Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/30/1996 12:19 PM Senate RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
April 30, 1996
12:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Miller, Chair
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chair
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Sharp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 295(2d JUD)
"An Act relating to forfeitures of property; and relating to the
custody and disposition of property in the custody of municipal law
enforcement agencies."
HOUSE BILL NO. 352
"An Act giving notice of and approving a lease-purchase agreement
with the City of Palmer for a fire management facility at the
Palmer Airport."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 457(STA)
"An Act relating to the unlicensed practice of certain occupations
for which licenses are required."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 493(JUD) am
"An Act relating to treatment for alcoholism or drug abuse."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 538(2d FSH)
"An Act relating to vessels participating in the Bering Sea Korean
hair crab fishery; relating to a vessel permit limited entry
system; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to legislative ethics; and providing for an
effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 295 - See Judiciary minutes dated 4/24/96 and 4/29/96.
HB 352 - Finance report 4/29/96.
HB 457 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 4/18/96 and Judiciary
minutes dated 4/29/96.
HB 493 - Finance report 4/29/96.
HB 538 - See Resources minutes dated 4/29/96.
SB 141 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/20/95, 4/27/95, 1/30/96,
2/6/96, 2/27/96, 3/26/96, and 3/28/96.
Rules minutes dated 4/28/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Drue Pearce
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSSB 141(RLS)
John Gaguine, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined concerns with CSSB 141(RLS)
Neil Slotnick, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined concerns with CSSB 141(RLS)
Brooke Miles, Juneau Branch Administrator
Alaska Public Offices Commission
P.O. Box 110222
Juneau, AK 99811-0222
POSITION STATEMENT:
Mike McMullin, Personnel Manager
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, AK 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined concerns with CSSB 141(RLS)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-9, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN MILLER called the Senate Rules Committee meeting to order
at 12:19 p.m.
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought CSHB 295(2d JUD) (PROPERTY HELD BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES) before the committee. Hearing no discussion,
he asked for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved and asked unanimous consent CSHB 295(2d JUD)
be approved for calendaring. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought HB 352 (APPROVE PALMER AIRPORT FIRE BLDG.)
before the committee. Hearing no discussion, he asked for the
pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved and asked unanimous consent HB 352 be approved
for calendaring. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought CSHB 457(STA) (UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF
OCCUPATION) before the committee. Hearing no discussion, he asked
for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved and asked unanimous consent CSHB 457(STA) be
approved for calendaring. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought CSHB 493(JUD) am (INVOLUNTARY
COMMITMENT:ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE) before the committee. Hearing no
discussion, he asked for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved and asked unanimous consent CSHB 493(JUD) am
be approved for calendaring. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought CSHB 538(2d FSH) (HAIR CRAB VESSELS; LTD
ENTRY FOR VESSELS) before the committee. Hearing no discussion, he
asked for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved and asked unanimous consent CSHB 538(2d FSH)
be approved for calendaring. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought SB 141 (LEGISLATIVE ETHICS) before the
committee as the final order of business.
SENATOR PEARCE moved and asked unanimous consent for the adoption
of CSSB 141(RLS), version "Z", dated 4/27/96. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
SENATOR PEARCE explained the only changes made to the Rules CS
pertaining to the Legislature were requests made to the State
Affairs Committee by the Ethics Committee. The primary differences
are two-fold: the committee substitute does not have the ban on
spousal lobbying and it expands the Executive Branch Ethics Act.
It contains a new definition for "state official" in terms of the
Ethics Act. This relates to people who are Range 21 and over such
as division directors, commissioners, the lieutenant governor,
governor, etc. Their conflict of interest statement would now
conform and look the same as for legislators in that they would
have to report anything over $1,000; they would also have to begin
reporting gifts; and the state Personnel Board would become the
advisory committee if someone needed an advisory opinion, as well
being the arbitrator. It also provides that employees of the
Legislature being compensated at Range 19 and above will be
required to do conflict of interest statements.
Number 135
JOHN GAGUINE, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, stated
he would be testifying on the sections of the bill which amend AS
39.50, the conflict of interest disclosure statement. He noted
for the record that he would be affected by the change to the
statute in terms of his having to file a conflict of interest
statement.
Mr. Gaguine stated the department sees possible constitutional
problems with the conflict of interest filing requirement for
employees Range 21 and above.
The first possible problem concerns the constitutional right of
privacy. Some courts have held that there has to be a correlation
between the employee's function and the disclosure requirements.
He noted there is a specific right of privacy clause in the Alaska
Constitution, so it is possible that the court might find that this
is overly broad, that the current law already covers policy makers.
He said some of the employees affected by this bill clearly are non
policy makers.
The other possible constitutional problem would be an equal
protection argument. He noted high ranking legislative aids have
now been included; the bill still does not apply to high ranking
judicial people, although judges are covered. He said there is
also a possible argument that could be made that covering partially
exempt people but not classified people causes a problem. By and
large, classified people are not in policy making positions,
however, there are a large number of deputy directors who are in
the classified service and who are policy makers. There is a
fairly large number of people in the new group that this bill would
expand it to who are clearly not policy makers.
Mr. Gaguine, referring to Section 63 and the definition of "public
official," suggested the language will probably present some
problems in its interpretation.
Number 240
NEIL SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
stated he is the state's ethics attorney and it is his
responsibility to implement the state Executive Branch Ethics Act.
As ethics attorney, he is no way the arbitrator of the Ethics Act -
- that always goes with the Personnel Board. If there is an
accusation filed under the Ethics Act, it will be heard before the
Personnel Board, and the board will render a decision on whether
the state employee or public officer violated the Ethics Act, as
well as setting a fine if it is determined there was a violation.
If a member of the public, or an agency, or any party has a
complaint that a public officer has violated the Ethics Act, that
complaint is sent to the attorney general, and if the attorney
general finds that the complaint states facts that if true would
constitute a violation of the Ethics Act, an investigation is
opened.
SENATOR PEARCE pointed out that the problem is that if a political
appointee has a complaint filed against him, another political
appointee decides whether or not there was really a violation and
it never gets to the Personnel Board. It never gets to the outside
party like with the Legislature's ethics committee. MR. SLOTNICK
responded that the attorney general has taken the Executive Branch
Ethics Act responsibility very seriously, and he does not know of
any instances where that responsibility has been abused.
Number 313
MR. SLOTNICK also voiced concern that the legislation takes the
advisory opinion capacity away from the attorney general. He said
the department has a long history of implementing the Ethics Act
and he sees some significant problems in removing that function
from the attorney general's office.
He also stated the department has some very serious concerns about
drafting legislative ethics standards into the Executive Branch
Ethics Act. He suggested the legislative branch is an entirely
different entity than the executive branch. He pointed out that
the current Ethics Act applies evenly to all executive branch
employees; however, SB 141 creates two tiers of executive branch
employees.
Mr. Slotnick questioned if it was a necessary change to bring in
these legislative ethics standards to the executive branch, and he
suggested that the Executive Branch Ethics Act covers most if not
all of what the committee substitute is trying to do in bringing
the legislative ethics standards over to the executive branch.
Number 427
SENATOR PEARCE commented she thinks that political appointees
should be treated just like legislative staff and that they should
come under the law and have the same sort of standards that the
Legislature has. She added it was not the intent to draft the
legislation such that the complaints didn't go to the Personnel
Board, and that could be clarified, if necessary. She also said it
could be made clear that under this definition does not apply to
people who come under a collective bargaining contract.
Number 470
SENATOR SALO asked how many people from the executive branch are
captured under the Range 21 and above. SENATOR PEARCE responded
that APOC estimates it will add 600 to the 800 that already file.
Number 495
BROOKE MILES, Juneau Branch Administrator, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, stated the Commission reviewed the legislation and did
not take a position with the policy issue of adding additional
filers, but addressed it with their fiscal note. The Commission's
primary concern is with Sections 26 and 27 that deal with the Legal
Defense Fund and Election Challenge Fund. They felt an Election
Challenge Fund was probably a good idea and is permitted both in
the campaign finance reform initiative and legislation which is
circulating through the system at this point, but they had serious
concerns with the Legal Defense Fund and exactly what the scope of
it would be.
SENATOR PEARCE pointed out that the changes in Sections 26 and 27
were made by Senator Donley, and she suggested working with him on
an amendment so that APOC is comfortable with those sections of the
bill.
Number 525
MIKE MCMULLIN, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration,
said the Personnel Board is a lay board and its members already
have a substantial schedule and this change raises the concern of
putting the added demand on a lay board. He said it raises the
question of why the change because they are not aware of any
significant problems with the current Ethics Act.
Mr. McMullin said Section 66 seems to add little and maybe nothing
to the current Executive Branch Ethics Act requirements, but may
add confusion to the picture as to defining a subgroup within the
Executive Branch Ethics Act which is subject to certain provisions
and everybody else is subject to other provisions.
TAPE 9, SIDE B
Number 010
SENATOR SALO asked Mr. McMullin if he thought that instead of
talking about Range 21 and up, it could be approached by having the
Personnel Board identify policy making positions. MR. MCMULLIN
answered it would be difficult at best for them to do that, but it
is not an approach he would discount. SENATOR PEARCE asked if
using a dollar amount would work. MR. MCMULLIN responded that a
dollar amount is much easier to measure than anything else, but he
agreed with Senator Salo that a dollar amount is not going to
signify a policy maker.
MR. MCMULLIN directed attention to and voiced concern with Section
64, which makes a substantial change in conflict of interest in
that it appears to reinstate the common law concept of an
appearance of a conflict of interest. That concept was
specifically written out when the Executive Branch Ethics Act was
adopted so that only real conflicts would be dealt with, not
apparent conflicts.
Mr. McMullin also noted that the advisory responsibility and the
record keeping that will be brought over to the Personnel Board by
the legislation is going to require three additional positions: an
attorney, a paralegal and a file clerk.
SENATOR PEARCE pointed out that one of the members of the
Legislative Ethics Committee is an attorney and another member is
a grant writer, and the committee actually has been drafting all of
their own advisory opinions, using legislative legal staff to help
draft the correct language. She suggested an attorney from the
AG's Office could do the same for the Personnel Board.
Number 130
There being no further testimony on CSSB 141(RLS), CHAIRMAN MILLER
closed the public hearing and stated the committee would begin
addressing the proposed amendments. He then directed attention to
a memo dated April 29 from Terry Cramer, Legal Counsel, Legislative
Affairs Agency, listing 10 amendments, mostly technical in nature.
SENATOR SALO moved the adoption of the 10 amendments contained in
the Cramer memo dated April 29, 1996. Hearing no objection, the
Chairman stated the amendments were adopted.
SENATOR SALO moved a conceptual amendment to replace the ban on
spousal lobbying into the bill, which was Section 2 in the State
Affairs version of SB 141. Hearing no objection, the Chairman
stated the amendment was adopted.
Number 165
SENATOR PEARCE moved a conceptual amendment that the board and the
executive director of the Alaska Tourism & Marketing Council are
included in who should file conflict of interest statements.
Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the amendment was
adopted.
Number 227
SENATOR PEARCE moved a conceptual amendment that the bill does
include the complaint process going to the Personnel Board, that
they have the authority to investigate the complaints, as well as
the authority to hire an outside investigator if necessary.
Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the conceptual amendment
was adopted.
SENATOR PEARCE moved a conceptual amendment to add to the
definition of "state official" so that it does not include people
who are under a collective bargaining contract, so that the exempt
employees of the Marine Highway System do not fall under the
definition. Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the
conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number
SENATOR DUNCAN moved a conceptual amendment that in the definition
of "state official" language provide compensation at Range 21 or
above or at more than $4,200 per month. Hearing no objection, the
Chairman stated the amendment was adopted. SENATOR PEARCE added
that as this goes through the process, if it is found that people
fall into this category that shouldn't, they can be exempted out.
There being no further amendments to CSSB 141(RLS), CHAIRMAN MILLER
asked for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved that CSSB 141(RLS), as amended, be passed out
of committee with individual recommendations and be approved for
calendaring. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 1:34 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|