be
work by the sponsors to show the state's compelling interest.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what he suggested be done and SENATOR ELLIS
said the legal experts know what is required, he envisions the
marshaling of opinions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if this wouldn't be
done in the appeals process, and did he believe legislation was
necessary. SENATOR ELLIS replied he was not sure. SENATOR LEMAN
said SENATOR ELLIS had referred to him and indicated that he
participate in showing a compelling a state interest. He stated he
has not at all been involved in this litigation, but does support
a resolution introduced by the HESS committee regarding this
matter; specifically SCR 25.
With no further discussion, once again the roll was called and SJR
42 moved from committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced SCR 25 as the next order of business.
SCR 25 - APPEAL OF MARRIAGE DECISION
SENATOR LEMAN said his opening comments on SJR 42 also apply to
this bill and he had no further comment. He did recommend an
amendment to the committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the appeal has yet been filed. SENATOR
LEMAN said he understood it would be filed today. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
asked for testimony on SCR 25 and there was none. He did note that
several opponents of SJR 42 indicated that the matter should be
left up to the court, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested they would support
this resolution.
SENATOR MILLER moved amendment #1 and SENATOR ELLIS objected for
the purpose of an explanation. SENATOR MILLER replied it looked
self-explanatory. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about the phrase "bearing
in mind that this is a court authorized by the people." SENATOR
ELLIS commented it is apparently not all that self-explanatory.
SENATOR LEMAN said he believed that the Supreme Court must be
contemplative in deciding this.
Number 120
MR. MIKE PAULEY, staff to SENATOR LEMAN, said the amendment is
technically inaccurate as there is not yet an appeal in progress,
he said the revised language is more appropriate. He said the
phrase "bearing in mind it is a court authorized by the people"
simply speaks to the issue that it is a discretionary matter and
the court does not have to take it up, but given the great social
and legal ramifications, the public has an interest in the court
granting review, which they do not have to do.
SENATOR PARNELL suggested removing that phrase, as the court is
well aware of that fact and to be expressly reminded of it might
generate some negative connotations and detract from their goal.
SENATOR PARNELL moved this as an amendment to the amendment: the
deletion of the phrase "bearing in mind it is a court authorized by
the people." Without objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that brought back the original motion, the
passage of Amendment #1 as amended. SENATOR ELLIS maintained his
objection, roll was called and the amendment (#1) was adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved SCR 25 out of committee out of committee with
individual recommendations. SENATOR ELLIS objected, roll was called
and SCR 25 moved out of committee with individual recommendation.
SB 201 - PROHIBIT RECOVERY BY WRONGDOER
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced the continuing inquiry into the time line
report received last week from the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called MR. LARRY CARROLL to testify.
MR. CARROLL came forward and said he was with the Division of
Banking, Securities and Corporations (BSC) for 22 years and was the
senior examiner at the time of the World Plus, Incorporated (WPI)
matter. He said he is somewhat constrained by confidentiality and
certain aspects of the case may best be discussed in a private
session with the committee. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR responded that he would
like to keep the hearing open as long as possible. MR. CARROLL
replied his only concern was for certain people's personal
finances, which should not become public record.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if MR. CARROLL had had a chance to review the
time line provided by the auditors, saying there was concern on the
part of the committee based on this document. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
expressed concern that it had been reported to him that the events
that had transpired may have affect his perception of his ability
to continue in state employment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR, commending MR.
CARROLL as a person of high integrity, wanted to give MR. CARROLL
the opportunity to comment on that.
MR. CARROLL said reasonable people may disagree on courses of
action, and his determination to undertake or refrain from an
investigation may have been different from another persons, but
this decision was the purview of the Department of Law. He said he
did not agree with the decision to leave the matter to the federal
investigators. MR. CARROLL said he tried to persuade the Attorney
General to agree with him and failed to do so.
MR. CARROLL said he was not satisfied with the ongoing federal
investigation, but thinks the Attorney General acted in good faith
based on the information that he had. MR. CARROLL understood that
simultaneous investigations can interfere with each other, but
liked to think that with some discretion, a state case could have
been pursued. MR. CARROLL said Alaska statute does not allow for
the return of investors' funds, as there is no possibility for
rescission.
MR. CARROLL said the state did do a number of things in the World
Plus matter. He indicated that there was careful scrutiny of
registered individuals dealing with WPI and one person received a
letter of sanction, while another was suspended and fined. MR.
CARROLL said he contacted the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, who then traveled to Fairbanks and eventually issued an
injunction. Mr. CARROLL said that the Attorney General had assured
him that if the federal government did not follow through and
deliver justice, he would revisit the matter.
LARRY CARROLL said, having done what they could do, his division
stepped back. He also said the evidence he obtained was not tainted
by the quashed subpoena, like the other evidence previously
amassed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified that no state action was brought and
again asked MR. CARROLL if that lack of action affected his view of
his job. MR. CARROLL replied probably not. He cited the generous
Retirement Incentive Program offered at the time as his temptation
to leave, although he said he certainly was not pleased that the
state did not go forward with charges.
MR. CARROLL said that the first wave of investors they contacted
wanted the scheme to go forward so they could get paid. He said a
big part of the propaganda surrounding this scheme was "don't tell
anyone about any of this." He said he understands that there is a
group of investors in Fairbanks suing the state so he wouldn't say
anything further, on the advice of counsel.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the federal authorities had brought in a
clean group of people after having recused the first set of
investigators. LARRY CARROLL replied that this was true, saying
they started over from square one and he provided them with all the
information he had. He also said that when the first glimmer of
this occurred, around November, he sent a bank examiner up to
Fairbanks to help the bankruptcy controller estimate the size of
the scheme. He said he was not happy that he was unable to continue
with the investigation after having started it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR inquired if, in his report to the Attorney General,
he had recommended state charges different from the federal
charges being pursued. MR. CARROLL said he had also recommended
charging people with false filings, that is providing sworn
information to his division that was untrue. He said none of that
would help return money to investors as the money is gone.
Number 202
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR understood that the money was gone, but commented
that if this woman had been stopped, a new round of Alaskans could
have been protected from investing money in her fraudulent scheme.
MR. CARROLL replied that the time frame suggests that the state
became aware of the alleged violation sometime in 1995 or 1996,
when the federal authorities were aware of it as early as 1992, and
yet did not make the state aware of it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that
MR. CARROLL was aware of problems with WPI also in 1992, as
documented in correspondence between his division and the State of
Idaho. MR. CARROLL agreed, but said before they approved Ms.
Bonham's exemptions, they had representations that all her Idaho
accounts were settled and there were to be no further sales of that
nature. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR interjected that in fact all of these
representations were fraudulent and yet no charges have ever been
brought against the attorney that submitted them. LARRY CARROLL
said this was true, but believed he was currently under suit by the
bankruptcy trustee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that he was glad someone had cleaned house
and actually gone out and attempted to protect the people. He said
his main concern was the audit he received which reported that the
Attorney General was not sufficiently independent to make this
determination and should seek an independent prosecutor to make
recommendations on these offenses. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed
concern that the statute of limitations might have passed on
infractions by state employees who deceived MR. CARROLL's division.
MR. CARROLL replied that the Securities Act was good for three
years from the infraction and he agreed that CHAIRMAN TAYLOR may be
correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the federal government is prosecuting Ms.
Bonham for bad checks. LARRY CARROLL did not know, but said she did
issue bad checks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked the amount and MR. CARROLL
said she did have an account she ran money through that ended up
about $80,000 overdrawn.
SENATOR WARD asked for clarification that LARRY CARROLL had spoken
to the A.G. and was told that if the federal government did not
come through he would pursue charges. MR. CARROLL explained that
what the Attorney General said was he would revisit the issue.
SENATOR WARD said he must have known that there was an issue, and
asked MR. CARROLL if he knew who had advised the Attorney General
to do this. MR. CARROLL said SENATOR WARD would have to ask the
Attorney General himself, but did know that he relied heavily on
his deputy, Lori Otto. SENATOR WARD said so it was Lori Otto who
advised him and MR. CARROLL repeated that SENATOR WARD would have
to ask the Attorney General. He did say Ms. Otto told him they ran
a great risk of "screwing up" the federal investigation if they
went forward. LARRY CARROLL said other things she said were best
discussed outside of the public domain. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he
would like to keep the proceeding open to the public as long as
possible but understood they were likely going to end up in
executive session. MR. CARROLL mentioned that Ms. Otto was his
attorney at the time and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR added that, tragically,
she was also the attorney for all the victims in the state and they
person they had to rely upon to protect them from a fraudulent
perpetrator like Ms. Bonham. MR. CARROLL said he did not argue with
this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied that the most troubling part was the
question of why they chose not to go forward. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said,
if they were to believe the words of the Attorney General as quoted
in the Daily News-Miner, the investigation did not go forward
because there were too many of their own people involved in the
scheme. LARRY CARROLL agreed there were a number of them involved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the feds also ran into the same problem of
having investigators involved, but they did the right thing by
recusing their people and bringing in new people to prosecute the
case. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that they then had to rely on the work
done by MR. CARROLL and was glad no one in his department had
suggested they back off and not investigate in order to spare some
state employees. LARRY CARROLL said, to the contrary, he distinctly
recalls the Director saying to Ms. Otto, "we are not going to
ignore our law". CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why he would have made this
statement to Ms. Otto, and MR. CARROLL said in response to her
opinion that there was no need to proceed as there was a parallel
proceeding already underway.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if MR. CARROLL knew for a fact that Mr.
Kirkpatrick responded to something that indicated he disagreed with
Ms. Otto and would proceed with an investigation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
asked if Mr. Kirkpatrick was asked to back off or told that he
should do so. LARRY CARROLL said he was privy to this conversation
and, though not quite in this context, he thinks the rationale was
that the continued investigation could cause problems with the
federal proceeding especially in aspects such as immunization of
certain people. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that this would only be
important if someone was trying to protect a person involved in the
scheme, probably a state employee. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said all the
people involved in the case essentially ended up with total
immunity due to the fact that someone decided not to prosecute.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that Mr. Hompesch did not appear to be a
victim in the scheme; MR. CARROLL replied that Mr. Hompesch had
told him he was "equally bamboozled" by Ms. Bonham and that she had
lied to him as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. CARROLL if, in the process of conducting
his investigation, he received any unsolicited endorsements from
Ms. Bonahm's attorney, written by state employees, some of which
would be the very same people who would have been prosecuting Ms.
Bonham had the Attorney General decided to go forward with the
case. LARRY CARROLL said he received 35 such letters and CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR said someone had gone out and rounded those letters up,
especially from influential folks so BSC would not investigate.
LARRY CARROLL said, at that time, the only thing they had
considered was remedying the fact Ms. Bonham was selling
unregistered securities and then going forward with an exemption.
MR. CARROLL said he believes these letters were an attempt to
demonstrate that this was a legitimate business enterprise, which
turned out to be untrue. MR. CARROLL said, regardless of these
letters, his organization moved slowly on the exemption process, in
fact, imposing requirements for the filing of quarterly reports. He
said these reports were filed and were totally false.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed suspicion regarding these letters,
particularly one written by the very person who would have
investigated the scheme had it been pursued. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
hypothesized that if he were Ms. Bonham, he might think it was a
good strategy to embroil the people who would prosecute him. He
might then have them send letters to BSC at the request of his
attorney, further entangling those who might prosecute him to the
extent that they are in jeopardy of losing their own funds if they
do so. LARRY CARROLL said he was also quite concerned with this
scenario, and got in a bit of trouble from an indignant Ms. Otto
when he chuckled about this very predicament.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR mentioned his additional concern that, after the
heat on WPI began to build and further inquiries came in from both
the IRS and the SEC (who began putting pressure on Ms. Bonham), Ms.
Bonham was writing bad checks as well as witdrawing large sums of
cash. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR would like to know if there was any
investigation to determine whether there were any significant cash
deposits to the accounts of those people who sent in these written
endorsements about the same time these letters appeared. LARRY
CARROLL replied that the bankruptcy trustee has filed suit against
200-300 investors who had good returns, but there were no subpoena
of bank records by BSC.
SENATOR WARD asked how much money was invested in WPI after MR.
CARROLL recommended to Ms. Otto they pursue an investigation. LARRY
CARROLL replied there was none.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified that this type of scheme needs a
tremendous amount of money to flow in continuously in order to pay
off previous investors. MR. CARROLL said it needed to double.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if those people who knew Ms. Bonham was under
suspicion and wrote a letter to BSC did not benefit by assuring
continued investment and their own payoff in this scheme. MR.
CARROLL said, for the purposes of discussion, they should assume
the people who wrote the letters did so in good faith in response
to a request. Mr. CARROLL said, assuming all this, what Ms. Bonahm
had done with the letters is known as "lulling", meaning lulling
new investors into her scheme on the strength of these letters. MR.
CARROLL said the letters absolutely did help perpetrate the scheme,
but that he did not know that the people who wrote the letters
knew, at the time, that it was a scheme. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that
no one has checked to see if, as the scheme began to crumble, these
peoples' bank accounts ballooned. Again Larry Carroll expalined
that the rationale was that there was an ongoing federal
investigation and the guilty parties would be held accountable. He
said those were the instructions received form the Department of
Law. Additionally, he said there is a letter to that effect the
committee may want to look at. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if this letter
was written by Ms. Otto. LARRY CARROLL said it was, and the letter
was the result of several discussions with Ms. Otto.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if he could date when the first discussions
occurred. MR. CARROLL estimated the discussions began shortly after
Thanksgiving 1995 and ran through February 1996. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
asked when WPI was shut down and MR. CARROLL replied it was late
November of 1995, to the best of his recollection.
SENATOR WARD commented that it had just occurred to him that a
letter from a prosecutor endorsing this deal would be a heck of a
selling tool. SENATOR WARD asked if Ms. Otto solicited these
letters and MR. CARROLL said he presumed the letters were solicited
by Ms. Bonham or Mr. Hompesch, and in fact Ms. Otto did not now
anything about them until informed by BSC.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if, during the course of an investigation,
MR. CARROLL found someone in his department was involved in a
fraudulent scheme, would he not recuse that employee immediately.
LARRY CARROLL affirmed he would absolutely recuse that employee
immediately. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR then asked if he would stop his
investigation because of it and MR. CARROLL said he would not.
LARRY CARROLL said in discussion with the Attorney General, he
asked what he should say if calls came in asking why the
investigation was not being pursued, and the Attorney General said
he would field those calls and he did.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if BSC had received calls prior to the Master
of Bankruptcy shutting Ms. Bonham down. LARRY CARROLL recalled only
one investor calling, who was having trouble transferring his note.
MR. CARROLL said it was a firm rule of Ms. Bonham that no investor
talk about the scheme. He said when people did began to talk, BSC
heard her four basic stories that she sold to investors. MR.
CARROLL said he doesn't know what she thought was going to happen,
as there was no legitimate business enterprise underlying the
scheme. MR. CARROLL explained that BSC had no idea the whole thing
was so huge, they honestly believed it was limited to 15 investors
dealing in airline mileage.
SENATOR WARD said he has been contacted by people who believe that
the state somehow held this whole thing together until prominent
people like lawyers and judges got their money and then allowed the
scam to fall apart. MR. CARROLL said, indeed, some of the people
who won big were prominent in Fairbanks. He did not go so far as to
agree with SENATOR WARD's statement, saying some of these people
also rolled over their money and lost. MR. CARROLL agreed with
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR's conclusion that to to really find out who won and
who lost would take a great deal of investigation. He did say they
had an open and shut case against Ms. Bonham.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified that MR. CARROLL was told by the A.G.
that if the federal authorities failed to catch the perpetrators,
he would revisit the case. MR. CARROLL agreed this was what had
transpired, and he was concerned about the direction of the case as
the search warrant had been quashed and the evidence was delivered
back to Ms. Bonham and he was not comfortable leaving the
investigation in their hands.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained that he was concerned about the extent to
which BSC relied on these endorsements submitted by state
employees. He said it seemed there was a plethora of state laws
violated and the only person now being prosecuted is Raejean
Bonham. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. CARROLL if, when he got that
committment from the A.G., he thought additional players would be
prosecuted. LARRY CARROLL said yes, to the extent that there were
other culpable players involved. MR. CARROLL indicated he
hypothesized that other people might have some problems that would
come to light in an investigation. He stated this, also, "did not
sit well".
TAPE 98-16, SIDE B
Number 001
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked to whom MR. CARROLL was referring by this
last comment and LARRY CARROLL replied he meant Ms. Otto, who
suggested he "be careful" making those types of styatements. He
said he indicated he was speaking to her as his lawyer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if she told him to "be careful" about
investigating state employees and MR. CARROLL clarified she said to
"be careful" about making a statement implying the possible guilt
of state employees. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it was, though, ok to make
the statement that Raejean Bonahm was culpable and MR. CARROLL said
it was already apparent, through a preponderance of the evidence,
that she was implicated. MR. CARROLL said he still does not know if
there is anyone else who may be culpable, due to the fact that
there was no further investigation of the matter. He again
suggested that the committee look at the letter sent to the
division, which clearly sets out instructions given to employees of
the Department of Law. He stated very clearly that he is not
accusing anyone of anything, and indicated to CHAIRMAN TAYLOR that
they may be getting into that grey area he hoped to avoid.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. CARROLL for his testimony.
LARRY CARROLL expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak.
He said the division does a lot of good work and catches a lot of
bad guys. He said this scam turned out to be one of the biggest,
and was taken over by the feds who finally completed it. He said he
is sorry for the people who lost their money and he is glad to have
aided the federal investigation. He concluded by saying he makes no
apologies for what he did and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied that he hopes
others will be able to make that same statement.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the Legislative Auditors had been authorized
to do an audit of BSC and the Department of Law relating to their
decisions surrounding this case. He hopes to see a preliminary
report in 30 days, and indicated that, at that point, it may be
necessary to go into executive session.
MR. CARROLL remarked he wanted to be clear that he is no longer
affiliated with BSC, and that he is not a spokeman for them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR aknowledged this was understood and, with no
further business to come before the committee, adjourned the
meeting at 4:02.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|