Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/27/1996 03:36 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 27, 1996
3:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Dave Donley
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 321(MLV)
"An Act placing certain persons employed in response to a disaster
in the exempt service."
SENATE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to legislative ethics; and providing for an
effective date."
SSTA - 2/27/96
SJR 13 (RATIFYING FED BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT) was scheduled, but
not taken up on this day.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 321 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 141 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/20/95, 4/27/95, 1/30/96,
and 2/6/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
George Dozier, Jr., Aide
Representative Pete Kott, Co-Chairman
House Special Committee on Military & Veterans' Affairs
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-3306
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 321
Carol Carroll, Director
Administrative & Support Services Division
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
P.O. Box 110900, Juneau, AK 99811-0900¶(907)465-4730
POSITION STATEMENT: supports HB 321
Margie MacNeille, Chair
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
P.O. Box 101468, Anchorage, AK 99510-1468¶(907)258-8172
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 141
Susie Barnett, Professional Assistant
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
P.O. Box 101468, Anchorage, AK 99510-1468¶(907)258-8172
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 141
ACTION NARRATIVE
SSTA - 2/27/96
HB 321 EMERGENCY DISASTER HIRES IN EXEMPT SERVICE
TAPE 96-15, SIDE A
Number 001
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS called the Senate State Affairs
Committee to order at 3:36 p.m. and brought up HB 321 as the first
order of business before the committee. The vice-chairman informed
the committee that Chairman Sharp is away at a funeral and so is
unable to attend today's committee meeting. He informed the
committee that the chairman asked that no action be taken on bills
today. The vice-chairman called the first witness.
Number 030
GEORGE DOZIER, JR., Aide to Representative Pete Kott, Co-Chairman
of the House Special Committee on Military & Veterans' Affairs,
prime sponsor of HB 321, stated the bill would permit the
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs to hire emergency
workers in the exempt service. Currently, when the division needs
to hire additional personnel to work a disaster it has two options.
One, it can hire individuals as immediate emergency hires for 30
days maximum. Two, it can hire individuals on a short or long-
term temporary basis, but it takes 2-45 days to hire individuals in
that classification. This bill would allow the division to hire
individuals to assist classified employees in disaster situations.
Mr. Dozier relayed other information also contained in the
sponsor's statement.
Number 062
SENATOR LEMAN referred to the letter from Commissioner Lestenkof of
DMVA.
MR. DOZIER commented that Representative Kott is just friendly,
period.
SENATOR LEMAN asked how many other friendly legislators there are.
SENATOR DUNCAN made a motion to discharge HB 321 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS replied he cannot move the bill
because of the chairman's request.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Chairman Sharp really wanted HB 321 held.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS responded the chairman wants all the
bills held.
SENATOR DUNCAN withdrew his motion to discharge HB 321.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Ms. Carroll wanted to speak; she's friendly
too.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS informed Ms. Carroll that if she wants
to testify, she must sign the witness register.
Number 090
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative & Support Services
Division, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, stated HB 321
would really assist the department while in the initial response to
a disaster.
Number 101
SENATOR LEMAN asked what the policy is when the emergency no longer
exists: are these employees terminated? Are they paid on an hourly
basis?
MS. CARROLL responded that these employees are paid on an hourly
basis. The only people kept on after the emergency has subsided
are the financial people.
Number 130
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS informed the committee that HB 321
would be held.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS called a recess of the Senate State
Affairs Committee.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS called the Senate State Affairs
Committee back to order at 4:07 p.m.
SSTA - 2/27/96
SB 141 LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS brought up SB 141 as the next order of
business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. The vice-
chairman called Ms. MacNeille to testify.
Number 140
MARGIE MACNEILLE, Chair, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
testifying from Anchorage, stated her comments would be addressed
to the changes from the "n" version of the legislation to the "o"
version of the legislation.
Number 148
SENATOR LEMAN made a motion to adopt the committee substitute for
SB 141, version "Cramer, 2/19/96" for mark-up purposes.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS, hearing no objections, stated that
version was adopted. He asked Chair MacNeille to begin her
comments.
Number 150
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated she will refer to a memo addressed to
Chairman Sharp by Susie Barnett, dated February 23, 1996. The
chair listed the changes, as outlined in that memo. She stated the
committee would have no concern with Section 2.
Number 175
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that the language in Section 17 does not
cause her any difficulty.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that the new language in Section 20,
subparagraph (B) looks understandable.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that Section 21 is fine with the committee.
Number 199
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that changes to Sections 34 and 35 were
recommended by the committee.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that changes to Sections 38 and 39 were
recommended by the committee.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that changes made to Section 41 appear
reasonable to her.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that concludes her comments on the changes
made in the committee substitute. She asked the committee if they
wanted any comments on the proposed amendments to SB 141.
Number 240
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS informed the committee that the APOC
filing deadline has been changed back to April 15.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks the committee substitute still lists February
15 as the filing deadline.
Committee staff noted that deadline had been in Section 32 of the
previous version.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if that whole section had been removed.
Committee staff responded that it was taken out; at this time, the
law specifies April 15.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS asked if there were any questions for
Chair MacNeille.
SENATOR DONLEY stated he would like to hear her comments on the
proposed amendments to SB 141.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS asked Chair MacNeille to comment on
the amendments.
Number 275
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated the committee has decided not to take a
position on amendment M.1.
SENATOR LEMAN asked that amendment M.1 be redrafted so that the
language is consistent with earlier language.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS responded that would be done.
SUSIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, informed the committee that Chair MacNeille did
not receive the attached amendments in the order in which the
committee has them. She asked that the amendments be identified
for the chair.
Number 300
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that her concern with amendment O.1 is that
there might be a public perception that campaign business would be
mixed up with legislative business.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that the original intent of the
legislature on the Ethics Legislation was to prohibit putting up
campaign signs in a legislative office, or keeping bumper stickers
or campaign literature in an office. What we never anticipated was
that anyone would interpret that to mean a legislator couldn't keep
records in his or her office. In every campaign, legislators
answer dozens of surveys. How those are answered are really
important to how we do our job. Senator Donley stated he keeps and
refers to those records. In addition, he keeps issues he
researched during a campaign. He also keeps APOC reports in his
office. Senator Donley thinks this is a misinterpretation that's
been given to the existing law. He thinks it's appropriate that
legislators have access to that kind of information and should be
allowed to keep that in their offices.
CHAIR MACNEILLE isn't concerned with the type of records to which
Senator Donley is referring. She would be concerned over records
relating to contributions and lists of contributors. To the extent
the committee has ever taken a position, the concern had to do with
campaign literature and signs, not things in a file.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that Representative Martin is always quick to
remind people of their campaign promises.
Number 345
CHAIR MACNEILLE is concerned about the separation of legislative
work and money, in relation to amendment O.4.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS asked Chair MacNeille why she is
concerned about the separation of legislative work and money in
amendment O.4, but not in amendment M.1.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated she can only respond with the opinion of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Section 4 would cause Senator Phillips, and
other people with offices in their homes, a problem. He stated he
also does legislative work out of his home, and assumes that many
other legislators do too.
Number 375
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS added that the situation to which
Senator Leman is referring, is that during the interim Senator
Phillips' office is located in his residence.
CHAIR MACNEILLE responded that Section 4 refers to public areas in
a facility ordinarily use to conduct state government business.
She doesn't think that would be applicable to a person's house.
SENATOR DONLEY stated, that amendment O.4 refers to an employee
distributing notices of an event on his or her own time. He thinks
that could easily be construed as an unconstitutional restraint on
freedom of speech.
CHAIR MACNEILLE replied she does not know if she is qualified to
address the first amendment aspect of that. Her concern is the
public perception of a legislative employee handing out leaflets.
Number 412
CHAIR MACNEILLE thinks, in relation to amendment O.3, that
separation of campaign life from legislative life is a very
difficult line to walk, and this amendment would leave a bigger
window. She liked it the way it was.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks Chair MacNeille's interpretation of the law
is very different from the original legislative intent. He thought
the original intent was clear that scheduling issues, incoming
correspondence and telephone calls....to determine what's
incidental and what's minimal creates a problem. It ought to be
clear that certain staff functions facilitate people being
legislators.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS asked committee members what they do
when they get a calls related to campaigning. Also, what would
Chair MacNeille recommend legislators do?
SENATOR LEMAN replied the caller is directed to his home or
campaign office. It is discharged quickly.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS stated he has the same policy.
SENATOR DONLEY replied his staff is instructed not to answer
political questions. But the statute the legislature adopted
anticipates that legislators should not be tied down to the same
standard as staff, because they are the candidate. This could also
limit personal calls, not just political ones. Legislators are not
full time state employees, and should be able to facilitate other
parts of their lives.
Number 470
CHAIR MACNEILLE responded that this section does not attempt to
limit legislators' telephone calls. This has to do with
legislative employees. This addresses political campaign
activities on the part of legislative employees. She agrees with
the comments that legislators should be able to run their lives.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS asked how offices should handle calls
from people offering to volunteer on campaigns.
CHAIR MACNEILLE would like to see the legislative employee say,
"Gosh that's wonderful. Please call the campaign office; here's
the number."
Number 500
SENATOR DONLEY thinks that standard would still apply without the
words, "minimal" "incidental" and "short". He supports Section 7,
but those descriptive words concern him.
CHAIR MACNEILLE hopes that the Ethics Committee would have some
judgement there.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS asked to continue on the next
amendment.
CHAIR MACNEILLE isn't sure, regarding amendment O.5, about the
distinction between "state business" and "official state business".
SENATOR DONLEY asked what the difference was between the two.
CHAIR MACNEILLE didn't realize there was such a thing as unofficial
state business.
SENATOR DONLEY asked, why does SB 141 specify "official state
business"?
CHAIR MACNEILLE noted that a new advisory opinion states that
legislators and legislative employees can accept discounts that are
focused just on them, as long as the discount doesn't add up to
more than $100, or whatever the gift limit ends up being. She
would be concerned about acceptance of a discount that was in
excess of the gift limit while a legislator or legislative employee
was on state business.
SENATOR DONLEY stated if a legislator was offered a discount on
transportation paid for by the legislator, even though the trip was
for legislative information purposes, that wouldn't be a benefit to
the state because the state didn't pay for the trip. Senator
Donley thinks that type of discount would be prohibited because it
wouldn't be a financial benefit to the state, even though it's
state business.
Number 540
CHAIR MACNEILLE replied she would see that as a benefit to the
state.
SENATOR DONLEY doesn't think that's a necessary phrase. If someone
is on state business then it's a benefit to the state. By putting
that standard in, you imply it has to be a financial benefit to the
state.
MS. BARNETT commented that most of the questions she answers
concern gifts. In this bill we are referring to a discount offered
to the legislator that is over $250.00. So she is trying to think
of what that discount, not a gift, would be. She thinks Senator
Donley's scenario would be a rare occurrence.
SENATOR DONLEY stated the Ethics Committee is asking for a new
definition within the Ethics Law. He agrees that some of it makes
sense, but he doesn't think the word "official" makes sense; he
does not think the caveat "but only if receipt of a discount
benefits the state" makes sense, because he doesn't know what it
means.
Number 560
CHAIR MACNEILLE thinks that another aspect to consider is that
under the gift section, a legislator or legislative employee can
accept travel and hospitality primarily for the purpose of
obtaining information on matters of legislative concern. If she
understands Senator Donley's scenario, it would fit in with
obtaining information on matters of legislative concern.
CHAIR MACNEILLE thinks that, in regards to amendment K.26, setting
up a legal defense fund is probably a good idea. She does have
some concerns about the drafting of subsection (b). Is the
"commission" a reference to the Ethics Committee or to APOC?
SENATOR DONLEY responded "commission" is referring to APOC.
TAPE 96-15, SIDE B
SENATOR DONLEY stated that the Ethics Committee is asking for the
authority to put gag orders on the subjects of complaints. He
stated amendment K.25 would equally restrain the complainant He
thinks there should be equal restrictions.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that normally, the complainant is pretty
much out of the loop once the complaint is filed. The complainant
does not have discovery rights, and normally never hears anything
more about it until they get a copy of the decision.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that's true. But under both the Executive
Ethics Act and the Judicial Ethics Act, once someone files a
complaint there is a total gag order on the complainant. This
doesn't do that. What it would do is specify that if a gag order
is placed on the subject of a complaint, a complainant should agree
to similar terms.
Number 564
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated that her only familiarity with this kind of
complaint process had to do with the bar association's complaint
process. The provision was that anyone who filed a bar complaint,
and then spoke about it in public would be held in contempt of
court. But the committee decided it was unconstitutional to do
that. The protective order in the current ethics legislation would
be issued for evidence not relevant to the case, but something
that's come to light in investigation which might damage an
innocent party.
SENATOR DONLEY stated he has a concern with a lay committee
deciding what someone's first amendment rights are.
Number 545
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated she is really upset about amendment K.24.
She has two serious concerns with this amendment: the question of
public perception, and that deliberations should be conducted in
private.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks there is merit to the decision of probable
cause being confidential. But after that point, he thinks the
subject of the complaint should have the opportunity to know what's
being said. He asked if there are instances other that at a grand
jury level where defendants are not allowed to know what's being
done.
CHAIR MACNEILLE stated single judges have private, ongoing
deliberative processes. But she is not familiar with other groups
where deliberations on something like a resolution to-
SENATOR DONLEY interrupted and asked, "What about the Judicial
Council? What about the Commission on Judicial Conduct? Aren't
the judges entitled to attend hearings, once there is a
determination of probably cause?"
CHAIR MACNEILLE does not know.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks they are.
CHAIR MACNEILLE responded if that's a hearing, that's fine. It's
the deliberations she is concerned about.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks there is a blatant double standard for
legislators, versus other public officials. At the time the
Legislative Ethics Act was passed, he thought they should have done
a comprehensive Ethics in Government Act that had one standard for
everyone.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS stated they are heading towards that.
Number 498
SENATOR LEMAN commented that the legal defense fund should only be
used in defense of official actions. He asked if that was the
intent.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that was his intent. That's why he left it
up to the commission to adopt regulations that could control
precisely for what purposes that fund will be used.
SENATOR LEMAN stated he could understand it used for
employer/employee suits, but not in areas unrelated to one's
official capacity.
SENATOR DONLEY agreed, and stated he would consider it a friendly
amendment if Senator Leman wanted that specified.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS announced that the committee would
have to wrap up the meeting, and asked if there was anyone else who
wished to comment.
CHAIR MACNEILLE thanked the committee for allowing her to testify
via teleconference.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS thanked Chair MacNeille for her time.
The vice-chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|