02/08/2007 03:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB69 | |
| SB45 | |
| SB69 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2007
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(JUD)
"An Act relating to executive clemency."
MOVED SCS CSHB 69(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to murder in the first degree."
MOVED CSSB 45(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 69
"An Act relating to the creation of a civil legal services
fund."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 5
"An Act relating to reporting of certain crimes."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 69
SHORT TITLE: NOTIFY CRIME VICTIM OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SAMUELS
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) JUD
01/22/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/22/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/24/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/24/07 (H) Moved CSHB 69(JUD) Out of Committee
01/24/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/25/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 6DP 1NR
01/25/07 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, LYNN, DAHLSTROM,
SAMUELS, HOLMES, RAMRAS
01/25/07 (H) NR: COGHILL
01/30/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
01/30/07 (H) VERSION: CSHB 69(JUD)
01/31/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/31/07 (S) JUD
02/05/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/05/07 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/08/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 45
SHORT TITLE: PEACE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
01/16/07 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07
01/16/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (S) STA, JUD
01/25/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
01/25/07 (S) Heard & Held
01/25/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
01/30/07 (S) EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS:INTERESTS & ACTIONS
02/01/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/01/07 (S) -- Rescheduled from 01/30/07 --
02/02/07 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP 1AM SAME TITLE
02/02/07 (S) DP: MCGUIRE, STEVENS, GREEN, BUNDE
02/02/07 (S) AM: FRENCH
02/05/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/05/07 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/08/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 69
SHORT TITLE: CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE
01/29/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/07 (S) JUD, FIN
02/05/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/05/07 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/08/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 64
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/07 (S) JUD, STA, FIN
02/08/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Ralph Samuels
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 69
Lawrence Jones, Executive Director
Alaska Board of Parole
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 69
Susan Sullivan, Executive Director
Victims for Justice (VFJ)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for HB 69
Rick Svobodny, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding HB 69 and
SB 45
Senator Donald Olson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 45
Loretta Bullard, President
Kawerak, Inc.
Nome, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support for SB 45
Andy Harrington, Executive Director
Alaska Legal Services
1648 Cushman, Suite 300
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the importance of SB 69
Doug Wooliver, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
303 K St.
Anchorage, AK 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 69
David Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of SB 64
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33:45 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senator McGuire, Senator Huggins, Senator
Wielechowski, and Chair French. Senator Therriault arrived
shortly thereafter.
CSHB 69(JUD)-NOTIFY CRIME VICTIM OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 69. He asked for
a motion to adopt the \M committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR HUGGINS made a motion to adopt Version \M, labeled 25-
LS0317\M, as the working document. There was no objection.
3:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Sponsor of HB 69, said the bill is
a choice between several constitutional issues. He read Article
III, Section 21, of the Alaska State Constitution which states
in part:
Subject to procedure prescribed by law, the governor
may grant pardons, commutations, and reprieves, and
may suspend and remit fines and forfeitures. This
power shall not extend to impeachment.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said the conflict is with Article I,
Section 24 of the Alaska State Constitution. It states in part:
Crime victims, as defined by law, shall have the
following rights as provided by law: ... the right to
be heard, upon request, at sentencing, before or after
conviction or juvenile adjudication, and at any
proceeding where the accused's release from custody is
considered; ...
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said HB 69 simply establishes a procedure
that the governor must follow in cases of executive clemency.
This is good public policy, he said, and the fundamental crux is
that the victim must be notified. A governor may choose to
pardon someone, but he or she must pass the "red face test" and
call the victim. He stated.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that the bill has changed since it
passed the House. Originally the victim was notified as part of
the application procedure, but that was changed to accommodate a
situation where the governor grants a pardon without an
application having been made.
The House version also said that a victim would be notified
regardless of whether a request was made. That language was
cleaned up, he said. Although the 180 days might be questioned,
that is the time that the Alaska Board of Parole said it needed
for its review process. He noted that the Department of Law
might give its perspective on that point.
3:39:54 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked where victim notification is located in
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said page 2, line 9 says:
The board shall provide notice of any action taken by
the governor to the Department of Law, the office of
victims' rights, and the victim.
The original legislation said, "If requested by the victim..."
but a pardon could take place 20 years after a crime and someone
may not have asked to be notified at the time. The idea is to
make a best effort to notify, he said.
3:40:57 PM
Senator Therriault arrived.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that it's fair to say that the bill errs
on the side of notification rather than waiting for someone to
ask to be notified.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed.
3:41:36 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the language about applying for
notification had been removed because it was problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied that language became irrelevant
because victims will be notified under any circumstances.
3:42:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH opened public testimony.
3:42:48 PM
LAWRENCE JONES, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), said he made lengthy testimony
at the first [House] judiciary hearing; he was quite comfortable
with the bill then and is more so now. He supports the proposed
change in verbiage from "application" to "consideration" and as
a matter of logistics, 180 days is quite adequate. From the
Alaska Board of Parole perspective, the bill will be quite
workable, he stated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a definition for "victim"
that would be used and if there would be a requirement that all
family members be notified.
MR. JONES replied there is a statutory definition for victim
that is relatively broad. It extends through to the family if
the victim is deceased and to the parents in the case of a
minor. Anecdotally the board will make every effort to determine
a reasonable cutoff for victim notification, he said.
3:46:06 PM
SUSAN SULLIVAN, Executive Director, Victims for Justice (VFJ),
stated strong support for the bill particularly with the recent
changes. She suggested that on page 2, line 7 it might be more
consistent to use the term "consideration" instead of
"application".
CHAIR FRENCH asked the sponsor to comment.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the change in terminology might be a
good idea because under the existing system the governor could
take action without an application having been filed.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he tends to agree, but he would
defer to the Department of Law.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Svobodny if, on page 2, line 7, it would
be more desirable to say: "The victim may comment in writing to
the board on the consideration for executive clemency."
3:49:12 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law (DOL), said he would agree and it is
in conformity with the sponsor's intent.
3:49:34 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the governor has to provide notice to
the parole board for an investigation. If an application isn't
part of that process then it should be broadened, he stated.
CHAIR FRENCH asked, for the sake of clarity, if everyone was
strictly considering the case where the governor has sua sponte,
on his or her own, considered granting clemency outside the
normal application process.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the governor would have the power to
grant clemency without interaction with the board.
MR. SVOBODNY said it's certainly not unheard of for the
executive to grant clemency or commute sentences without a
particular application having been made.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said Section 1 states that the governor
may not grant clemency without having provided notice of
consideration to the board of parole. Further in the process, he
said, the board must notify the victim.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it is fair to say that a governor who
believes that this is a restriction on his or her constitutional
power to grant clemency would have to challenge the
constitutionality of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said HB 69 doesn't remove the governor's
right to grant clemency; it simply sets up procedures.
3:52:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said page 1, lines 6, 9 and 15 talk about
notice of consideration, so it would seem that it would be
consistent to change "application" to "consideration" on page 2,
line 7. He is comfortable that the bill is constitutional for a
number of reasons. The legislature has the authority to set
procedures and also there is a constitutional provision that
discusses victims' rights. He asked the sponsor to touch on
that.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said Article 1, Section 24 lists a myriad
of rights that victims have including: right to be reasonably
protected from the accused; the right to bail; the right to be
treated with dignity, respect and fairness; the right to a
timely disposition of a case; and the right of the accused to be
present at a criminal or juvenile proceeding. A governor
wouldn't be required to follow the procedure, he said, but more
than likely all would choose to do so.
3:56:35 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE said the argument is practical and compelling,
but the phrase "may not grant" on page 1, line 4 raises a
separation of powers issue. That changes the generous grant
authority and requires a governor to take another step before
executing that power. With that in mind, she suggested placing
the burden on the board and saying, "The board of parole shall
send a notice to the victim irrespective of whether or not the
application has been forwarded to the board." It's okay for the
legislature to make a direct requirement on the parole board,
but requiring the governor to make the extra step is shaky
constitutional ground, she stated.
3:59:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said if the parameters and procedures
aren't established, then midnight pardons won't stop. He noted
that the number of days is a concern to some, but the parole
board said six months is a good timeframe to review the case,
process the application, and contact the victim. If that
presents a constitutional problem then it can be revisited, he
stated.
SENATOR McGUIRE said the goal is to keep the law from getting
thrown out so she prefers to take the most conservative route.
She suggested that keeping the discretionary word "may" in the
bill instead of " shall". "You still put the political heat on,
you still wage the public relations campaign, and you still have
the requirements on the book and you don't get it thrown out by
a court." The legislature simply doesn't have the ability to
strap the governor's hands, she said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked the DOL opinion on the
constitutionality of the bill.
MR. SVOBODNY responded, there is an issue of how much time it
takes. 180 days represents the first half year in office and the
last half year in office so that cuts the governor's ability to
grant pardons by 25 percent. "I don't think that's correct," he
said. Nothing says an application made during the last two weeks
of one governor's term would not carry over to the next
governor.
The legislature has the authority to establish procedures for
granting pardons and that takes time. However, it is better to
pick a number that everyone is used to so that it is viewed as
procedural rather than cutting into the governor's authority. "I
don't know where that line is - whether it's at 120 days or 60.
I certainly feel more comfortable in saying it's a procedural
issue if it's 30 days, 45 days, 60 days.
CHAIR FRENCH said his view is that this is a way to harmonize
the victims' right amendment and governor's power to grant
clemency.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the power to pardon runs with the
governor as a person or with the governor's office. There is an
argument that it runs with the office and if it does, this isn't
an infringement at all, he said. "A governor in their last two
weeks could offer up this pardon and then ... that person is no
longer in office, but you still have a governor who still has
that ability to pardon."
MR. SVOBODNY opined that the authority is while in office.
4:05:44 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and asked if the committee
had discussion or amendments to offer.
4:05:56 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI made a motion to delete "application" and
insert "consideration" on page 2, line 7.
CHAIR FRENCH found no objection and announced that Amendment 1
carries.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked the sponsor to restate how he decided upon
180 days.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied that Mr. Jones from the board of
parole said it would take about that much time to go through the
normal application process and contact the victim.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked Mr. Jones if 120 days would be unfeasible.
MR. JONES said he had reconsidered his original answer and was
ready to go on record stating that 120 days would be adequate.
4:07:47 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE made a motion to delete "180" and insert "120"
from page 1, lines 7 and 8 and any conforming amendments. She
explained the reason is to reflect customary deadlines that are
recognized in the law.
CHAIR FRENCH said his review of the bill indicates that "180"
appears just twice - on line 7 and line 8 of page 1.
CHAIR FRENCH found no objection and announced that Amendment 2
carries.
4:09:01 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE made a motion to report SCS CSHB 69, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection SCS CSHB 69(JUD)
moved from committee.
SB 45-PEACE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER
4:10:44 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 45. [CSSB 45(STA)
was before the committee.]
SENATOR DONALD OLSON, sponsor of SB 45, paraphrased the
following sponsor statement:
SB 45 mandates the maximum sentence for first-degree
murder when committed by an on-duty peace officer.
This legislation derives from the Nome murder of Sonya
Ivanoff, a well-known and well-liked young girl in the
Bering Straits region. The investigation and
subsequent conviction of the police officer
responsible for the murder caused much anguish and
consternation for both the Ivanoff family and the
region's population in general.
At the police officer's sentencing, the judge agreed
with the state prosecutor's recommendation that the
maximum penalty should be imposed. His rationale was
that while state law mandates the maximum penalty when
a peace officer is murdered while acting in the line
of duty [AS 12.55.125(a)(1)], first-degree murder by a
peace officer acting in a position of trust and public
protection was equally egregious.
SB 45 provides sentencing parity for the protection of
our guardians of civil law and order and for the
public trust in their activities and responsibilities.
4:12:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he understands that the concerns that several
law enforcement agencies expressed during the state affairs
hearing were addressed through amendments made in that
committee.
SENATOR OLSON said that is correct. The state affairs CS has
support from the Department of Law, the Alaska Federation of
Natives, Kawerak, Inc., and the Bering Straits Native
Corporation. Also, the Department of Public Safety has no
objection to the amended version.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if police officers who use their
position of authority to commit other crimes face increased
penalties for those crimes as well.
SENATOR OLSON said he did not know.
4:13:47 PM
LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak, Inc., said she assumes that
CSSB 45(STA) seeks to ensure that on-duty peace officers do not
have to second-guess using deadly force when it's necessary to
protect the public or themselves. She testified in support of
the concept encompassed in the bill, but she questioned what
constitutes clear and convincing evidence that a peace officer
used his or her authority to facilitate a murder. Perhaps Mr.
Svobodny could provide information on that, she said.
MS. BULLARD recommended that any police officer who is convicted
of premeditated first-degree murder should receive a mandatory
99-year sentence without possibility for parole or early
release. By virtue of their position in society and the public
trust, police officers should be held to the highest possible
standard. If the public trust and the oath to protect the public
is violated, the sentence ought to be commensurate to the
violation.
4:16:23 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and opened the bill for
discussion and amendment from the committee members.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the bill differentiates between on-
duty and off-duty.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that there was good testimony on that in
state affairs. He asked Mr. Svobodny to give that same
information.
4:17:12 PM
RICHARD SVOBODNY, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law (DOL), said in the Sonya Ivanoff
case the conduct was both on-duty and off-duty. The new language
includes both as long as the peace officer is using his or her
authority.
CHAIR FRENCH recapped a distinction Mr. Svobodny drew before
about a hypothetical instance where a police officer was having
a domestic dispute with his wife. The wife took the couple's
child to the police station to do a custody transfer and,
totally outside his role as a police officer, he murdered his
wife. Although that would be a horrible crime and the officer
would be punished, SB 45 does not address that sort of instance.
The intent is to get at the officer who uses the official badge,
car, or uniform to facilitate the commission of murder. That is
what brings the 99-year sentence to bear, he stated.
MR. SVOBODNY responded to an earlier question and said Mr. Owens
was also charged with official misconduct, which is an A
misdemeanor offense. The court severed that charge and found no
need to go forward with that prosecution after he was sentenced
for the murder.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked what would happen if the police officer
used his authority to gain information about someone, but did
not use the information until he was off duty. "Would that be
swept in under this?" he asked.
MR. SVOBODNY said a judge would need to be convinced with clear
and convincing evidence that the officer used his position of
authority to gain that information. Given that example it could
go either way, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Svobodny to remind the committee of the
various standards of proof.
MR. SVOBODNY relayed that in criminal cases there are four
standards of proof. 1) Probable cause is the standard that is
something less than 50 percent and is used to obtain a search
warrant. 2) Preponderance of the evidence means more than 50
percent and is the standard that would be used for an
evidentiary call. 3) Clear and convincing evidence is
substantially greater than preponderance and is more than 50
percent. It firmly establishes a position. 4) Beyond a
reasonable doubt is the standard that would cause a reasonable
person to hesitate in the important affairs of life.
4:21:34 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS stated for the record that he is an advocate of
the death sentence. From his perspective the bill falls short
because "singling out different agencies of people is a road I
would prefer we don't go down too often."
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the committee members had questions,
comments or amendments to offer.
SENATOR THERRIAULT made a motion to delete Section 1, which
names a section in statute.
SENATOR McGUIRE objected.
A roll call was taken on the motion to delete Section 1 from SB
45. Senators Therriault, Huggins and Chair French voted in favor
and Senators Wielechowski and McGuire voted against. Therefore
Amendment 1 carried.
CHAIR FRENCH found no further amendments and asked the will of
the committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT made a motion to report CSSB 45(JUD) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s). There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 69-CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND
4:25:18 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 69.
SENATOR McGUIRE, sponsor of SB 69, stated that the same bill
passed the House unanimously twice and Senator Wielechowski is
the only committee member who has not heard it before.
SB 69 would create a civil legal services fund that would be
funded by provisions required under AS 09.17.020(j). This
section requires that 50 percent of all punitive damage awards
are turned over to the state and deposited into the general
fund. 6
SENATOR McGuire said the Alaska Legal Services Corporation
(ALSC) has helped low-income Alaskans with civil legal needs
since the mid 60s. In prior years the legislature provided up to
$1.2 million in funding, but during the Murkowski administration
the funding disappeared altogether. That is a travesty for those
who believe that access to the civil legal system is important,
she stated.
SENATOR McGUIRE relayed that ALSC has provided civil legal funds
for citizens who don't have the income to fight landlord tenant
cases, Social Security cases, Medicaid cases and others.
Currently ALSC receives some municipal and federal grants, but
overall it has been very difficult to operate from year-to-year.
4:28:55 PM
ANDY HARRINGTON, Executive Director, Alaska Legal Services
(ALS), Fairbanks, described how additional money would help
4,800 individuals or 1,500 families. Most of the cases involve
custody or divorce litigation and about two-thirds of the
domestic relations cases are violence related. When representing
victims of domestic violence, the highest priority is getting
the victims civil protection to help break the violence cycle
and minimize any exposure or role modeling to children. The
second highest are landlord tenant cases where families have
lost shelter. Disability cases, usually involving problems with
the Social Security Administration, are the next highest
followed by collection cases.
MR. HARRINGTON said ALS does not represent people in criminal
proceedings because those cases carry a right for an appointed
attorney. Part of the ALS mission is to help people solve
problems through civil proceedings thereby reducing the
likelihood that the issue will evolve into a criminal
proceeding. This is a sort of preventative medicine, he said.
MR. HARRINGTON explained that most of the case work is in state
court rather than federal court, but most of the funding is
federal. ALS also provides a service to the court system when it
represents low income people because a litigant who is
representing him/herself invariably slows the system for that
and subsequent cases.
MR. HARRINGTON said that for a number of reasons SB 69 is a very
good bill and ALS strongly supports its passage.
4:33:38 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the committee had a supporting letter
from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) that
Marie Darlin signed.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Senator McGuire if SB 69 is exactly the same
bill that passed the Senate last year.
SENATOR McGUIRE said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and asked for comment or
discussion among the committee members.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked about a House floor amendment that was
offered that day. It adds an additional money source from Rule
9(b)(1) of the Alaska Rules of Administration.
4:35:12 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE said the motivation to get more revenue put
aside into the fund is well placed, but she opposes the
amendment. It calls for $75 of each 9(b)(1) filing fee to be set
aside for the fund. That would place a financial burden on the
court system and she prefers the more conservative approach.
4:35:53 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
stated that the Court doesn't generally take a position in
support or opposition of a bill. He allowed that the amendment
was somewhat confusing and he believes it was misdrafted. The
second section refers to a court rule change and a statutory
reference neither of which are in the bill.
SENATOR McGUIRE said the amendment may apply to a concept that
was discussed last year. She asked Mr. Wooliver to explain what
the $75 amount would represent in terms of filing fees to the
Alaska Court System.
MR. WOOLIVER said the amendment might refer to an earlier
version, which would have increased the court filing fees for
certain cases and those fees would have funded the civil legal
services account. The Court typically does not support
surcharges on filing fees or increases on filing fees to support
programs that are not related to the cost of bringing cases
court. It believes that many of the programs are worthwhile and
it agrees with Mr. HARRINGTON's comments about the burdens that
Pro Se litigants place on the court. Nonetheless those programs
are more appropriately funded through the general fund rather
than through a tax on court system users, he stated.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for clarification that 9(b)(1) is the
regular civil litigation filing fee.
MR. WOOLIVER said it is.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that he would hold SB 69 in committee.
SB 64- DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 64.
4:39:20 PM
DAVID JONES, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Opinions, Appeals and Ethics, Department of Law, stated that SB
64 proposes improvements to Alaska's disclosure laws and ethics
laws. Disclosure improvements would apply to the three branches
of government, to candidates and political groups, and to some
municipal officers. Improvements to the "Ethics Act" [Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act] would apply only to executive
branch members.
Disclosure improvements include requirements for: electronic
filing with APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission); more
detailed legislative financial disclosures; disclosures from
former legislators and certain others. Sections 1, 4, and 7
require electronic filing; Sections 2 and 6 require more detail
in the financial disclosures that are filed with APOC; and
Sections 3 and 5 require certain former officials to file
financial disclosures within 90 days of leaving office.
The four improvements to the Ethics Act appear in Sections 8-11.
Section 8 defines an insignificant business interest; Section 9
bans most gifts from lobbyists; Section 10 tightens the existing
restrictions on types of work that former executive branch
members may perform within two years of leaving state service;
and Section 11 extends the reach of the existing ban on lobbying
to apply to deputy commissioners and others who held
policymaking positions in the governor's office. "That ban
applies under existing law for one year," he said.
4:42:05 PM
MR. JONES explained the bill sections as follows:
Section 1 on page 2 requires electronic filing of campaign
disclosure reports that candidates, groups and others file with
APOC. In extraordinary circumstances APOC could grant an
exception in extraordinary circumstances.
Section 2, 3, and 4 on pages 2 and 3 apply to the legislative
branch. Section 2 requires more detail in the financial
disclosures that legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and legislative directors file
with APOC. For all income exceeding $1,000, the disclosures must
describe the amount received, the number of hours spent to earn
the income, and details regarding the services that were
provided. He noted that Section 3 of SB 20 approaches that
subject somewhat differently.
Section 3 requires former legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and former legislative
directors to file financial disclosures with APOC within 90 days
of leaving service. He noted that Section 2 of SB 20 addresses
that subject somewhat differently.
Section 4 requires legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and legislative directors to
electronically file financial disclosures with APOC. The
commission could grant exceptions in extraordinary
circumstances.
4:44:17 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a FAX is regarded as an electronic
submittal.
MR. JONES replied the intent is for Internet submissions.
Currently APOC currently enters the data before it can be
incorporated onto the APOC website.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many candidates do not file
electronically, how long it takes APOC to enter that data, and
how long it takes before the data is available online.
4:45:31 PM
TAMMY KEMPTON, Project Coordinator, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), said about half of the candidates file
electronically. [Ms. Kempton subsequently sent a letter
correcting her statement. About 15 percent of the candidates
file electronically.] She did not know how many hours it takes
to enter the information into the database, but this year for
the first time all the seven-day reports were online prior to
the election.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if APOC hires temporary staff at election
time to do data entry.
MS. KEMPTON said yes when funds are available and APOC did
receive extra money this last election cycle.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would like to get information on the level
of burden on the commission including the hours it takes to
enter the data and the time span between the filing deadline and
when the information is available online.
MS. KEMPTON agreed to provide the information.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if the rationale is the workload or that
candidates are exploiting the system.
MR. JONES said part of the rationale is to avoid gamesmanship,
but largely the idea is to make the information available to the
public as quickly as possible. The information is important in
helping the public make informed decisions when voting.
SENATOR HUGGINS expressed the view that most people don't check
that information very closely, but activists might. He then
asked what would constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
MR. JONES said that is intentionally vague because there are a
spectrum of circumstances that might justify exceptions to the
electronic filing requirement. Thus it seems appropriate to give
APOC the discretion to decide when extraordinary circumstances
exist. He clarified that the intention is that reasons such as,
"I don't feel like it." or "I prefer to do it by hand." would
not be acceptable.
SENATOR HUGGINS disclosed that he's proud that his wife does his
filing and he might be in trouble if she weren't available. "I
don't know whether that would be extraordinary or not," he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it's correct that handwritten reports are
available at the commission office the day after the filing
deadline so a person could request that the information be faxed
or copied.
MS. KEMPTON said that is the current system. When talking about
the public seeing these reports, she said it's important to note
that only campaign reports are currently available online.
Legislative financial disclosure reports, public official
disclosure reports, and the lobbyist and employer of lobbyist
disclosure reports are not available online, she stated.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this bill changes the distinction between
candidate reports and the other disclosures.
MS. KEMPTON said SB 64 would make electronic filing for all
those reports mandatory. Currently APOC has the ability to
require electronic filing from lobbyists and employers of
lobbyists. APOC is working on implementing that, she said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if electronic filing would be required for
all the legislative disclosures that APOC receives.
MS. KEMPTON said yes.
4:54:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the current requirement is that
campaign disclosure information must be received on the
specified day or postmarked on the specified day.
MS. KEMPTON said when filing by mail the current requirement is
that it is postmarked on the specified day.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that some reports come in days or a
week later if the mail system is used.
MS. KEMPTON agreed.
SENATOR THERRIAULT disclosed that he is treasurer of his
campaigns and he does the reports by hand.
CHAIR FRENCH disclosed that he pays someone to file his reports
and that person files electronically.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked about the sophistication of the system.
MS. KEMPTON explained that the system will have drop-down menus
to select the desired report. Currently candidates have two ways
of filing electronically. One is ELFS (Electronic Filing System)
and the other is by means of a spreadsheet. APOC supplies a list
of field names to set up the spreadsheet such that the
information can be imported into the APOC database. SB 64 will
provide a third way, which "hopefully will be the best ever,"
she said.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if he could start a report, save it to
a different location, and then return to complete the data entry
before submitting the report
MS. KEMPTON said absolutely.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if each candidate has a PIN number.
MS. KEMPTON said that is her understanding.
SENATOR HUGGINS commented that this is a worthy goal, but the
terms are onerous considering that 50 percent of the people are
currently out of compliance with concept. [The committee
subsequently learned that 85 percent do not file
electronically.]
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that a significant upgrade is
needed in the ELFS program. "The software is not intuitive, it
is really inadequate," he said.
MS. KEMPTON said the new system is nothing like ELFS.
4:59:19 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 64 in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 4:59:29 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|