02/20/2018 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SCR1 | |
| HB87 | |
| HB44 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2018
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator John Coghill
Senator Dennis Egan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to voting procedure and abstention from
voting.
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 87(FSH)
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game by the members of the respective
boards."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44(STA)
"An Act requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or
withholding official action or exerting official influence that
could benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain
employers; and requiring a legislator to request to be excused
from voting in an instance where the legislator may have a
financial conflict of interest."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SCR 1
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GARDNER
02/01/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/17 (S) STA, JUD
03/07/17 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/07/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/07/17 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 87
SHORT TITLE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STUTES
01/30/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/17 (H) FSH, RES
02/09/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/09/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/14/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/14/17 (H) Moved CSHB 87(FSH) Out of Committee
02/14/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/15/17 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 2DP 1NR 3AM
02/15/17 (H) DP: TARR, STUTES
02/15/17 (H) NR: FANSLER
02/15/17 (H) AM: EASTMAN, KREISS-TOMKINS, CHENAULT
03/13/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/13/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/14/17 (H) RES AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/14/17 (H) -- Continued from 3/13/17 Meeting at
1:00 PM --
03/15/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/15/17 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/20/17 (H) RES AT 7:00 PM BARNES 124
03/20/17 (H) Moved CSHB 87(FSH) Out of Committee
03/20/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/17 (H) RES RPT CS(FSH) NT 3DP 5NR 1AM
03/22/17 (H) DP: WESTLAKE, TARR, JOSEPHSON
03/22/17 (H) NR: DRUMMOND, JOHNSON, RAUSCHER,
TALERICO, BIRCH
03/22/17 (H) AM: PARISH
03/22/17 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
03/22/17 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/27/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/27/17 (H) VERSION: CSHB 87(FSH)
03/29/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (S) STA, RES
04/13/17 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/17 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/20/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/23/17 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/17 (H) STA REPLACES FIN REFERRAL
01/25/17 (H) BILL REPRINTED 1/25/17
01/25/17 (H) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23(A) FOR SSHB 44
01/25/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/17 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17 --
01/27/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/17 (H) -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17 --
01/30/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/17 (H) Moved CSSSHB 44(JUD) Out of Committee
02/03/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/17 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 1DP 3DNP 3AM
02/08/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX
02/08/17 (H) DNP: KOPP, EASTMAN, REINBOLD
02/08/17 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER, CLAMAN
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/18/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/17 (H) Moved CS SSHB 44(STA) Out of Committee
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/03/17 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1DNP 3NR
04/03/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX, TUCK, KREISS-TOMKINS
04/03/17 (H) DNP: BIRCH
04/03/17 (H) NR: JOHNSON, WOOL, KNOPP
04/08/17 (H) SUSTAINED RULING OF CHAIR Y23 N16 E1
04/08/17 (H) BEFORE HOUSE IN SECOND READING
04/08/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/08/17 (H) VERSION: CSSSHB 44(STA)
04/10/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/17 (S) STA, JUD
02/20/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SCR 1.
NATHANIEL GRABMAN, Staff
Senator Gardner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of SCR 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE STUTES
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 87.
MATT GRUENING, Staff
Representative Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of HB 87.
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding HB 87.
BRADLEY MEYEN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Natural Resources Section
Alaska Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding HB 87.
JERRY MCCUNE, President
United Fishermen of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
JULIANNE CURRY, representing self
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
MALCOLM MILNE, President
North Pacific Fisheries Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
MATT ALWARD, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 87.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 44.
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff
Representative Grenn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding HB 44.
JERRY ANDERSON, Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding HB 44.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:19 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Giessel, Wilson, Coghill, Egan, and Chair
Meyer.
SCR 1-UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
3:32:23 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 1 (SCR 1).
3:32:47 PM
SENATOR BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SCR 1, noted that the committee heard the resolution
last year.
3:33:19 PM
At ease.
3:33:37 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order. He confirmed
that SCR 1 was heard in committee on March 7, 2017.
3:34:20 PM
NATHANIEL GRABMAN, Staff, Senator Gardner, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided an overview of SCR 1 as
follows:
SCR 1 is about transparency. As you know, when a
legislator declares a conflict of interest, Uniform
Rule 34(b) requires unanimous consent in order for the
requestor to be excused from voting, a single
objection is sufficient to overrule the conflict of
interest statement.
According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures, Alaska is the only state which requires
unanimous consent in order to abstain from voting in
those instances. Under Uniform Rule 34(b) a legislator
may not abstain from voting unless they declare a
conflict of interest and the entire body agrees; while
this may theoretically occur, Legislative Research
could not find a single instance of unanimous consent
being given with respect to a conflict of interest
recusal.
This resolution does not change the current process,
rather it increases transparency by recording
information often hidden from the public; while this
information may be recorded on occasion, this is not
always the case. This resolution aims to standardize
the process by insuring that this information be
recorded.
If adopted, SCR 1 would require the following three
things to be recorded in the journal: the legislator
declaring a conflict, the nature of that conflict, and
the name of any legislators who would object to the
conflict.
By increasing transparency this proposal aims to
accomplish two ends: first, to better inform the
public; and second, to protect legislators by avoiding
the appearance of impropriety when there is none.
3:36:17 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that legislators must answer why they
introduced legislation and what brought the legislation forward.
She asked why SCR 1 was introduced.
SENATOR GARDNER explained that people have said legislators vote
when they have a conflict of interest or they do not declare a
conflict of interest. She said she is not aware of a legislator
ever voting when they had a conflict of interest. She emphasized
that she is not accusing anybody but asserted that legislators
worry about being perceived as failing to disclose that results
in people declaring a "perceived" conflict of interest to avoid
someone saying, "You didn't ever declare a conflict of
interest." SCR 1 puts on the record a person that declares a
conflict of interest as well as a person that objects.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if she was implying that legislators with
a conflict are still voting and specified as follows:
I'm just not quite sure what we are fixing here,
whether the person stands up or not in our laws in
this state, which is a very small population and a
very large piece of geography, all votes count. The
statement was made in the introduction that
information was being concealed. I am still not quite
sure what the problem is.
3:38:36 PM
SENATOR GARDNER replied that she has no intention of implying
that people are voting when they shouldn't vote and specified as
follows:
What I'm saying is that all of us should understand
that there may very well be a time when somebody
should not vote on an issue and we can conceive how
that could easily happen; every other state has a
variety of ways of dealing with that and we do not.
She said her office explored ways to address a conflict of
interest but conceded that there is not a perfect way to address
the issue. She asserted that if she ever had a conflict of
interest, nobody could ever make her vote because voting with a
conflict of interest is unethical. She explained that she would
"sit there" and try not to be confrontational or defiant;
however, she said she would not vote if she had a conflict of
interest and suspected that many people would feel the same way.
She reiterated that she is not aware of anybody voting with a
conflict of interest; however, she noted that there is a
perception that legislators vote anyway when they have conflicts
of interest. She emphasized that there should be a way for
legislators to gracefully put on the record when they should not
vote and when somebody does have a conflict of interest, they
should not be able to not vote. She set forth that putting a
conflict of interest on the record and the ability not to vote
is important for the state.
She summarized that SCR 1 simply places someone's conflict of
interest on the record as well as places the next person that
objects on the record too. She reiterated that there is no
perfect way to address the conflict of interest procedure. She
suggested that a unanimous agreement between the Senate
president, minority leader and majority leader could be
considered for a person not having to vote; however, she
reiterated that she would not vote if she believed that she had
a conflict.
3:41:08 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if her intent with SCR 1 is to get somebody on
record who objected.
SENATOR GARDNER answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER asked if she envisioned identifying who should
object.
SENATOR GARDNER replied that her intention is not to say who
should object but to place whoever does object on the record.
She opined that caucuses could independently determine that the
majority leader or the caucus leader will object. She specified
that what she wants is for somebody who does have a conflict of
interest to announce versus an announcement like an Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) disclosure where an unnecessary
disclosure is better than failing to disclose, a process in the
Legislature that leads to unnecessary disclosures.
3:43:00 PM
SENATOR COGHILL noted his previous experience with objecting on
the Senate floor when a legislator gets up to make a declaration
but will not ask to be excused from voting. He agreed with
Senator Gardner that he does not recall hearing a legislator's
conflict reach a level to be excused from voting. He opined that
putting the person who objects on the record might make the
procedure a political tool rather than a beneficial tool. He
remarked that he does not mind having a conflict on the record
but opined that placing an objection on the record could become
more of a political "lightening rod" rather than an actual
declaration.
3:45:47 PM
SENATOR GARDNER agreed and noted a situation where she saw an
individual make a conflict of interest declaration and then walk
out of the room where no one called the individual back.
SENATOR COGHILL concurred with Senator Gardner's recollection.
SENATOR GARDNER detailed that the person was determined not to
vote and not a single person said, "I object." She opined that
leaving the room was a graceful way not to vote. She pointed out
that someone from a district is elected because of their
expertise in an area. When the legislator's expertise is deemed
a conflict related to an issue and the person is not allowed to
vote, it could be a thorny problem. She opined that sooner or
later somebody will have a genuine conflict and should not vote
on an issue and there should be a way that not voting can
happen.
3:47:30 PM
CHAIR MEYER remarked that Senator Gardner brought up a good
point where he could see an instance occurring. He continued as
follows:
But, whenever somebody who works for a union votes on
an issue that affects that union, or somebody works
for an industry that impacts that industry, they as
individuals are not benefitting anymore than anyone
else in that union or industry, that's where it gets a
little thorny. So, it seems like you've come up with
the answer that if someone truly feels like they have
a conflict that they could just walk off the floor.
SENATOR GARDNER concurred, but pointed out that the legislator
with the declared conflict of interest would have to trust that
one of their colleagues does not disagree and object. She said
the legislator still could leave but somebody could put a "call
of the house." She asked how a legislator can be forced to vote,
a situation that she does not think anybody wants to happen. She
believes that the public wants to know that if a person has a
conflict, that they have a way not to vote.
CHAIR MEYER commented that in his history in the Legislature he
did not recall an issue where someone truly had a conflict of
interest and should not have voted. He concurred that
legislators have walked off the floor.
3:49:26 PM
SENATOR COGHILL stated that the issue Senator Gardner is
addressing is a subject that the Legislature has talked about
for a long time. He said he was glad Senator Gardner brought the
issue up and contended that the Senate floor has "gotten sloppy"
through the years on protocol. He pointed out that the rules say
a legislator should standup and give a reason and ask to be
given the permission to abstain from a vote, a procedure that
rarely happens because the conflict is perceived and not a real
conflict. He said SCR 1 will make the Legislature have to stand
up and take notice. He reiterated that he struggles with the
person objecting only because just one person can object and
there might be more than one person that objects. He opined that
having one person that objects on the record can result in the
individual being targeted rather than the issue for the
objection being addressed on the record. He summarized that he
has been around the process long enough to know that there are
the real issues and there are the political issues.
SENATOR WILSON agreed with Senator Coghill about putting the
reason for the objection on the record. He added that he feared
constantly having the name of either the majority leader or
minority leader on the record.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that Senator Wilson might be saying that
nobody would want to be the majority or minority leaders. He
asked Senator Gardner to address what would happen after a
conflict of interest is stated and somebody objects. He inquired
if the legislative body votes.
3:51:41 PM
SENATOR GARDNER replied that her office considered having the
body vote, but she would not want to vote even if 19 or 21
people voted that she should vote. She asserted that people say
legislators vote all the time with a conflict of interest and
countered as follows:
No, people declare a conflict of interest that may or
may not be a real conflict of interest, but there
should be a way out, there just should be a way out
and I don't know what the answer is, let's see if
somebody else has a great answer.
CHAIR MEYER stated that he was puzzled with SCR 1 because the
resolution does not give somebody a way out and states that the
act will be the Legislature's process.
SENATOR GARDNER specified that SCR 1 does the following:
What it does do is put on the record that somebody who
might be accused of having a conflict of interest in
voting can say, "I declared a conflict of interest, I
described what it was and under the uniform rules
because so-and-so objected, I had to vote, I was
required to vote under our rules." So, it doesn't
change that, you are correct, but it does give the
person a defense and the person who objected can
defend their own objection.
CHAIR MEYER replied that he may be coming around to agreeing
with Senator Giessel on the necessity of SCR 1. He pointed out
that legislators currently stand up and declare a conflict of
interest and when someone objects that results in the individual
having to vote. He asked Senator Gardner to verify that SCR 1 is
trying to pinpoint the one person who objects.
SENATOR GARDNER answered no. She explained that her intent is
not to change the statute but to say that when a person states
that they voted with a conflict, the person can say they tried
not to vote by asking to be excused. She continued as follows:
In reality if this passed and there's a record, I
think people won't be doing the perceived conflict of
interest, they may stand up as Senator Coghill said
and describe their position but not ask not to vote
and sit down; but, each individual has to draw their
own line in knowing their own lives and their own
investments and decide for themselves how they want to
proceed, that's what we do all of the time.
3:54:40 PM
SENATOR COGHILL opined that the real value of SCR 1 would force
the conflict of interest declaration to be put in a motion
because the act would be recorded with a result that encourages
better protocol and behavior.
SENATOR GIESSEL stated that she was not sure what Senator
Coghill meant by "sloppy in protocol." She asked if it is true
that standing up and wishing to be excused from voting is
recorded in the minutes of the floor session.
SENATOR COGHILL answered that as far as he knew that was true.
CHAIR MEYER concurred that if somebody really feels awkward
about voting and does not want to vote they should have that
option; however, people are elected with known backgrounds where
everything is disclosed and in some cases constituents like a
legislator's experience and knowledge.
3:56:37 PM
CHAIR MEYER [held SCR 1 in committee.]
HB 87-CONFLICT OF INTEREST: BD FISHERIES/GAME
3:56:47 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of House Bill 87 (HB
87). [CSHB 87(FSH) was before the committee.]
3:57:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE STUTES, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 87, summarized that the bill strictly
pertains to conflict of interest for the Alaska Board of
Fisheries (Board of Fish) and the Alaska Board of Game (Board of
Game). She detailed as follows:
The reason for this bill is currently when you are
sitting on, particularly on the Board of Fish, the
Board of Game doesn't seem to be quite as stringent
although they live under the same statute as the Board
of Fish does. When you are sitting on the Board of
Fish if you have a conflict you certainly are
conflicted-out from voting on it, but you are
conflicted-out from the discussion as well; in having
experts on this board it seems a little odd to exclude
them from the conversation when that's what they are
there for. Consequently, this bill's intent is to
allow the individuals to participate if they have a
conflict and to allow them to participate in the
discussion even though they may not have the
opportunity to vote on the bill.
3:59:05 PM
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided an overview of HB 87 as
follows:
The intent of HB 87 is to change the manner on which
the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game function,
to allow members to deliberate on subjects of which
they have declared a personal or financial interest
according the Executive Branch Ethics Act. The Ethics
Act forbids a public officer from taking or
withholding official action in order to affect a
matter in which the member has a personal or financial
interest. Official action is then defined to mean
advise, participation, assistance; including for
example, a recommendation, decision, approval,
disapproval, vote or similar action.
Currently the board members are required to divulge a
conflict of interest if they or their immediate
families are involved in a subject being deliberated
on. The conflicted member could then no longer offer
their input in the process and cannot vote on the
matter at hand; in fact, they are asked to step down
and join the audience. This bill allows conflicted
members to offer remarks and input, but the members
still cannot vote on the issue. The member is also
precluded from voting on whether they have a conflict
of interest or not, that is determined by the ethics
officer who is the chairman and then if there is an
objection it goes to a vote of the board.
The qualifications for the appointment to the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game are quite different
and more general from most boards. Instead of being
chosen because they are professionals in their fields,
members are selected on the basis of interest in the
public affairs, good judgement, knowledge, and the
ability of field of action of the board and with the
view to providing a diversity of interest and points
of view on membership. One of the things we are
looking at is that somebody might have a different
point of view because of their knowledge, because it
is essentially a layman's board, and you might only
have a couple of people that own a certain particular
type of permit or work in lodge, they might have some
perspective on the nuances of fishing that other
members of the board might not have and thus their
knowledge and expertise is actually of great use.
In addition, many of the other boards are tied to
licenses, they are exempt, many of the boards from
certain requirements in the ethics act. So, this is a
board that deals with licenses as well and it's one of
the boards that you are not allowed to deliberate and
in some cases the boards are actually allowed to vote;
so, this makes a lot of sense from our perspective
from the fact that you possibly have very few amounts
of expert viewpoints on what is being discussed.
Often in fishing a financial interest is tied to
knowledge of the field. Fishing issues tend to be very
complicated and knowledge based. A person who may have
an uncle, aunt, brother who has a certain type of
fishing permit or has a fishing permit themselves
might be the only person on the board who understands
exactly what is being discussed in detail,
particularly in rural Alaska where entire families
might be permit holders or lodge owners. The current
conflict policy is discouraging in some instances
qualified members from applying to the board on the
basis of them knowing they would be conflicted-out of
the discussion in a lot of cases.
Another issue is one of public process and public
trust. Board members who are conflicted-out are still
actually offering their input, but they are doing it
outside of the meeting and they are doing it
discussing on the side with other board members; in
order to maintain the public's trust, we really
believe these discussions should be happening in the
meeting and on the public record so there's that
aspect to it as well is it really improves the public
process, it seems prudent to allow members with
expertise and knowledge to offer their input, but not
vote. It is the sponsor's opinion that this change
will help the boards make more informed decisions,
enhance the public process and lead to a generally
stronger resource management statewide.
I will say that in a full disclosure I would like to
point out that due to recent staff turnover, we
discovered last week that there may be some unintended
consequences with the bill the way it is currently
drafted. Unfortunately due to the personal bill
deadline we were unable to fix the draft fixes in time
but also aside from that we thought it was the prudent
action to present our intent to the committee, point
out the issues that might need to be addressed, and
let the will of the chair and the committee decide
what changes if any need to be made to the bill.
4:03:26 PM
MR. GRUENING directed attention to a legal memo from Linda M.
Bruce, Legislative Counsel, Legal Services, dated February 9,
2017. He explained that the memo was debated at length and to
the satisfaction of the House Resources Committee that there was
not an issue. He said after discussions with Legal Services and
the Board of Fish, Representative Stutes' office concluded that
clarification is needed in the bill's intent language. He
detailed as follows:
What the memo says essentially is that the use of the
words "notwithstanding any other provision" of this
chapter at the beginning of the bill could have the
effect and it is not clear whether it does or doesn't,
but it seems like an easy fix of superseding AS
39.52.120(c), which in turn would supersede AS
39.52.220. That essentially is "the nuts and bolts and
the meat" of the process by which you'd declare a
conflict, how a conflict is determined, who the ethics
officer is, and how the voting can be determined, and
whether you can still vote or deliberate or not; that
certainly was not our intent, our intent was simply to
allow the use of the current process when declaring
and determining a conflict of interest and the only
thing that the sponsor would like to change is
essentially what was voted on throughout the process
too is that if there is a conflict that the conflicted
member can deliberate but not vote. We were not
looking at in any way to inadvertently affect the
current process by which the conflict is determined,
that seems to be working well and it's well
established in statute.
4:05:49 PM
MR. GRUENING called attention to a memo from Glenn Haight
regarding "Background Information on the Alaska Boards of Game
and Fisheries Ethics Act Process." He summarized that Mr. Haight
also said clarification is needed to get to the intent,
specifically what the bill addressed. He added that the bill
also narrows the definition of "immediate family member" for the
purposes of debate, not voting. He conceded that an unintended
interpretation may imply that the bill will supersede AS
39.52.220 for the ability to vote; he said the sponsor will look
to the will of the chair and the committee to decide if that
change is appropriate.
He summarized that the bill's intent is to allow conflicted
members under the current system to deliberate but not allow the
ability to vote. He noted that he spoke with Legislative Legal
and was told that a simple fix could be made.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asserted that the intent is to make the
language clear cut and easily understood. She reiterated that
the intent is to allow conflicted-out board members to
participate in the discussion and impart their knowledge but not
be allowed to vote. She said not allowing somebody to share
their expertise seemed odd.
CHAIR MEYER asked why Representative Stutes does not want board
members to vote. He opined that the governor probably selected
the board members because of their expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES replied that the issue the boards are
trying to avoid, particularly in fisheries, is that an
individual can be affected monetarily. She reiterated that the
intent is to allow a board member to put forth their expertise
but let others vote.
4:09:56 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked what the financial hurdle is for a conflict of
interest.
MR. GRUENING replied the financial hurdle is $5,000 according to
AS 39.52.110(d). He disclosed that the statute was proposed by
Hollis French, former state senator.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the memo from Glenn Haight stated that
the current procedure followed by the boards complies with the
Executive Branch Ethics Act.
MR. GRUENING answered correct.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the Executive Branch Ethics Act states
that a person who is conflicted-out cannot participate in the
debate or vote.
MR. GRUENING answered correct.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the bill proposes to tweak the
Executive Branch Ethics Act only for the Board of Fish and the
Board of Game.
MR. GRUENING answered correct. He said the qualifications for
the boards is very general and reiterated that an individual
with intricate knowledge might not be allowed to provide
important input in making decisions.
4:12:20 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL noted her experience with serving on a
professional regulatory board and pointed out the specialization
in the Board of Fish and Board of Game. She opined that the
requested change seems very logical.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES referenced a situation that occurred in
Kodiak several years ago with the Board of Fish where an
individual was conflict-out and the individual's input would
have made a difference in the board's vote.
MR. GRUENING disclosed that the current chairman for the Board
of Fish, John Jensen from Petersburg, was recently conflicted-
out of 50 different proposals where he was not allowed to
deliberate.
SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that the Senate Resources Committee
interviews applicants for the Board of Fish and the Board of
Game and noted that the committee votes on appointees based on
their expertise. She said she appreciated that the bill was
brought forward.
CHAIR MEYER asked what occurs if someone does not declare a
conflict of interest.
4:15:11 PM
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Fisheries,
Juneau, Alaska, speculated that if the board passes something
where a conflict was not declared that the board's decision
would be voidable based on reconsideration.
4:16:03 PM
BRADLEY MEYEN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Natural Resources Section, Alaska Department of Law, Anchorage,
Alaska, addressed Chair Meyer's question regarding not declaring
a conflict of interest as follows:
To the extent that a matter would take place where
there was a situation where someone had failed to
properly declare a conflict I would need to check it
out further but I would agree that my initial response
is that it would be a voidable action; however, I
would like to add that the board members take these
matters very seriously and they explore their
potential conflicts and they do so with further
discussions including discussions with the Department
of Law to run through the specific items that are in
the ethics act to avoid those types of problems from
even occurring.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if making an exception to the Executive
Branch Ethics Act would result in a legal problem.
MR. MEYEN referenced page 5 from Mr. Haight's April 12, 2017
memorandum where the Department of Laws' concerns were
encapsulated. He noted that DOL's concerns actually called for
clarifications so that the change would be consistent with the
Executive Branch Ethics Act.
4:18:21 PM
MR. GRUENING referenced AS 39.52.310 through AS 39.52.330
regarding complaints and the process by which the attorney
general or person may initiate a complaint in addition to the
process for a possible hearing.
MR. HAIGHT asserted that the bill's intent is clear and
implementation for the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game
would be simple.
4:20:27 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
4:21:00 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, President, United Fishermen of Alaska, Juneau,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 87. He said not allowing a
conflicted-out board member with expertise to answer questions
is frustrating.
4:24:45 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked what happens when a board member is
conflicted-out, if the remaining members have access to experts
during their meetings to answer questions.
MR. MCCUNE explained that staff members from the Department of
Fish and Game attend board meetings, but typically the board
does not ask questions during the deliberation stage.
4:26:08 PM
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of HB 87. She said
what good is expertise when a board is not allowed to use it.
She confirmed that Board of Fish members are open, honest and
extremely transparent when dealing with the conflict of interest
process. She affirmed that conflicted-out board members should
not be allowed to vote, but UFA believes that conflicted-out
board members should be able to deliberate and discuss proposals
on the record to help clarify and provide an insight into a
fishery. She said she has seen board members struggle to decide
when a conflicted-out member would have provided an answer. She
summarized that muting a board member's voice undermines one's
strength on a board, especially the ability to offer insight on
a specific fishery.
4:30:54 PM
CHAIR MEYER concurred with Ms. Leach that the conflicted-out
members were picked because of their expertise and opined that
they should be allowed to vote as well.
SENATOR GIESSEL agreed with Chair Meyer on allowing voting as
other regulatory boards do.
4:32:23 PM
JULIANNE CURRY, representing self, Petersburg, Alaska, testified
in support of HB 87. She agreed with the common-sense
legislation to allow conflicted-out members with valuable
expertise to deliberate. She asserted that Alaska's fisheries
are much too complex to restrict board members' expertise. She
added that she also supported further defining the "immediate
family member" definition.
4:33:34 PM
MALCOLM MILNE, President, North Pacific Fisheries Association,
Homer, Alaska, testified in support of HB 87. He said finding
qualified members to serve on the state boards can be
challenging and limiting participation can hamper information.
He set forth that allowing conflicted board members to
deliberate adds expertise. He said keeping the conflict to
immediate family members is appropriate.
4:34:59 PM
MATT ALWARD, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 87. He asserted that changing the conflict
standards to "immediate family members" is reasonable and
responsible. He agreed that conflicted board members should not
have a vote, but to bar the members from the conversation goes
too far, especially for the subject-matter experts.
4:35:59 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
SENATOR GIESSEL agreed with previous testimony that board
members are highly scrutinized and keep their ethics level very
high simply because of the public scrutiny. She said what
Representative Stutes is proposing is important for the
committee to consider. She added that she would like to hear
from Representative Stutes on how she would perfect the bill.
CHAIR MEYER concurred that board members are closely scrutinized
and watched. He asked Representative Stutes if she had suggested
changes for the bill.
4:37:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said her office is going to clarify the
language in the bill so there is no misconception in the intent
which is to allow board members that are conflicted-out to
participate in the discussion without obtaining a vote.
CHAIR MEYER asked if there has been a discussion with the Board
of Game regarding the proposed changes for the bill.
MR. GRUENING said the director for the Board of Game was unable
to testify but in previous testimony said the board has taken a
neutral position.
CHAIR MEYER suggested that Representative Stutes provide his
office with her proposed changes for presenting a committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES agree to do so.
4:39:34 PM
CHAIR MEYER held HB 87 in committee.
4:39:43 PM
At ease.
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
4:41:13 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order and announced the
consideration of House Bill 44 (HB 44).
4:41:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, provided the following sponsor statement for HB 44:
I believe that we all here understand the importance
of a citizen legislature. We recognize the importance
of having representatives and senators from all walks
of life for the betterment of our state; because of
that fact, the standards of ethical conduct for state
public officials needs to distinguish between those
minor conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society
and those conflicts which are substantial and
material.
The intent of HB 44 is to increase transparency within
the Legislature and allow the public to see with the
utmost certainty that conflicts of interest in our
capitol building are taken seriously. The intent of
this bill is not to stop a legislator from voting on
an issue as we all are elected officials sent here to
represent our constituents. The language in this bill
does not directly stop a legislator from voting or
ever outright disqualify them, the bill just simply
lays out a standard form for which a legislator can
decide for themselves if they have a substantial
conflict.
HB 44 contains provisions to ensure conflicts are
"substantial" before a legislator would be required to
abstain from voting. Any benefit a legislator or a
member of the legislator's immediate family might
receive from supporting or opposing a particular piece
of legislation would have to be greater than the
benefit of the general public of Alaska that would
receive due to legislation in order to require
abstention. The bill recognized the responsibility of
legislators to vote, except in clear cases where the
outcome of the vote would result in substantial
personal financial gain; this includes cases where an
immediate family member or a legislator's employer
would receive a large and direct financial benefit.
Twenty-nine other states have language such as what we
are proposing that references the potential conflict
of interest from an employer.
HB 44 creates transparency by creating a clear and
concise standard for legislators to use to determine
if they have a conflict of interest. I believe that
building trust between the Legislature and public
should be one of our primary concerns and HB 44 is an
example of the Legislature building that trust for
increased transparency.
4:45:00 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced page 2, line 15, of the bill:
Immediately preceding 12-month period receive more
than $10,000 of income.
She asked if the sentence refers to actual dollars or if it
would also include in-kind remuneration.
4:45:31 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, referenced the definition in AS
24.60.990 that the income is aggregate, it is not in-kind but
real dollars.
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that the income could be from stocks or
some kind of "other" income as well.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that AS 24.60.030, section 2, line 22
addresses Senator Giessel's question regarding interest in a
business, investment, real property, lease or other enterprises.
He added that legislative voting on the Permanent Fund dividend
(PFD) would affect all Alaskans the same way and is not a
conflict.
4:47:22 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked what problem HB 44 is trying to fix.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN replied that the bill addresses trust from
the general public's standpoint by declaring conflicts in more
public arenas. He noted that 29 other states have legislation
that affects an employer. He summarized that HB 44 raises the
conflict definition to a better standard.
4:49:56 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL commented as follows:
This is really a foundational question. Periodically
each one of us stands before our constituents. We live
in what is a form of democracy. The word "democracy"
comes from a couple of Greek words that mean, "Rule by
the voting district," that's what the word "democracy"
means and we stand for our voting district
periodically, different periods of time based on the
body that we serve in, and those districts know us or
the voters certainly do, the people that turn out to
vote. So, I can think of particular people that this
bill might target so to speak, and those particular
legislators are well known by their voting district
who rule by selecting that person to represent them
because that person has that knowledge that they want
of their views carried forward to the Legislature. So,
I just put that out there, I think this is a very
restrictive criterion for a state like ours which has
a very small population, we represent relatively small
areas, it's one thing if we were in New Jersey and we
had 300,000 people in a Senate district, that's not
the case here. We are well known to our voters who
rule in our district. So, I just put that out there as
a philosophical question; again, I don't see that
there is a "why" for this.
4:51:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN explained his intent as follows:
My belief as a newly elected official, finding ways
that we can add trust and transparency to what we do
in Juneau is important to me. You mentioned how we
rule in Alaska in a small-population state and a small
state with a low number of representatives and
senators. Other citizen legislatures around the
country, New Mexico for example, has a citizen
legislature that they receive zero pay for their work
as elected officials and they have a standard for
conflict of interest much higher than ours in terms of
when they rise to conflict, when they rise to abstain
from voting. So obviously different states handle it
in different ways of what they see fit and do with
their citizenry and how they represent.
Again for us, my belief was just elected officials I
think always can improve in terms of our interaction
with the public in how they know us and setting a
higher standard is something I strive to do and I
think that this bill helps achieve that; it also, in
our language regarding family and employers, the
immediate family is a definition by statute so if your
spouse owned a marijuana business your voters might
not know that, but if this was enacted and a conflict
arose and a huge tax increase on that industry was
happening, you can declare a conflict and have your
conscious free that your voters know that you are
enacting on their behalf and not anyone who is
directly impacted by your actions.
I greatly take to heart your perspective and I agree
with very much of it and I think it is something that
we always need to be talking about.
4:53:59 PM
CHAIR MEYER agreed with Representative Grenn's comments;
however, he referenced legislatures in the 1970s where the body
voted on declared conflicts where the process ended up being
political. He opined that the current process for conflicts has
been found to be the best and fairest. He agreed with Senator
Giessel that making conflicts so restrictive will result in no
one running for office. He pointed out that all legislators do
financial disclosures in a careful manner. He asked how the
$10,000 threshold for a financial conflict was arrived at.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that the $10,000 threshold was derived from
AS 24.60.990 and the intent was to stay consistent with Alaska's
existing statute.
4:56:41 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed a legislative brief written on June
23, 2015 by Jerry Anderson, administrator for the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. She pointed out that Mr.
Anderson related a close economic association with AS 24.60.070
where the committee determined that $250 or more qualifies as
"substantial." She continued as follows:
Here we have $250 and then someplace else we have
$10,000. It seems like there is a lot of bars being
set and which one do we follow? Perhaps Senator
Coghill has comments on this because I know he serves
on Legislative Ethics.
CHAIR MEYER pointed out that the next committee of referral is
the Senate Judiciary Committee, a committee that Senator Coghill
chairs and can address at that time.
SENATOR WILSON asked if Mr. Anderson was available to address
the committee.
4:58:15 PM
JERRY ANDERSON, Committee Administrator, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
addressed the question regarding the $250 threshold for close
economic association.
That is not a statutory $250 amount that was part of
legislation, but rather the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics interpreting and administering the
act where the $250 was determined by the committee and
that in particular was with regard to a shared-calling
plan where it was determined that the benefit was more
than $250 for each of the people that were legislators
and legislative employees who shared a calling-plan;
that has since been clarified where previously it was
not clarified what a substantial interest was by
statute.
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced the same legislative brief on page 2
regarding a list of states with numerical or proportional
thresholds and noted that Alaska's current statute states the
following:
Has or seeks contracts in excess of $10,000 annually
for goods and services with the Legislature or with an
agency of the state.
She asked if the intent is to change the statute to $10,000
worth of income.
5:00:06 PM
MR. JOHNSTON explained as follows:
AS 24.60.990 is the definition for AS 24.60.030, but
if you look at AS 24.60.030, which is the section that
the bill references, there's actually no monetary
value placed in that section for a legislator to
determine a conflict of interest, so that's why we
found that amount and we are trying to create that
more concise list for legislators to look at to see if
they did have a conflict of interest and the $10,000
amount fit with not trying to penalize like
contractors, anyone that does that kind of contract
work with individual clients; if they make $4,000 or
$5,000 per contract building a home or doing a
remodel, we did not want to penalize them for needing
to do a conflict of interest or maybe ethics opinion
for all of their clients if they were working for many
different individuals, we just didn't want to penalize
them in that way. So, the $10,000 threshold fit with
that kind of idea as well.
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that she was not sure Mr. Johnston
clarified her question and commented as follows:
I see completely two different things. What we have in
AS 24.60.990(b) talks about seeking contracts, so if
you are a legislator and you are serving in the
Legislature and you know that one of the agencies is
going out for a contract to let's say lay carpeting in
one of their buildings and the contract would be for
$10,000 or more annually, that would represent a
threshold for a conflict of interest; but, what is
happening in this bill is you are actually broadening
that out significantly to be $10,000 worth of income
that is of any kind in a year. So, that's kind of what
I am seeing as the contrast here and that is what I
was trying to get down to.
5:02:34 PM
CHAIR MEYER held HB 44 in committee and noted that public
testimony remains open for the bill.
5:03:07 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Meyer adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee at 5:03 p.m.