Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/01/2011 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR13 | |
| HB3 | |
| HB14 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 14-EXEC ETHICS: LEGAL FEES/FAMILY TRAVEL
9:16:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 14, "An Act authorizing state agencies to pay private
legal fees and costs incurred by persons exonerated of alleged
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing certain
public officers and former public officers to accept state
payments to offset private legal fees and costs related to
defending against an Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
complaint; and creating certain exceptions to Alaska Executive
Branch Ethics Act limitations on the use of state resources to
provide or pay for transportation of spouses and children of the
governor and the lieutenant governor."
9:16:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, as sponsor, noted that the following
was included in the committee packet: a memorandum, dated
January 31, 2011, from Dan Wayne of Legislative Legal and
Research Services, which discusses the terms "apportionment" and
"necessarily incurred"; a technically updated sponsor statement;
a sectional analysis; and a memorandum, dated January 25 2011,
from Patricia Young of Legislative Legal and Research Services,
which is in regard to state payment of legal fees incurred in
defense of an ethics complaint against a public official.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reviewed that HB 14 is similar to House
Bill 289 from the Twenty-Sixth Alaska State Legislature. He
paraphrased the first two paragraphs of the revised sponsor
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 14 sets forth in statute the substance of
the Attorney General's recently-enacted regulations
establishing standards for (1) reimbursement of legal
fees and costs for any executive branch employees
accused of ethical violations, and (2) payment of
travel expenses for the families of only the governor
and lieutenant governor.
HB 14 differs from the regulations in two important
ways. First, although both the regulations and HB 14
authorize the use of state funds to pay the travel
costs of children of the governor and lieutenant
governor to certain events, HB 14 would authorize this
payment not just for minor children, but also for
mentally and physically disabled children who are
dependent on the governor or lieutenant governor for
care.1 Second, the regulations authorize the state to
pay, in advance of exoneration, the ongoing legal fees
and costs of an employee accused of an ethics
violation. If the employee is not exonerated of the
ethics charges, the state must then attempt to recoup
the funds it advanced to defend the guilty employee.
HB 14, on the other hand, would require that an
employee be exonerated before the state could
reimburse the employee for his or her fees and costs.2
HB 14 cures both problems.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the reference to
"exonerated" is on page 4, lines 10-11.
9:21:03 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:21:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed appreciation for the legal
memorandum from Mr. Wayne.
9:21:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative P.
Wilson, said there is no provision currently in statute or
proposed in the bill for recoupment by the state from the person
who filed the original complaint [if the complaint was
unfounded]. He cited a portion of Ms. Young's memorandum, which
read as follows:
The Connecticut law further authorizes that if the
complainant brought the charge knowing that it was
baseless, the public official or state employee will
have a cause of action against the complainant for
double the amount of damage caused. If the action is
successful, the courts may also award the individual
the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for the
action.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks Alaska's reason for not
adopting such a policy is that it could dissuade people with
legitimate complaints from coming forward. He said that idea
may have merit, but the Department of Law has not suggested that
it is needed, and he decided not to bring that issue into the
proposed legislation.
9:23:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed her hope that some provision
like that would prevent baseless accusations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks the concern is that "the
net would cast too broadly." In response to Representative P.
Wilson, he offered to contact Ms. Young to obtain the
Connecticut law.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she thinks that would be worth
looking into.
9:25:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested it would be problematic to distinguish
which complaint is and is not frivolous.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that is why she would like to have
the Connecticut law before the committee.
9:26:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN expressed concern that Alaskans would
see this as a way to caution against complaining, and he said he
does not think that is the right direction to be headed.
9:27:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the issue of vexatious
litigants has occupied the attention of the court for a small
number of litigants who take up an inordinate amount of the
court's time. In some cases, the court has required a person
who submits complaints repeatedly to first get court approval
before his/her complaint is heard. Representative Gruenberg
said that is not done "in this area," because the person brings
the matter to the attention of the government, and the
government decides which cases merit attention.
9:30:07 AM
JUDY BOCKMON, Assistant Attorney General/State Ethics Attorney,
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law, stated that she thinks that Representative
Gruenberg has "fairly summarized the posture that we're in with
ethics complaints." She added that in statute there are two
layers of review prior to the probable cause finding: the
intake review to see that the complaints meet the requirement of
statute and warrant investigation; and the more formal
investigation which leads to probable cause and a public
accusation and hearing, which rarely happens.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked Ms. Bockmon what the effect would
be if Alaska adopted a law such as Connecticut's. In response
to Chair Lynn, she confirmed that she was asking about a
possible law that would pertain to the administrative branch of
Alaska's government.
MS. BOCKMON responded that she is not sure it would change how
the state treats a complaint or the levels of review or process
of investigation. She echoed the concern expressed by others
that such a law may dissuade members of the public from bringing
forward complaints. She asked the committee to keep in mind
that the complaints that are brought forth are not always of the
nature that have been seen in the last couple years; there are
complaints that state employees might wish to bring because they
see what they believe to be improper action. She indicated that
a law, such as the aforementioned Connecticut law could add
process, but not necessarily for the Department of Law. She
explained that it seems that what is being contemplated is that
the subject [of an ethics complaint, who is knowingly wrongly
accused,] would later have to take action to recover the fees,
and she said she does not know "how that would work."
9:34:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN concurred with Representative Gruenberg
that this is a larger issue, and he suggested that the topic of
curtailing frivolous litigation in, for example, the areas of
resource extraction and economic development could be taken up
another time, while not [dissuading the public regarding the
issue of ethics complaints].
9:35:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in the civil litigation, the
recovery of costs and fees is under Civil Rules 79 and 82. The
general rule is that the prevailing party recovers its costs in
full and its fees on a sliding scale. He offered further
details.
9:38:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that [making citizens
pay for a complaint that is later found untrue] means that the
legislature would be requiring them to know the outcome of the
case before they even file a complaint, and that would be
"chilling." He said he thinks HB 14 is a good bill.
9:40:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN moved to report HB 14 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 14 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 05 DOL memo-constitutionality of HB 3.pdf |
HSTA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| 06 HB 3 - 26 States with Length of Authorized Stay Requirement.pdf |
HSTA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| 07 Lynn Amendment E.3 to HB 3.pdf |
HSTA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| 01 HJR 13 Version A.pdf |
HSTA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02 HJR 13 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |