HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS  3:16:53 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44 "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; requiring a legislator to request to be excused from voting in an instance where the legislator may have a financial conflict of interest; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSSSHB 44(JUD).] 3:18:24 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:18 p.m. 3:18:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30- LS0208\U.3, Wayne, 3/2/17], which read: Page 2, lines 26 - 28: Delete "a substantial class of persons to which the legislator or the family member who has the  financial interest belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region." Insert "the general public of the state." Page 2, line 31: Delete "." Insert "[A SUBSTANTIAL CLASS OF PERSONS TO WHICH THE LEGISLATOR BELONGS AS A MEMBER OF A PROFESSION, OCCUPATION, INDUSTRY, OR REGION]." Page 3, lines 8 - 10: Delete "a substantial class of persons to which  the person belongs as a member of a profession,  occupation, industry, or region" Insert "the general public of the state" REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that Amendment 1 would make changes to page 2, lines 26-28, of CSSSHB 44(JUD). She explained that the proposed amendment would delete the language "a substantial class of persons to which the legislator or the family member who has the financial interest belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region" and replace it with "the general public". 3:21:01 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:21 p.m. 3:21:58 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked the drafter of the amendment to clarify the proposed changes to page 2, line 31, of CSSSHB 44(JUD). 3:22:22 PM DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, stated that the change to page 2, line 31, is a conforming change due to the deletion of the language on page 2, lines 26- 28. He mentioned that under Amendment 1, the deleted language would be moved to page 2, line 31, and displayed in uppercase letters and bracketed for clarity. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 3, lines 8-10, of CSSSHB 44(JUD) and stated that Amendment 1 would delete the language "a substantial class of persons to which the person belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region" and insert "the general public". She explained the proposed amendment by giving the following example: A legislator who was a member of the alcohol industry considers proposed legislation that affects the entire alcohol industry but doesn't affect the legislator's business to a greater extent than the industry in general. Under CSSSHB 44(JUD), as currently written, the legislator would be allowed to vote on the proposed legislation. Under Amendment 1, if the proposed legislation affects the industry to a greater extent than the general public, the legislator would not be allowed to vote on the proposed legislation. 3:24:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK gave an example for clarification of Amendment 1: Proposed legislation would reduce the cruise ship head tax. If the legislator was the owner of a cruise ship line, even though his/her cruise line would not be impacted differently from other cruise lines, he/she would not be permitted to vote because the cruise lines would be impacted "over the general public." REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed. 3:25:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that [under Amendment 1] if a legislator was involved in any industry and proposed legislation affected that industry, with the assumption that the general public is not a part of that industry, the legislator would be required to abstain from voting on the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed and added that the legislator would have to have "a financial interest" as defined by CSSSHB 44(JUD). REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered the possibility that the proposed amendment could affect non-financial issues for a class of workers, which is different from the general public. He suggested that a lawmaker in that class would have to declare a conflict of interest. 3:27:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to his trade as an electrician and asked if Amendment 1 would apply to legislation proposing new safety standards. 3:28:20 PM RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor of CSSSHB 44(JUD), confirmed that Amendment 1 refers only to situations involving financial gains or losses. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if, as a licensed electrician, he would have to abstain from voting on proposed legislation that reduced the required number of continuing education credits for license renewal, thus reducing the cost. MR. WAYNE stated that Amendment 1 refers to financial decreases as well as increases. He added that regarding proposed legislation changing the requirements for accreditation, if the effect on the financial interest of the legislator is greater than the effect on the general public, then the legislator would be required to declare a conflict. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX emphasized that the financial interest would have to be substantial, and there is no change in the proposed legislation in that regard. She stated that the change under Amendment 1 addresses the situation in which the effect of that interest is greater [for the legislator] than for the general public. MR. WAYNE agreed. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX cited the example of a legislator who owned $100 in stocks in a cruise ship enterprise and suggested that this would not constitute a substantial interest. MR. WAYNE agreed that it probably would not, but the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is the final arbiter of those determinations. 3:32:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his concern that these questions will all funnel into a logjam before the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that these issues would not funnel into the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, since the legislators would be voting on declared conflicts and subsequent recusals. She added that the declaration of ownership in stocks in an industry affected by proposed legislation would become a [conflict of interest] matter for the legislature to decide. 3:34:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he has concerns about the entanglements that CSSSHB 44(JUD) would engender on the House floor as legislators attempt to assess conflicts of interest. He added that every elected legislator in Alaska has something else going on in his/her life. He maintained that the public is aware of the other interests through the Public Official Financial Disclosure (POFD) and through the crucible of primary and general elections. He opined that the current process, in which the legislator declares a possible conflict on the legislative floor and a single objection from the body allows the vote, is sufficient. He mentioned the different procedure used in local governments: the conflict of interest determination is delegated to the presiding officer and can be overruled by the body. He opined that CSSSHB 44(JUD) would create huge delays, the current procedure works, and there are sufficient checks and balances for conflicts of interest. 3:37:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL removed his objection to Amendment 1. There being no further objection, it was so ordered. [CSSSHB 44(JUD) was held over.]