SB 89-LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS  1:32:43 PM CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 89, "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics Act; and providing for an effective date." 1:33:31 PM SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, as sponsor of SB 89, paraphrased from his sponsor statement: SB 89 clarifies uncertainties that have emerged after the 2018 passage of SCS CSSSHB 44(STA) (known as "House Bill 44" or "HB 44"). Specifically, certain portions of HB 44 eroded Alaskans' ability to have full, constitutionally required representation by a citizen legislature. In some cases, conflict provisions are currently so restrictive that a legislator cant live in "the real world," with a family, and do the duties that they were elected to do. For example, successful miners can't carry a mining bill. Successful commercial fishermen can't carry a fishing bill. The alleged "conflicted" subject matter can only be discussed in a public forum, including a committee and the floor, and only upon declaring a conflict to the legislature. In addition: A legislator's spouse or immediate family cannot be connected to the alleged "conflicted" subject matter either. In essence, legislators that have a certain expertise in a field, or that are most knowledgeable, or because of broad family connections, can't talk about multiple subject areas that are important to the state of Alaska, except under, essentially, unreasonably tight conditions. Those elements combined damage the legislative process. Currently there can be no private meetings on any "conflicted" subject matter. There are severe restrictions on "official action," in multiple forms (including drafting of legislation and mere discussion). A vast "net" of alleged "conflict" now exists because of the bill's language extending "conflict" to immediate family members. "Conflicts" have been expanded to "financial interests" and measured against "the general public." What are the proposed changes? 1. Definitions are being changed back to the way they existed, prior to HB 44 (2018). 2. The "committee process" language is being removed. 3. "Financial interest" is being changed to back to "equity or ownership interest." 4. eneral public" is being returned to "substantial class of persons to which the legislator belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region." 5. There is an immediate effective date. Please join the Senate Rules Chair in supporting this necessary legislation. 1:33:56 PM CHAD HUTCHISON, Majority Counsel, Senator John Coghill, Juneau, introduced himself. 1:34:12 PM SENATOR COGHILL stated the genesis of SB 89. Last year the legislature passed House Bill 44, which changed provisions related to ethical standards of conduct. He referred to two of ten sections in AS 24.60.030(a)-(j). It became clear that the bill made it more difficult to determine unethical behavior since the law extended to legislators' family members and private activities, making the law ambiguous. Legislators who want to follow the ethics law became unsure of entanglement due to their knowledge and expertise on issues. For example, one legislator who also works in the mining industry has gained substantial knowledge about the industry. Under House Bill 44 law, this legislator could not hold conversations about the industry, offer amendments, or craft a bill to address issues within the industry because the legislator exceeded the $10,000 limit on earnings. SENATOR COGHILL explained that these concerns were not the typical ethical concerns but are ones related to the process. The current ethics law raised serious doubts about what legislators could do. SENATOR COGHILL referred to an advisory opinion that was approved in November [2018 by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. He offered additional examples, such as legislators whose family members work in the oil and gas industry, could not participate in the bill process except to hold public discussions or vote on the floor. Instead, these legislators would need to declare a conflict of interest and ask to be excused from voting. Again, these provisions were so broad that legislators felt the need to declare a conflict if they or their family members were involved in or had knowledge of any industry in Alaska, he said. 1:37:39 PM SENATOR COGHILL referred to SB 89 to AS 24.60.030(f)-(g), which reset the standards of conduct and reverts to the pre-House Bill 44 ethics law. It would remove the language related to family members. He explained that under House Bill 44 law, a legislator might later find out that a family member had earnings of $10,000 or more on an issue that came before the legislature, making the legislator "unethical" after the fact. Under SB 89, if legislators are seeking employment or acquire benefits or losses, they can declare a conflict of interest and ask to be excused from voting. Post-House Bill 44 law extends beyond identifying unethical behavior and created a process that lended doubt about whether legislators were following the ethics law. The ethics law is designed to promote public trust, he said. He clarified that SB 89 would not rewrite the entire Ethics Act but would revert to ethics language that would clearly identify conflicts of interest. He acknowledged that the legislature may decide to revise the standard of conduct code at a later date. He characterized SB 89 as a discrete reset that clarifies ethical behavior. He emphasized that legislators want to serve the public and uphold the highest standards. He said that his staff will explain how the bill accomplishes this. 1:40:35 PM SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on the change in disclosures. SENATOR COGHILL said that SB 89 reverts to pre-House Bill 44 law to address conflict of interest disclosures within a committee and on any floor vote. He said it is very important before official action occurs that any disclosures are made, which is the floor vote. 1:41:56 PM SENATOR REINBOLD referred to page 2, line 16, of SB 89 to the language "shall not vote" instead of "shall declare a conflict of interest." She asked whether this is the intent. SENATOR COGHILL answered that Section 2 pertains to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature and states that legislators may not vote if they have an equity or ownership interest in an issue that is beyond a substantial class of people. For example, if a legislator is the only one receiving a pay raise or obtaining a contract, he/she may not vote. The legislator must stand up on the floor, state the conflict, and make a motion to be excused from voting. It is up to the body to excuse the legislator from voting, he said. He deferred to Chad Hutchison to provide reasons why legislators should vote even when the perception of a conflict of interest exists. He said it really comes down to legislators' constitutional duty to represent their constituents and determine when they have a real conflict of interest. He said that the "perceived conflict" is a bigger problem than the actual conflict. He said that having a motion in front of a committee could create a "perceived conflict." He said that SB 89 would like to return it to a real conflict. 1:43:56 PM SENATOR REINBOLD said it could be viewed as strengthening the ethics law. SENATOR COGHILL said that if legislators have a real conflict, they should not be allowed to vote. He said the distinction is if the individual benefit is greater than the group benefit, the legislator should not vote. He said that it typically has not happened in the legislature. However, the current law is so ambiguous that it creates perceived conflicts. He said that the pre-House Bill 44 law has been tested in the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. It makes everyone think about real conflicts, he said. 1:45:38 PM CHAIR HUGHES said she understands that the bill drafters did not realize how the ethics law would be interpreted under House Bill 44 law. She asked whether the sponsor was aware of specific problems during his tenure in the legislature. She hoped for reassurances that problems would not be bubbling up if this bill passes. SENATOR COGHILL explained that Alaska has a citizen legislature, comprised of legislators with backgrounds as pilots, in law enforcement or the military. They work as teachers, accountants, and lawyers. He worked in a Christian counseling position, he said. He identified potential personal conflicts. For example, if his pay was increased or his position was guaranteed, and he did not declare a conflict, it would be unethical. He said if a legislator was a teacher who worked in a school that was singled out for raises, that would be a conflict and the legislator should be excused from voting. However, it would not be unethical if a legislator is a teacher and generally spoke about [issues that affect schools] or if someone worked in an industry and discussed issues related to the industry without obtaining a specific benefit. In those instances, the legislator would declare the perceived conflict, and the body would allow the legislator to vote. During his 20 years serving as a legislator, many perceived conflicts have been declared. However, no one has had a specific cost or benefit that prevented him/her from voting. Alaska has unique geographical fisheries and some people believe that legislators who commercially fished had a conflict, but the issues were broadly discussed, and they were not prevented from voting. In Alaska, many legislators come from industries or enterprises that are impacted by legislation, including shipping, fishing, schools, and legal professions. These legislators bring their expertise gained from working in their respective fields, but unless they obtain a specific benefit that exceeds the benefit others in the industry obtain, they do not have a conflict of interest. 1:48:59 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said it goes beyond the industry to obtaining a benefit not given to "a substantial class of persons to which the legislator belongs." He said that he has worked in the oil and gas industry and in the fishing industry. He has always declared a perceived conflict of interest when matters affecting those industries are being voted on. However, the legislature has rulings from [the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] that they were acting on behalf of a substantial class and not as individuals. He said that ethics should not be based on whether legislators like the outcome, but rather if they have real conflicts of interest. 1:49:57 PM SENATOR COGHILL agreed. He said that SB 89 brings the definition back to "a substantial class." Currently, a conflict of interest could be related to an involvement in a business, property, profession, private relation, or a source of income that results in the legislator receiving or expecting to receive a benefit greater than the general population. He offered his belief that this would likely put most legislators in a unique circumstance. He emphasized that the language needed to be changed to greater than the effect on "a substantial class of persons to which the legislation belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region"]. He emphasized the need to remove any ambiguity in the ethics law. He characterized House Bill 44 law as one that created unintended consequences. 1:51:26 PM MR. HUTCHINSON said he would discuss some constitutional issues that have arisen since House Bill 44 law was implemented. He pointed out that during the committee process last year, Mr. Wayne recognized constitutional issues with House Bill 44. 1:52:24 PM MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 2. To be clear: This bill does not repeal the majority of the ethics legislation (House Bill 44)(2018) passed last year 1:52:28 PM MR. HUTCHINSON paraphrased slide 3. The following remains intact: trianglert Prohibitions on expenditures and contributions by foreign-influenced corporations and foreign nationals in state elections. trianglert Limitations on member travel. trianglert Per diem restrictions trianglert The Legislative Council's ability to adopt policy on per diem and moving expenses. trianglert Lobbyist restrictions on buying food and beverages for members or staff. trianglert Gift restrictions to members He noted that the gift restrictions to members of $250 or more was not included in House Bill 44, but it still remains intact. 1:53:03 PM CHAIR HUGHES said she wanted the record to reflect she is eager to fix the issues with the ethics law that have impacted her so much. 1:53:22 PM MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 4, "What this bill does:" Simply resets the conflict provisions to the way they were prior to House Bill 44 (HB44)(2018). 1:53:37 PM MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 5, "Noteworthy: How many Constitutional Issues Have Emerged Because of the Conflict Provisions of HB44 (2018)?" trianglert Alaska Constitution - Article II Legislature - Diminishment of Core Legislative Functions and Representation trianglert Example: Successful miners can't talk or meet ("official action") about mining legislation in private. In addition, the miner can't carry legislation. Successful commercial fishermen/women can't talk about commercial fishing in private. The fishermen/women can't carry legislation. trianglert Federal Constitution - First Amendment Fundamental Right trianglert Freedom of Speech for legislator and constituents trianglert Right to assemble trianglert Right to petition the government for redress trianglert Alaska Constitution Article I, Sections 1, 5, & 6 trianglert Article 1, Section 1 "Equal Rights" trianglert Article 1, Section 5 "Freedom of Speech" trianglert Article 1, Section 6 "Freedom to Assemble and Petition" He said that there are a number of constitutional problems with the conflict provisions. He said this slide lists the fundamental rights, which can be restricted, but the government can only do so if it is necessary to a compelling governmental interest and the restriction is narrowly tailored for the least restrictive alternative. MR. HUTCHINSON referred to the State of Alaska v. Planned Parenthood case in 2007. He said that the Alaska Supreme Court extensively discussed this issue. He pointed out the list of fundamental rights on the slide, beginning with the diminishment of core legislative functions and representation. He said that the legislators need to be able to talk to their constituents. MR. HUTCHINSON said that Article I of the U.S. Constitution is the most important section from the constitutional founders' perspective. Any restriction of Article II rights granted by the U.S. Constitution, such as voting or freedom of speech, must be the least restrictive alternative. When legislators cannot talk to certain constituent groups on legislation or potential bills, based on their background or the constituents' background, it represents a major constitutional violation. For example, one of the reasons Senator Coghill got elected may be because he has expertise in placer mining. However, he cannot speak with constituents on these matters or propose legislative changes under the current legislative ethics law. Instead, he must shift the issue to someone else who may not have the background. He said that the 14th Amendment contains a due process provision and any infringement, such as liberty, must be narrowly tailored in the least restrictive alternative. MR. HUTCHISON reviewed the issues listed on slide 5 related to the Alaska Constitution. He said that Article 1 provides that similarly situated people cannot be treated differently. He highlighted that people from the travel industry wanted to speak with a legislator, but due to the connection to an immediate family member, the group cannot meet with the legislator. He emphasized that it is too broad, and not the least restrictive alternative. He cautioned members to consider these factors when amending this bill. 1:57:50 PM MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 6, Section 1 amends AS 24.60.030(e)." trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)? trianglert Currently, a legislator can only take official action on an alleged "conflicted bill" in public discussion or debate (including in committee and on the floor). trianglert In addition, the legislator is "conflicted" if the subject matter is connected to the legislator (or the legislator's immediate family) if the legislator (or the immediate family) made over $10,000 in the immediate 12-month period. trianglert The practical result? trianglert No private meetings about the "conflicted" subject matter. trianglert A severe restriction on official action, in multiple forms (drafting of legislation, discussion, etc.) trianglert A vast "net" of "conflict" because of the extension to the immediate family. trianglert See Advisory Opinion 18 05 for more information. He said it is noteworthy that the sponsor of House Bill 44 provided a chart that had two states with more than $10,000, including Michigan and Texas with $25,000 as their threshold. There was an acknowledgement that a wide scope exists for what constitutes "conflicted" such as a percentage of a financial interest in a particular business. Under the Alaska Supreme Court interpretation of fundamental rights, it's important to consider whether $10,000, the immediate 12-month period, or the expansion to include family members is truly least restrictive. He suggested these things will be debated by legislators through the committee process. MR. HUTCHINSON said the practical result of [House Bill 44] means that no private meetings can be allowed. It severely restricts official action, including drafting legislation or amendments. Further, the net of conflict has been extended to include family members and is not the least restrictive alternative, as compared to pre-2018 law, he said. 1:59:40 PM MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 7, "What are the proposed changes?" trianglert The language is returned to the language used before 2018, prior to the passage of HB 44. trianglert This includes the following: trianglert The language is returned to "unless required by the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature." trianglert Passages that restrict legislator advocacy to only narrow avenues of public discussion or debate are eliminated. trianglert The language re: "immediate family" is eliminated. trianglert The income threshold of "$10,000" for the "preceding 12-month period" is removed. He pointed out the bill would return to the language in Uniform Rule 34(b). He pointed out that Mason's Manual rules are also tied to this rule. He suggested reviewing Sections 24, 522 and 560 of Mason's Manual. He referred to Advisory Opinions 0402, 0801, 1105, and 1301 to provide interpretations of conflict prior to passage of House Bill 44 in 2018. He emphasized that concern about extending conflicts to legislators' immediate family and the $10,000 threshold exist because they are not the least restrictive alternatives. Other states have higher thresholds and these issues must be debated. 2:01:12 PM MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 8, "Section 2 - Amends AS 24.60.030(g)." trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)? trianglert Currently, conflicts (which are expanded) have to be declared in the committee process and the floor. trianglert Conflicts are expanded to "financial interests" of a business, investment, real property, lease, or other enterprise. There is an expansion to measuring the "interest" against "the general public." trianglert The practical result? trianglert Discussion on relevant issues is severely restricted. trianglert Conflicts will have to be declared in the committee process. If there is an alleged "conflict," there are legitimate concerns about passing otherwise viable legislation from the committee because members would be barred from private discussion on certain topics. trianglert A broadening of the "scope of conflict" cast a "wide net." 2:02:38 PM MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 9, "What are the proposed changes?" trianglert The committee process" language is being removed. trianglert "Financial interest" is being changed to back to "equity or ownership interest." trianglert "General public" is being returned to "substantial class of persons to which the legislator belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region. 2:03:16 PM MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 10, "Section 3 simply repeals AS 24.60.030(j)(2) and 24.60.990(a)(6)." AS 24.60.030(j)(2) says: "substantially benefit or harm" means the effect on the person's financial interest is greater than the effect on the financial interest of the general public of the state. trianglert This language is being removed. trianglert Reasoning: trianglert Clarifies uncertainty. trianglert Fairly easily, a legislator can have an alleged "substantial" "financial interest" in a specific area that's greater than most of the general public of the state. The spectrum is wide as it can pertain to businesses, investments, real property, leases, or, broadly, other enterprises. trianglert Since the language of "general public" in AS 24.60.030(g) is being changed back to ubstantial class of persons to which the legislator belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region," this passage is appropriate for removal. 2:04:07 PM MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 11, "Section 3 - Continued trianglert AS 24.60.990(a)(6) says: "financial interest" means ownership of an interest or an involvement in a business, including a property ownership, or a professional or private relationship, that is a source of income, or from which, or as a result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a financial benefit. trianglert This language is being removed. trianglert Reasoning: trianglert Since the language of "financial interest" is being changed in AS 24.60.030(g) back to "equity or ownership interest," this provision is being removed. 2:04:41 PM MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 12, titled "Section 4." trianglert Section 4 makes the act effective immediately. 2:04:57 PM MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 13, "This clarification attempts to find the right balance." trianglert High moral and ethical standards among public servants in the legislative branch are essential to government trust, respect, and confidence of the people of this state. See Advisory Opinion 19-01. See also AS 24.60.010(1). trianglert Right of members to represent their constituencies is of such major importance that members should be barred from their constitutionally required representative duties only in clear cases of personal enrichment. trianglert Members are encouraged to review Uniform Rule 34(b), Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure at sections 241, 522, 560, Advisory Opinion 2004-02, Advisory Opinion 2008-01, Advisory Opinion 2011-05, and Advisory Opinion 2013-01 for interpretations of conflict prior to 2018 2:05:48 PM MR. HUTCHINSON turned to the final slide, slide 14, "Questions?" 2:05:55 PM SENATOR KIEHL said he was unsure of some of the constitutional arguments, especially in terms of the least restrictive means. The legislature is exempt from the Open Meetings Act, which is a set of rules imposed on the executive branch, school districts, and municipalities. It is vastly more restrictive than anything the legislature is operating under. He asked whether the Open Meetings Act is unconstitutional. MR. HUTCHINSON explained that what he can say is unconstitutional is when constituents cannot meet with their legislators because of conflict provisions related to House Bill 44 law. That is unconstitutional because it prohibits legislators who have a similar background from participating on an issue, whether it is mining and the legislator is a miner, or fishing and the legislator is a fisherman. He said that commenting on the Open Meetings Act is beyond the scope of his testimony today. He emphasized that infringements, such as constituents not being able to meet at any level with their duly elected representatives due to a conflict provisions that are too strict is a violation. 2:07:24 PM SENATOR KIEHL turned to disclosure. He asked whether he was arguing that constitutional issues exist with disclosure. MR. HUTCHINSON answered that is correct. It has to be the least restrictive alternative in terms of disclosures. He pointed out the sponsor of House Bill 44 law presented information that indicates other states disclosure levels are much higher, with Texas and Michigan at $25,000. In addition, the scope of what qualifies as immediate family is much more limited. The problem in Alaska is that the scope is broadened so much it essentially prohibits people from talking to their legislators and violates Article I and Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that disclosure does not have anything to do with who legislators can talk to or what meetings can be held. He acknowledged he is not an attorney, but he was pretty sure that "least restrictive" does not mean that [Alaska] must adopt the highest state threshold for dollar amounts. He said that the public official financial disclosures require disclosure threshold of $1,000. He asked whether those reporting requirements are unconstitutional. MR. HUTCHINSON related his understanding he was talking about disclosures. He clarified that he is not discussing the Alaska Public Offices Commission disclosures that candidates and legislators must file, although they coalesce, but this is something different. He explained that if the monetary amount affects your immediate family and that creates such a broad scope of conflict that legislators are prohibited from talking with representative groups that may have the same background as your wife, husband, or immediate family, it raises the issue as to whether it is truly the least restrictive alternative. He offered his belief that this will be an ongoing debate. He argued that the legislature operated for years [prior to passage of House Bill 44] so it obviously was not the least restrictive alternative. 2:10:13 PM SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out she served on the Legislative Ethics Committee when the two advisory opinions were issued. She said she thought they went far beyond [the least restrictive alternative], and she was pretty frustrated with the advisory opinions. In fact, she was a dissenting vote. She recalled the opinion would impact legislators who belonged to a union, Native organization, fishing group, oil and gas industry, or health care. She anticipated that it would affect every legislator. She acknowledged the public wants ethical legislators, but if it creates barriers for constituency groups concerned about an issue important to the district, it is problematic. 2:11:51 PM CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 89. 2:12:15 PM VIKKI JOE KENNEDY, representing herself, Kodiak, urged members to stay accountable and ethical. She stated that she has been in Juneau for the last fifteen months. She said she was in Juneau when House Bill 44 passed the legislature last year. She said that any bill that holds everyone accountable and cautious about ethics is a good thing. She was told in January she could not talk to a senator. She said when legislators sit on boards and legislators can financially benefit [from decisions made by the board], it could be an issue. She said she has seen "a lot of fine things" happening [in the legislature], but she thinks strictness makes everyone "stay aware". She said she has carried a copy of the [Constitution of the State of Alaska] with her since she arrived in Alaska. She urged members to stay accountable and ethical. She said she appreciates the work the committee was doing on SB 89. 2:14:02 PM CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony on SB 89. 2:14:19 PM SENATOR KIEHL referred to language being repealed in the definition section of the ethics law. He said that deletes language [in AS 24.60.990(a)(6), "financial interest" means ownership of an interest or an involvement in a business, including a property ownership, or a professional or private relationship, that is a source of income, or from which, or as a result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a financial benefit.] He read the language, "from which, or as a result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a financial benefit." He asked if SB 89 were to pass, whether legislators would not need to disclose any "hefty" increase or benefit they received from a program implemented via legislative action. MR. HUTCHINSON said he thought the person would be subject to APOC, depending on the amount. He said that advisory opinions required certain disclosures must occur. There have been ethical rulings on a case-by-case basis on whether it represented a substantial interest. He stated, informally, that anything over $250 is generally interpreted as a substantial interest by the Legislative Ethics Committee. He presumed that if it is a significant amount, it must be disclosed on the legislative APOC reports. He emphasized that this bill does not change any of the APOC reporting requirements, but it ensures that the scope of influence is not expanded so much that people cannot meet with certain groups since they have common ties or their immediate family. CHAIR HUGHES asked the legislative legal counsel if anything in SB 89 changes what must be disclosed in the APOC financial disclosure. 2:16:54 PM DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, answered that it does not. He said that SB 89 changes what must be disclosed on the floor, but not the financial disclosures under AS 24.60.200. SENATOR KIEHL clarified his question, that if it is not through an equity interest in a business or real estate, but it would enhance his finances, whether he would not have to rise and declare [a conflict of interest on the floor.] MR. WAYNE interpreted the bill to mean that the income could fall under "other enterprise" or "business, investment real property, or lease." If it did not fall under one of those categories, then Senator Kiehl is correct that it would not need to be disclosed or require requesting to abstain from a vote. CHAIR HUGHES asked under SB 89, if it were to pass, whether the disclosure would only apply if it gave that person a benefit beyond the people in that industry or class or region. MR. WAYNE answered that is correct. He directed attention to lines 23-24, "a substantial class of persons to which the legislator belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region class of persons." He said that language would modify part of the sentence before that language, that it is all part of one calculation. He said that at the end of that calculation the legislator would need to determine whether to disclose a conflict or request to abstain. 2:19:09 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said that the conduct Senator Kiehl is describing would either be bribery or else the legislator must report it as a conflict of interest. He clarified that if the legislator was the only one receiving the benefit or the benefit is separate from the substantial class, it represents a true conflict that must be declared, and the legislator cannot vote. Legislators still must declare any perceived conflicts so the whole world has knowledge. For example, if he owned rental units and a bill came before the legislature related to landlord- tenant rights, he would declare a perceived conflict prior to voting on the measure even though the law would affect him the same as anyone else who is a landlord. Therefore, he would not have a true conflict of interest and would be allowed to vote on the bill. 2:21:04 PM MR. WAYNE said that he appreciates that clarification. He related a scenario in which a legislator is not being paid for his/her vote, but the legislator would still benefit from legislation, such as a tax break, or something other people will not get. He said if the legislator did not own a business, investment, real property, lease, or other enterprise, then [the language in SB 89] is silent. He asked whether it is okay for a [legislator] to benefit as long as it is not a business or investment benefit. SENATOR MICCICHE responded that without him mentioning "a substantial class," that his answer is incomplete. MR. WAYNE agreed. He acknowledged that if a legislator is going to be $2,000 richer next year if the bill passes is one thing, but if the bill is a permanent fund dividend bill everyone else benefits, so he/she would not need to declare a conflict of interest. MR. HUTCHINSON explained that it would be determined on a case- by-case basis, which is the reason for the advisory opinions. He pointed out that other avenues exist if people think unethical behavior is occurring, such as censure. Elections and recalls can remove people from office, and sanctions exist for people who are unethical. Currently, a particular representative has ongoing sanctions with financial repercussions. SENATOR KIEHL said, "Not if you write those rules out of the law. Then those avenues are not available, right?" MR. HUTCHINSON answered no, that the behavior occurred before House Bill 44 and it exists to this day. The individual member is still making payments because of behavior that was found to be unethical. 2:24:23 PM SENATOR KIEHL said he will have to do research on the member who was found to be unethical without violating any of the ethics code. MR. HUTCHINSON answered that there was a violation. [SB 89 was held in committee.]