03/01/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2007
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to
issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/30/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 109.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
to the House Majority Office
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
Amendment 14 to HB 109.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Agency & Offices
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided clarification and information
during the discussion of amendments to HB 109.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information related to blind trusts
during the hearing on HB 109.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03:16 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Doll, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johnson and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 109-DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
8:03:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to the requirement for
candidates, groups, legislators, public officials, and other
persons to submit reports electronically to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; relating to disclosures by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
legislative directors, public officials, and certain candidates
for public office concerning services performed for compensation
and concerning certain income, gifts, and other financial
matters; requiring legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public
officials, and municipal officers to make certain financial
disclosures when they leave office; relating to insignificant
ownership interest in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to
certain restrictions on employment after leaving state service
for purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 109, Version GH1059\K, Wayne,
2/21/07, as work draft.]
8:04:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:04:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN said the committee would begin by addressing
Amendment 12, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 17, line 21:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 17, line 31:
Delete "if the income was earned by the hour,"
Page 18, line 10:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 18, line 17:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 18, line 20:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 18, line 24:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
Page 18, line 27:
Delete "$5,000"
Insert "$1,000"
8:05:08 AM
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, reviewed the action the committee had taken during its
prior hearing of HB 109. He said both Amendments 12 and 13 are
designed to increase the level of disclosure required of public
officials and, in the case of Amendment 13, legislators,
legislative directors, and the public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. Amendment 12, he related,
would require public officials to disclose more information
about their sources of outside income in two ways: One, it
would reduce the reporting threshold from $5,000 to $1,000; and
two, it would require public officials to report the number of
hours worked for that outside income, regardless of whether
they're working on an hourly basis, or "some other basis." The
public officials affected by Amendment 13, he said, would
include high-level executive branch officials, judicial
officers, and certain municipal officers, among others.
MR. JONES continued:
We believe that $1,000 is the appropriate threshold
for a couple reasons: One, $1,000 to most folks is a
lot of money. Try convincing someone to give up his
or her permanent fund dividend if you have any doubt
about that. The other reason is that in August
[2006], by initiative, the Alaska public reduced to
$1,000 the reporting threshold for legislators. Now,
if what we want is consistency, then we ought to have
a $1,000 reporting threshold for the public officials,
... the executive branch, and judicial branch, also.
MR. JONES said it is important that all hours worked are
reported, not just those hours in which someone is working on an
hourly basis. He explained:
If, for example, I'm required to report, and I earn,
under a flat fee contract, $50,000, but only perform
one hour of work to get that $50,000, the public's
going to want to know that. They're going to wonder
where my loyalties lie if I'm getting $50,000 for only
one hour's work. And for that reason we believe that
the number of hours worked is an important fact to
include in the reports required of the public
officials.
MR. JONES urged the committee to adopt Amendment 12.
8:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to the portion of the
bill that Amendment 12 would affect, on page 18 [of Version K].
He said he understands the requirement of [paragraph (2)],
relating to holding interest in stocks, but he opined that the
change to $1,000 in [paragraph (4)], which is in regard to
trusts and fiduciary relations, would be low. Regarding loans
or loan guarantees mentioned in [paragraph (5)], he surmised
that "that's probably a credit line that you're going to have to
report at the end of the year." He indicated that a person may
run over the $1,000 amount frequently. He revealed that he uses
his credit line quite a bit and he wonders, "Is that a big deal;
is that an ethical problem?" Chair Coghill said that in the
quest for transparency, it may be possible to get "down to the
... nit-picky part."
8:13:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he is not sure this is "the issue."
He explained that currently the disclosure form "asks us to
report this information regardless of the dollar amount," but
exempts credit cards.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that the credit line to which
he had referred does not pertain to a credit card. He offered
an example wherein he may borrow $1,000 from his son to buy a
water softener, paying his son back in a month. He questioned
the necessity of disclosing such an amount. He said, "We're
talking about the whole range of movement of money in your
life."
8:15:40 AM
MR. JONES, to Representative Coghill, said:
You asked whether, if at any time during the year, the
loan amount exceeded $1,000, it would need to be
reported. For this provision - applying to public
officials - it would. It says in [paragraph (5)] that
anything over $5,000 under the existing language would
need to be reported if it exceeded $5,000 at any time
during the preceding calendar year. So, it would
cover the bubble at some time during the year; it's
not just what's owed at the end of the year.
And in terms of whether this is necessary to require
this level of detail, I say, "Let's bore the public;
let's show them that all of this stuff is routine -
that there's nothing to worry about." That's the
whole goal of transparency, to show folks that there
is no reason to question the actions that their public
officials are taking. Because they're just like us;
they're engaged in the same sorts of transactions that
we are day to day. And when they borrow money here
and pay it back later ..., they're just operating the
same way we do. And there's no reason to question
that they have these undisclosed transactions or
relationships that the public should worry about.
8:17:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he supports the language in
"the bill as presented." He indicated that [paragraph (4) on
page 18] would require parents who deposit their child's
permanent fund dividend into an account [related to the Uniform
Transfer for Minors Act (UTMA)] to report that "for two years."
With respect to the value of stock on page 18, line 10, he said,
"That will require people to study the stock values in the paper
for every day just to see if it went, at one time, over $1,000.
That's a very small amount. If it's $5,000 at least it's a
substantial interest and there's really an interest in the
public in knowing that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded everyone that "this is not in
the legislature," but rather would affect the executive branch.
He said the initiative [passed in the fall of 2006] did not deal
with the executive branch, and he remarked that if the drafters
of the initiative had wanted to include the executive branch,
they would have done so. He directed attention to page 17, line
31, which specifies work paid by the hour. He said many people
are not paid by the hour, but are paid by the result, and it
would be misleading to the public.
8:20:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recollected that "this is referenced by
our Title 24 reporting." He noted that the language on page 17,
line 19, read, "or candidate under this chapter". He said, "It
seems that our Title 24 referenced that as well, so, I'm just
looking for clarification on that."
8:21:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked: "Do I understand this correctly that
if I went and got a loan to buy a car ... for my son, ... I
would have to disclose that I got a loan to buy a car?" [In
response to several members nodding their head in the
affirmative], she said, "That does seem to be a little
inordinate surveillance on this kind of thing."
8:22:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that following "by the hour", on page
17, line 31, is "the approximate number of hours worked". He
stated that he thinks "what we're looking for" is addressed by
the previous remark made by Mr. Jones that the public does not
want to see someone get paid $50,000 for only one hour of work.
He directed attention to [subparagraph (F)] on page 18,
beginning on line 2, which sets up an exception for those who
are required to keep their work confidential, such as doctors
and lawyers. He said although he understands the reasoning, he
questions creating a special class of citizenry "within our own
ranks." He emphasized that he wants [the public] to understand
the dilemma: Nobody wants to leave a loophole and the
possibility for corruption, but closing that loophole may result
in either exclusive groups of people within the body or the
exclusion of people from the body.
8:26:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reminded everyone that the issue here is
in regard to the executive branch. He reiterated his question
regarding the ethical nature of reporting or not reporting
amounts under $1,000, as well as his statement that the $5,000
limit seems more reasonable. He stated, "I need to be convinced
that my capacity to report cleanly is going to be ... clear, and
I'm just not convinced of that right now."
8:29:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved to adopt Amendment 12 [text provided
previously].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
8:29:46 AM
MR. JONES stated that he agrees that reducing the reporting
threshold to $1,000 would increase the burden of reporting for
public officials, as well as increase the risk of inadvertent
failure to report. He said he thinks the circumstances of
[failing to report] will determine how the public views the
particular incident. He added, "But ... we have no control over
the headlines."
8:30:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated, "You're not allowed to give the
people their own perception; you plant the perception." He
said, "I agree, if everybody were rational, reasonable, and
logical, we wouldn't need any of these, we could have had one
line, and it would have said, 'Be ethical.' But unfortunately
not everybody fits into that category, so we have to go through
23 pages of detailed explanation." He said he appreciates Mr.
Jones' sentiment, but he indicated that unfortunately it is not
based in reality.
[REPRESENTATIVE DOLL maintained her objection.]
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 12. Representatives Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll,
Roses, Coghill, and Johansen voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 12 failed by a vote of 1-6.
8:32:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 13, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 16, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 24.60.200 is amended to read:
Sec. 24.60.200. Financial disclosure by
legislators, public members of the committee, and
legislative directors. A legislator, a public member
of the committee, and a legislative director shall
file a disclosure statement, under oath and on penalty
of perjury, with the Alaska Public Offices Commission
giving the following information about the income
received by the discloser, the discloser's spouse or
domestic partner, the discloser's dependent children,
and the discloser's nondependent children who are
living with the discloser:
(1) the information that a public official
is required to report under AS 39.50.030, other than
information about gifts;
(2) as to income in excess of $1,000
received as compensation for personal services, the
name and address of the source of the income, the
amount of the income, the number of hours of services
performed to earn that income, and a statement
describing in detail the nature of the services
performed; [IF THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS KNOWN OR
REASONABLY SHOULD BE KNOWN TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST IN LEGISLATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR POLITICAL
ACTION AND THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME IS A LEGISLATOR
OR A LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME
RECEIVED FROM THE SOURCE SHALL BE DISCLOSED;]
(3) as to each loan or loan guarantee over
$1,000 from a source with a substantial interest in
legislative, administrative, or political action, the
name and address of the person making the loan or
guarantee, the amount of the loan, the terms and
conditions under which the loan or guarantee was
given, the amount outstanding at the time of filing,
and whether or not a written loan agreement exists."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
8:33:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected for discussion purposes. He noted
that Amendment 13 also address AS 39.50.030.
8:33:49 AM
MR. JONES clarified that the reference in Amendment 13 to AS
39.50.030 pertains to current law. He said the new language
would require additional details in the disclosures currently
required from legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and legislative directors. He
read the bold, underlined new language [shown in the previously
provided text of Amendment 13]. He said the $1,000 threshold
that exists "under this provision" exists because of an
initiative adopted in August 2006, thus, the legislature is not
in a position to deal with that. The effect of Amendment 13, he
said, would merely be to acquire additional details about the
income that is earned for outside services.
8:35:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment
13, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 16 through page 2, line 9.
Delete all material and insert information from
page 17, line 21 through page 19, line 9 of the Draft
Version "K" of CSHB 190 and $1,000 in each place where
$5,000 appears.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke to Amendment 1 to Amendment 13.
He said the amount must be $1,000, because that's what the
initiative demands. He said, "It makes it so that the language
exactly tracks the language we have just been debating in
Amendment 12."
8:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said [Amendment 13] "already has $1,000
everywhere you want to replace $5,000."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that instead of referencing
two different standards, Amendment 1 to Amendment 13 would use
the language from AS 39.50.030, with the exception of the amount
of money, which has to be $1,000 in order not to violate the
initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES responded, "I guess I'm confused; I thought
we just voted on not changing that to $1,000" [in Amendment 12].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that [Amendment 12] dealt
with Title 39 - the executive branch. The initiative passed
last fall, he said, requires the reporting of $1,000 of
legislators and legislative candidates.
8:38:56 AM
MR. JONES said there is already a provision in statute that
addresses gifts separately, and that is [AS] 24.60.080. He
suggested there may be "duplication problems" in incorporating
the language in Title 39.
8:39:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it was not his intention to
do anything to change that little provision in Title 34.
8:40:20 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, APOC, said, "When I saw this amendment, this looked
to reverse what you just voted on." She reviewed as follows:
Current law does require the $1,000 reporting
threshold for sources of income and indebtedness on
legislators. Current law has a $5,000 reporting
threshold on the same information for public
officials. Public officials report any gifts more
than $250 to the Alaska Public Offices Commission, as
well as to their designated ethics supervisors. Gifts
under the legislative financial disclosures go to your
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, which ... [the
reason for] the language at line 16 and 17, [as
numbered] on Amendment 13, "other than information
about gifts". I believe that process has worked
really well for everyone.
MS. MILES offered a brief history, noting that when citizens
first enacted the financial disclosure law, the limit set was
$100.
CHAIR LYNN asked if Amendment 1 to Amendment 13 is needed.
8:42:34 AM
MR. JONES responded as follows:
I believe the intent of the amendment is to make the
two sections parallel, so that what's good for public
officials is good for legislators. ... The difficulty
is that those two systems have developed in different
directions. ... Ms. Miles and I have given the
example of the gift (indisc. -- coughing). And so, a
simple solution to make them parallel isn't simple;
it's difficult to reach that. And so, we have to look
at the nuances of the differences between the two
systems ....
CHAIR LYNN asked, "Does this go to the heart of what we're
trying to do in HB 109?"
MR. JONES answered yes, but he said the difficulty is in the
details.
8:43:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES indicated that Amendment 1 to Amendment 13
would result in "everything" being "under Section 39.50, not
under 24." He indicated that Amendment 12 dealt with the same
sections. He explained:
So, if you wanted to refer this back to reducing
$5,000 to where $1,000 is, to comply with the
initiative, you have to go back to Title 24. ... This
specifically says change the items on these pages.
They're all in Title 39 and that's what we just voted
on, on [Amendment] 12.
8:44:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 1 to Amendment 13.
He said he wants it drafted correctly.
8:45:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that the minutes from the Alaska
Constitutional Convention, case law, and various opinions of
attorney generals reinforce the legislature's power to make
changes to initiatives.
8:47:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 2 to Amendment 13, as
follows:
On page 1, line 20 [as numbered on Amendment 13]:
Before "the number of hours of services performed to
earn that income"
Insert "if the income was earned by the hour"
8:48:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
8:49:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Coghill, confirmed that the intent of Amendment 2
to Amendment 13 is to "exactly conform to what we've just done
in Title 39." In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Coghill, regarding why the amendment is not
redundant, he explained that Amendment 2 to Amendment 13 makes
it clear that the same standard will apply in Title 24.
8:50:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for an opinion from Mr. Jones.
8:50:24 AM
MR. JONES stated:
Our concern about limiting reporting of hours to those
cases in which the person is being paid on an hourly
basis is the $50,000 contract that I mentioned
earlier: I get $50,000 on a flat-fee basis; I'm not
being paid by the hour; I only do an hour's worth of
work. I think the public will care to know that.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred.
8:51:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said many members of the legislature do
not work by the hour and it would be misleading to disclose the
number of hours worked, because to do so would not reflect the
value of the services or the skill required. He concluded,
"We've already been down this road 15 minutes ago for the
executive branch; it doesn't make any sense to me to not adopt
the same policy in both branches."
8:51:54 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Doll
voted in favor of Amendment 2 to Amendment 13. Representatives
Roses, Coghill, Johansen, Johnson, and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 to Amendment 13 failed by a vote of 2-5.
8:52:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the disclosure would be the same
for everyone, including those who have to keep their business
confidential.
8:53:13 AM
MR. JONES related that there are two means for exclusions.
Under AS 24.60.230, a legislator who believes that the
constitution or laws provide for privacy can apply to the court
for an exception. An easier method yet, he said, exists under
APOC's current regulation, whereby someone who believes that
reporting [a disclosure] would violate, for example, an
attorney/client privilege or doctor/client privilege, may apply
for exception to the regulation and can be granted an exception.
MS. MILES confirmed that's correct.
8:54:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked for confirmation that that exception
does not exclude those people from having to disclose, but would
make possible an exemption on reporting all the details, such as
the name of the client or patient.
MS. MILES responded that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there has been any "contest on
what is or what is not reasonably substantial interest in
legislative, administrative affairs."
8:55:34 AM
MS. MILES responded as follows:
This has been a difficult area for the commission to
administer, being that it's subjective. So, the filer
herself, or himself, is making the determination
whether or not to include the additional information,
based on whether ... there's some regulatory
guidelines if they have more than $5,000-worth of
contracts with the state, if they're a lobbyist, if
[they have] otherwise a close economic association.
But it is subjective upon the filer to determine when
their source of income has a substantial interest in
state, administrative, legislative, or political
action. And, in the view of the commission, [there
are] ... entities in Alaska ... that don't have a
substantial interest in legislative, administrative,
or political action.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the initiative uses the phrase, "if
the income is known or reasonably should be known to have a
substantial interest in legislative, administrative, or
political action." He said, "Once again, we're changing the
initiative. Though we're not dealing with a hot button number
issue, we're certainly changing the language of what the
expectation of the public was." He said for the sake of
consistency, the language [in brackets in Amendment 13] needs to
be included.
8:58:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES opined that the voters didn't understand
the ramifications of the initiative, but instead were reacting
emotionally to the dollars involved and the input of
journalists. He said, "If the intent is to conform, we have to
go to that extreme detail. ... I don't see where we have a
choice. I don't like it, and I don't think it's reasonable, but
I would agree with you that we don't have a choice."
8:58:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 3 to Amendment
13, to reinsert the language that Amendment 13 proposes to
delete, beginning on page 1, line 21, through page 2, line 3,
[as numbered on Amendment 13], which read as follows:
[IF THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS KNOWN OR REASONABLY SHOULD
BE KNOWN TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN
LEGISLATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR POLITICAL ACTION AND
THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME IS A LEGISLATOR OR A
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME RECEIVED
FROM THE SOURCE SHALL BE DISCLOSED;]
There being no objection, Amendment 3 to Amendment 13 was
adopted.
8:59:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated concern that confusion will
result from not considering certain other amendments as
alternatives simultaneously. He requested that the committee
consider Amendment 15 "in the nature of potential amendments to
[Amendment] 13 or alternatives suggested."
9:00:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Chair Lynn, suggested
sticking with Amendment 13 before moving on. He announced that
he would be voting against both Amendments 13 and 15, because he
indicated that those amendments would make "a greater standard"
than what the initiative provides. Representative Coghill
revised his original statement, saying that he could be
convinced to vote for Amendment 13, to "put it in the bill and
then talk about it later."
CHAIR LYNN said that would also be his wish.
9:02:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES removed his objection to Amendment 13.
There being no further objection, Amendment 13 was adopted.
9:02:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 15, labeled
25-GH1059\K.20, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 4, following "government;":
Insert "relating to disclosure of information
about certain income received as compensation for
personal services by legislators, public members of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and
legislative directors;"
Page 16, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 24.60.200 is amended to read:
Sec. 24.60.200. Financial disclosure by
legislators, public members of the committee, and
legislative directors. A legislator, a public member
of the committee, and a legislative director shall
file a disclosure statement, under oath and on penalty
of perjury, with the Alaska Public Offices Commission
giving the following information about the income
received by the discloser, the discloser's spouse or
domestic partner, the discloser's dependent children,
and the discloser's nondependent children who are
living with the discloser:
(1) the information that a public official
is required to report under AS 39.50.030, other than
information about gifts;
(2) as to income in excess of $1,000
received as compensation for personal services, and as
to a dividend received from a limited liability
company as compensation for personal services, the
name and address of the source of the income, and a
statement describing
(A) the nature of the services performed,
with sufficient description to make clear to a person
of ordinary understanding the specific services
performed, unless those services require the issuance
of a state or federal professional license; for
purposes of this subparagraph, "professional license"
means a license required for a profession regulated by
the federal government or by a state;
(B) the approximate total number of hours
that have been spent or will be spent performing the
services; and
(C) the amount of income received from the
source, if the [; IF THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS KNOWN OR
REASONABLY SHOULD BE KNOWN TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST IN LEGISLATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR POLITICAL
ACTION AND THE] recipient of the income is a
legislator or legislative director [, THE AMOUNT OF
INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE SOURCE SHALL BE DISCLOSED];
(3) as to each loan or loan guarantee over
$1,000 from a source with a substantial interest in
legislative, administrative, or political action, the
name and address of the person making the loan or
guarantee, the amount of the loan, the terms and
conditions under which the loan or guarantee was
given, the amount outstanding at the time of filing,
and whether or not a written loan agreement exists."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected for discussion purposes.
9:03:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 15, because he said
it would add a significant amount of language, while addressing
issues dealt with in Amendment 13, such as what specific service
was performed, the total number of hours worked, and the amount
of income received.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in dividing the
question, which would separate the portion [of Amendment 15]
found on [page 1], lines 18-21, [as numbered on the amendment],
from the rest of the amendment.
MR. JONES suggested that "a better way of addressing the same
issue" would be to change the definition of "source of income"
in [AS] 39.50.200. He said that would allow a limited liability
company to be included among the list of entities that are
identified in that definition of source of income.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he agrees that what Mr. Jones is
expressing needs to be done in Title 39, but he thinks that
something also needs to be done in Title 24.
MR. JONES responded:
It all depends on where we end up. If, because this
provision refers to Title 39, and that stays the same,
then I believe that the source of income reporting
requirement under Title 39 would apply, and so,
therefore, the definitions that apply under Title 39
would also be applicable.
MS. MILES confirmed that is so.
9:06:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that may be true from the point of
view of an attorney and APOC; however, he said, "This is going
to be viewed by a whole raft of relatively unsophisticated
people who are running for the legislature, and those of us in
the legislature may not be a lot more sophisticated." He said
he wants the language to be crystal clear.
9:07:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said if he wants to find out what
"income" is, he looks at definitions, not in statute. He
stated, "I would suggest that we take their suggestion and put
it in the definitions."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "If you put it in a
definition, it's got to be in Title 24, because very few people
are going to look at the reference to Title 39, and then look in
the definition in Title 39. That's asking more than most people
will do." He said the average person looks directly to the
statute, and he reemphasized his desire for clarity.
9:08:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that he thinks the average
person is going to call APOC rather than look in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES concurred with Representative Johnson.
CHAIR LYNN said he has, upon occasion, called APOC for advice,
rather than look in statute.
9:09:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN told Representative Gruenberg that he would prefer
not to divide the question at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made mention of the [new language added
in Amendment 15] at the bottom of the first page [through the
top of the second page of the amendment]. He said he doesn't
want someone who is filing a disclosure to just put down
"consulting services," for example. He emphasized that he wants
more specificity.
9:11:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to language on page 2,
beginning on line 1, [as numbered on Amendment 15], which read,
"unless those services require the issuance of a state or
federal professional license". He said that would make an
exclusion for an entire list of professionals, including:
doctors, lawyers, surveyors, dentists, and pilots. He said that
creates a special class of citizenry.
9:12:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she interprets the language to mean
that people who have licenses don't have to describe the
specific services they perform, because people understand,
according to the license, what those professionals do.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified:
In the amendment that we passed previously, we asked
that they describe the work product in detail and the
hours performed for it. What we're attempting here is
to describe what that detail might look like. ... I
think that what we want to do is have everybody tell
us in detail what they did to get those services.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL restated his objection to Amendment 15.
9:14:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVES ROSES and COGHILL maintained their objections.
9:14:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 15.
9:15:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved to adopt Amendment 14, labeled 25-
GH1059\K.17, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 4, following "government;":
Insert "restricting representation of others by legislators
and legislative employees;"
Page 11, lines 9 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 24.60.100. Representation. A legislator or
legislative employee may not represent [WHO
REPRESENTS] another person for compensation before a
municipal, legislative, or executive branch [AN]
agency, board, [OR] commission, or other entity [OF
THE STATE SHALL DISCLOSE THE NAME OF THE PERSON
REPRESENTED, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION,
AND THE BODY BEFORE WHICH THE REPRESENTATION IS TO
TAKE PLACE TO THE COMMITTEE. THE DISCLOSURE SHALL BE
MADE BY THE DEADLINES SET OUT IN AS 24.60.105. THE
COMMITTEE SHALL MAINTAIN A PUBLIC RECORD OF A
DISCLOSURE UNDER THIS SECTION AND FORWARD THE
DISCLOSURE TO THE RESPECTIVE HOUSE FOR INCLUSION IN
THE JOURNAL. A LEGISLATOR OR LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE MAY
NOT REPRESENT ANOTHER PERSON FOR COMPENSATION BEFORE
AN AGENCY, COMMITTEE, OR OTHER ENTITY OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH]."
Page 12, line 2:
Delete "matter, interest, or representation"
Insert "matter or interest [OR REPRESENTATION]"
Page 12, lines 14 - 15:
Delete all material.
Insert "AS 24.60.070 [;
(5) REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT UNDER
AS 24.60.100]."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke to the amendment as follows:
... It doesn't draw the distinction between people
representing them before the agency in a quasi-
legislative capacity or in a quasi-judicial capacity.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered examples. He concluded, "It's
much broader than the current situation, which just really
requires disclosure."
9:17:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection, stating that
[Amendment 14] is "one of the brighter line issues."
9:18:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Amendment 14. He explained
through the following example:
If I have a family law [practice], for example, I
can't take a case before the child support enforcement
division in dealing with child support - something
like that. And it has nothing at all to do with the
legislative position.
9:18:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, "Is it true that we would keep a
lawyer from going before ... an administrative law judge ...?
If that's the case, maybe we do have a problem here."
9:19:12 AM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to the House Majority Office, Alaska State
Legislature, surmised that Representative John Harris, who
brought Amendment 14 to the committee originally, intended that
the amendment clarify that a legislator cannot represent any
client for compensation before any state or municipal entity,
without exception.
9:20:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that one of the duties of a
legislator is to be a good ombudsman to his/her constituents.
He offered an example whereby a legislator and his/her staff
spend a lot of time helping a constituent. In that situation,
he said, the staff would be getting compensated for the work,
but that compensation would come from the legislature.
9:21:10 AM
MR. WRIGHT answered that's correct. He said, "We do not want
to, in any way, ... prevent a legislator or legislative employee
from doing their constituent work, and that's why we have the
'by compensation' in there."
9:21:47 AM
MR. WRIGHT, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said according to the director of Legislative Legal
and Research Services, there is no definition of "other entity";
however, he explained that the term is used to express something
other than a municipal, legislative, executive branch agency,
board, or commission.
9:22:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that perhaps the language
proposed to be deleted begins too soon and the phrase should be
"other entity of the state".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Amendment 14 would prevent a
legislator who is an attorney from representing a person who has
had his/her animal confiscated by animal control.
9:22:48 AM
MR. WRIGHT replied that he has no idea.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that [animal control] would
qualify as a municipal agency, and he stated that he does not
see any relationship between it and the legislature.
MR. WRIGHT indicated that the language in Amendment 14 is
straightforward. He said there is nothing to prohibit a
legislator who is also a lawyer from going to court.
9:23:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 14, to
delete "or other entity" on page 1, line 10, [as numbered on the
amendment].
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected. He said he has no problem
including "or other entity", as long as those words are followed
by "of the state".
9:24:27 AM
MR. WRIGHT said, "I have no objection to that."
9:24:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that had been his original thought;
however, he pointed out that within that sentence is the word
"municipal". He said it may complicate decisions related to
municipalities if the language says, "or other entity of the
state".
9:25:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested adding "or political
subdivision" so that the language would be all-inclusive.
9:25:31 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Legislative Agency & Offices, asked for clarification
regarding the meaning of "other entity".
MR. WRIGHT reiterated that it is a catch-all phrase that could
relate, for example, to administrative hearings, child support
cases, or hearing officers.
9:26:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said a couple years ago the legislature
passed the Administrative Law Judge Act, and Article II judges
were set up as official judges governed by cannons of ethics.
He asked:
What conflict of interest is there? Why prohibit
people from exercising a very legitimate profession in
a very private dispute that may involve [a] dispute
getting child support, or somebody's permanent fund
[dividend, or] something like that that really doesn't
have any possibility of any undue interest? What's
the public policy in telling that the law should go
this far?
9:28:01 AM
MR. WRIGHT responded, "The policy is ... to take away any chance
of having a conflict of interest in ... a matter such as this,
and to have any undue influence over budgets, legislation, [or]
whatever may occur."
9:28:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related an experience as follows:
When I was dealing with several issues ... [related
to] Child in Need of Aid laws, I was asked to go to a
particular hearing, and I could tell just my presence
was a chill in the court. And I withdrew, because I
could just tell that they thought I was there to ...
start tinkering with law based on that individual
case. So, just being there was problem, let alone
knowing somebody who was going to be making law in
that same arena representing for compensation. ..
It's an interesting question: Should a guy be
forbidden to observe law in action? Probably not.
But if it becomes a chill on that particular event, I
think you're ... out of bounds. But ... having, then,
a sitting legislator or a legislative employee ... who
is already getting paid to superintend the law, you
should do that as a matter of course, probably. But
representing before an administrative law judge has a
very intimidating effect, I would think. So, ... I
think ... there is an ethical question there.
9:30:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES removed his objection to Amendment 1 to
Amendment 14.
CHAIR LYNN objected [to Amendment 1 to Amendment 14].
The committee took an at-ease from 9:31:27 AM to 9:31:45 AM.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that nobody wants to create a
conflict of interest. He continued:
This amendment - Amendment 14 and the "other entity"
issue - deal with an assumption that because you're
going before an administrative law judge, or something
like that, there's going to be a conflict. I
personally think that assumption is no more ... or
less likely than people in an entirely private sphere.
For example, somebody may go to a realtor who serves
in the legislature ... to sell their house or conduct
other business because they want to curry favor with
that legislator. ... I mean, anybody that does any
business or sells something to them [could] sell ...
at a lower price or give them a better deal when they
purchase to curry favor. And you can't ... prohibit
people in the citizen legislature from conducting
their own business. We don't live in glass bowls, and
with all due respect, we're not under the same
standard as judges, who are really very strictly
prohibited from doing anything like that because they
adjudicate. And it's a slippery slope, and once you
prevent people from conducting unrelated things ...,
it's not very long before you start looking at the
other business dealings any of us have to do in our
private affairs.
CHAIR LYNN disclosed that he is a licensed real estate broker,
but is on referral status.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, as a point of order, said what the
committee just heard was a debate on Amendment 14, but what the
committee has before it currently is Amendment 1 to Amendment
14.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 1
to Amendment 14. Representatives Doll and Lynn voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 14 was adopted by a
vote of 5-2.
9:35:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection to Amendment
14 [as amended].
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 14, as
amended. Representatives Gruenberg and Doll voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 14, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 5-
2.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:37:12 AM to 9:37:23 AM.
9:38:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 17, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 16, line 9.
Insert:
(a) A person required to file a disclosure statement
under AS 24.60.200 shall file an annual report with
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, covering the
previous calendar year, containing the disclosures
required by AS 25.60.200, on or before March 14 of
each year, except that a legislator appointed under AS
15.40.320- 15.40.320, a public member of the
committee, and a legislative director must file within
30 days after the person's initial appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Amendment 17 was an amendment
that [the subcommittee] considered and rejected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL confirmed it was not.
9:39:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Amendment 17 for discussion
purposes.
9:39:42 AM
MS. ANDERSON said currently statute has no "teeth" regarding
financial disclosures filed by legislators, public members of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and legislative
directors and a March 15 deadline. She clarified, "So, what
this is doing is actually putting in statute what past practice
has been with APOC."
9:41:50 AM
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, clarified that Amendment 17 addresses those who are
new to the legislature.
9:42:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 17.
9:42:21 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 17 was adopted.
9:42:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 18, labeled 25-
GH1059\K.19, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 4, following "government;":
Insert "relating to disclosures by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, and legislative directors;"
Page 16, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 24.60.210 is amended to read:
Sec. 24.60.210. Deadlines for filing of
disclosure statements. (a) A person required to file a
disclosure statement under AS 24.60.200 shall file an
annual report with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, covering the previous calendar year,
containing the disclosures required by AS 24.60.200,
on or before March 15 of each year. On or before the
90th day after ending service as a legislator or
legislative director, a former legislator or
legislative director shall file with the Alaska Public
Offices Commission a report containing the disclosures
required by AS 24.60.200, covering any period of that
service for which the legislator or legislative
director has not already filed a report.
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a
public member and a public member nominee of the
committee shall file an annual report with the Alaska
Public Offices Commission, covering the previous
calendar year, containing the disclosures required by
AS 24.60.200, on or before the second Monday in
January of each year. On or before the 90th day after
ending service on the committee, a former public
member of the committee shall file with the Alaska
Public Offices Commission a report containing the
disclosures required by AS 24.60.200, covering any
period of that service for which the public member has
not already filed a report."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
9:43:46 AM
MR. JONES proffered that although Amendment 18 is a "wonderful
idea," its intent is covered by an existing provision of the
bill, which makes Amendment 18 unnecessary. He explained that a
better, more comprehensive version of the language that the
governor originally proposed appears in Section 15, on page 12
of Version K.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 18.
9:45:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved to adopt Amendment 19.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He offered his understanding
that "this is already existing practice."
9:46:48 AM
MS. ANDERSON related that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics issued an advisory opinion on December 9, [2006]. She
continued:
That was the first time the question had been asked of
the Ethics Committee about whether legislators who
leave office should be filing either financial
disclosures as well as ethics disclosures, and the
advisory opinion did look at that issue and felt that
the language in the statute did require that
information. So, all of the 12 outgoing legislators
were notified by letter that they needed to file their
financial disclosure, as well as any ethics
disclosures.
I would agree with Representative Coghill; I don't
feel that this particular amendment is necessary.
9:47:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 19.
9:48:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Amendment 20 addresses the question
of what is and is not significant in "reporting," and the
amendment addresses the issue of blind trusts. He emphasized
that it is a significant issue, and he stated that he is merely
bringing up discussion of the amendment because at present he
does not want to accept the language. He said he would like Mr.
Jones to explain "how hard it might be to put a blind trust in
the insignificant part of reporting."
9:49:30 AM
MR. JONES remarked:
Of course, the purpose of a blind trust is to place a
legislator['s] or other public official's interest in
confidential status, so that the public official or
legislator does not know what's in the blind trust,
thereby removing the potential conflict of interest or
appearance of conflict of interest when the public
official or legislator takes official action that may
affect the interests that are held in a blind trust.
If you don't know that it's going to benefit your
interests that are held in a blind trust, then of
course your interests couldn't have been the reason
that you took that initial action. ... The devil is
in the details, in trying to come up with a
description of what would be an effect blind trust,
without making those restrictions so tight that a
blind trust is effectively unavailable to anybody that
wants to use one to serve in a public capacity.
MR. JONES said he has discussed with members of legislative
staff, various versions of new restrictions that would tighten
up the requirements for blind trusts under Alaska law. He
stated his belief, as indicated by Representative Coghill, that
there is still work to be done on the issue.
9:51:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, said it's
a fundamental policy call whether or not to allow blind trusts.
He continued:
My concern is that the current language that we have
in Alaska Statute is: A blind trust that is ...
essentially ripe for ethics problems, because it's not
tight enough, it doesn't explain things well enough,
[and] it does not fulfill the purpose that we want a
blind trust to fulfill.
If the committee decides that we want to allow a blind
trust for those people in the executive branch, a good
example would be the commissioner of revenue, who
might come into that position having a large 401 K, or
those kind[s] of assets, to be able to regulate
without trying to -- I mean especially if we go down
to $1,000 limit, all of a sudden it would be very
difficult for them to have their investment and still
function in the government. So, the purpose of the
blind trust is, as you've discussed, to allow the
person to fulfill the government function without
having to have any concern and, in fact, any knowledge
of ... what they have in that trust.
And so, you have another amendment that we worked on
quite a bit, which I think is Amendment 22, that goes
into that in detail. What we've done is patterned off
the New Jersey statute to bring all those things
forward that worked, to make our blind trust statute
work for not only the citizens of the state, but also
work for the individual, so that when they come in and
if they establish a blind trust, then it will be truly
blind, and they will be protected because they won't
know what's in that blind trust. ... [It] establishes
a parameter.
So, I think that this amendment isn't the amendment
that I've worked on and offered, but the whole idea of
the blind trust - whether we want to have that tool
available or not - is a discussion this committee has
to have. And if we want to have the blind trust, I
think that we want to have a very effective blind
trust that serves a purpose of the state.
9:53:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked for committee members' feedback as to whether
they would like to address Amendment 20 or 22.
9:54:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that there appear to be three
amendments on the subject.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he had asked for the
involvement of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He
commented that if the House State Affairs Standing Committee
wants to spend the time discussing the blind trust issue, it
will take considerable time.
9:55:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that the committee consider
[Amendments 20, 21, and 22] side by side at its next hearing of
the bill.
9:55:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred with the idea of a side-by-side
comparison. He said Representative Seaton has brought up some
good points to consider.
9:56:26 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 109 [was heard and held].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:57:11 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|