Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/18/2017 11:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB20 | |
| HCR5 | |
| HB44 | |
| HB13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
11:23:58 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44, "An Act
requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or withholding
official action or exerting official influence that could
benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain employers;
requiring a legislator to request to be excused from voting in
an instance where the legislator may have a financial conflict
of interest; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was CSSSHB 44(JUD).]
11:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, presented
SSHB 44, as prime sponsor. He stated that the intent of SSHB 44
is to increase transparency within the legislature and allow the
public to see with utmost certainty that conflicts of interest
are taken seriously in Alaska. He asserted that the intent of
SSHB 44 is not to prevent a legislator from voting on an issue,
as legislators are elected to represent their constituents. He
attested that SSHB 44 would neither directly stop a legislator
from voting nor outright disqualify him/her from voting. He
said that SSHB 44 lays out a standard procedure for a legislator
to decide for himself/herself if he/she has a substantial
conflict of interest. He opined that there is always room for
improvement, and legislators can exemplify a higher standard.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN paraphrased from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
SSHB 44 contains provisions to ensure conflicts are
"substantial" before a legislator would be required to
abstain from voting. Any benefit a legislator or a
member of the legislator's immediate family might
receive from supporting a particular piece of
legislation would have to be greater than the benefit
a large group of Alaskans would receive in order to
require abstention. The bill and resolution recognize
the responsibility of legislators to vote, except in
clear cases where the outcome of the vote would result
in substantial personal financial gain. This includes
cases where an immediate family member or a
legislator's employer would receive a large and direct
financial benefit.
11:26:2 8 AM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor of
SSHB 44, paraphrased from the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Defines the conflict of interest standards
under which a Legislator may vote on a particular
issue. Conflict is defined as substantial benefit or
harm to the financial interest of the legislator's
immediate family member, the legislator's employer, an
immediate family member's employer, a person with whom
the legislator is negotiating employment, or from whom
the legislator or immediate family member has received
more than $10,000 in income within the last 12 months.
Exceptions to this include those outlined in Section
2, or while participating in public discussion or
debate.
Section 2: A legislator may not vote on a question in
a committee and must request to abstain from voting on
the floor if the legislator or an immediate family
member has a substantial financial interest. A
legislator may vote on an appropriations bill that
meets the requirements of AS 37.07.020(a) or 37.07.100
(Executive Budget Act).
Section 3: Defines "substantially benefit or harm" as
the effect on the person's financial interest being
greater than the effect on the financial interest of a
substantial class of persons to which the person
belongs as a member of a profession, occupation,
industry, or region.
Section 4: Defines "financial interest" as ownership
of an interest or involvement in a business, property
ownership, or relationship that is a source of income
or financial benefit.
Section 5: Provides that this Act only takes effect
upon passage of a resolution amending Uniform Rule
34(b).
Section 6: Provides for an effective date later than
that of the resolution to Uniform Rule 34(b) referred
to in Section 5.
MR. JOHNSTON pointed out the change made by the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, shown on page 2, line [20, of CSSSHB
40(JUD)]: a legislator is required simply to declare a conflict
in committee before voting on a bill, rather than not being able
to vote in committee.
11:29:03 AM
MR. JOHNSTON cited an example of what would be considered a
substantial conflict of interest for a legislator. He described
a situation in which a legislator, voting on major roads in the
Interior, is himself part of the substantial class of persons
who lives in the Interior. He said that if that legislator
votes on proposed legislation that affects a road that accesses
only a parcel of land of which he/she is the sole owner, then
the legislator has a substantial interest in the proposed
legislation. He attested that the legislator's interest is
different from or greater than that of anyone else living in the
Interior, who also could benefit from a road to his/her house.
He said that in this example, under the amendment to AS
24.60.030, subsection (g), proposed under SSHB 44, the
legislator would be required to request an abstention. He noted
that the example he cited is on page 6 of advisory opinion 2004-
02 in the research brief from Legislative Research Services,
titled LRS Report 15.422, included in the committee packet.
11:30:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for the sponsor's perspective on a
voter's role in evaluating the qualifications, merits, and
"business" of the respective candidates and House members. He
noted that candidates for House run for office every two years
and candidates for Senate every four years. He expressed his
concern that SSHB 44 would be "setting aside the voters." He
asserted that through the election process, every candidate's
opponents aptly and capably elucidate the affiliations and
financial interests of that candidate.
11:32:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN asked if Representative Birch was asking
how voters weigh in during a campaign process.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded yes. He explained that voters
understand a candidate's employment, such as a union business
agent, a doctor, an engineer, a retail person, or a worker for a
large multinational corporation. He pointed out that all
candidates complete a public official financial disclosure
(POFD) statement exposing their financial interests to the
public. He asserted that there is an election process every two
years, and if the public is validly and reasonably concerned,
the issues are revealed through that process and by virtue of
having an opponent. He expressed his concern that SSHB 44
disenfranchises the 17,000 people that each House member
represents in his/her district.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN maintained that SSHB 44 focuses on
unanticipated legislation. He referred to the example given by
Mr. Johnston about a candidate owning property. He said that
owning that property would not have been made known to the
voters, nor would it be something that a candidate's opponent
would have talked about. He offered that no one would "bring
that to light" during a campaign. He gave an example of the
state constructing a road through that property making the
candidate a millionaire. He said, "Is that something that might
be reflected in a future campaign? Perhaps. Is it something
you should declare as a conflict of interest? Perhaps."
11:33:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN stated that SSHB 44 would give guidelines
on what a substantial financial interest means regarding voting
on proposed legislation and would allow a different process for
those occasions. He opined SSHB 44 would create more
transparency and a way for voters to be made aware of financial
conflicts. He said he is not suggesting that there was anything
hidden from the public before this legislation was introduced,
but that the public be informed of any potential conflicts of
interest as the legislature processes new legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined that if a legislator were on the
receiving end of a $1 million benefit because of legislation,
then he is cautiously optimistic that the media and the public
would scrutinize it. He said one of the most substantial issues
for the state currently is the $3 billion budget deficit. He
offered that each legislator has a substantial interest in
resolving that problem, and it will affect each person
differently. He stated that a legislator's duty and obligation
is to his/her individual voters and expressed his concern that a
law will be passed that is "a little muddled around the edges"
with varying ideas for what is "substantial." He opined that a
legislator's constituency would be abandoned through challenges
to a legislator's eligibility to vote on issues because of real
or perceived conflicts. He offered that members do have an
opportunity to announce a conflict on the floor [of the House or
Senate]. He said he had a concern about disenfranchising the
voters that legislators are elected to represent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN maintained that SSHB 44 would allow the
opportunity for a legislator who declares a conflict to speak to
that conflict before the legislative body, as opposed to "what
happens now with just a lone objection that is not on the
record." He stated that SSHB 44 would allow the legislative
body to "hear out" the conflict and vote on whether the
legislator who has declared a conflict should abstain from
voting. He said that in some states, a legislator with a
conflict is not allowed to vote. He asserted that SSHB 44
allows for a public process and for the legislative body to vote
on the potential conflicts.
11:36:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there had been a situation that
prompted introduction of SSHB 44.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded not at all. He stated that
before he ran for office he was asked to resign from his job
because of a potential conflict of interest. He said that he
did so because he didn't want his campaign to have any sort of
conflict of interest attached to it. He mentioned that 49 other
states handle conflicts of interest differently and allow their
legislators to be seen as transparently as possible. He
asserted that the legislature can always build more trust with
the voters. He said he believes SSHB 44 would help to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that it was unfortunate that
Representative Grenn resigned from his job, since Alaska has a
citizen legislature. He added that hopefully every legislator
has "another life" outside of the purported three months spent
in legislative session.
11:37:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his concern that the legislators
would "muddy everything up in chambers and everybody is going to
stand up and declare a conflict erring on the side of caution."
He offered the following hypothetical scenario: a proposed
legislation to fund a number of Interior roads is before the
legislature in the capital budget, and the voting member of the
legislature is a construction contractor. He said that although
the project is going out for bid in a public process, and the
floor sessions are public, the contractor, who may or may not
bid on the project, has a conflict of interest. He asked, "Is
that the road we're going to go down ... every single time we
have something coming up here."
MR. JOHNSTON responded that every legislator is required to vote
on the final budget under AS 37.07.020(a). He said that in
Representative Knopp's hypothetical situation, the legislator
could declare his/her conflict of interest again, but the chair
would rule him/her out of order, and the conflict of interest
would not go to a legislative body vote. He added that this
situation was unlike the earlier example, which did not involve
a budgetary vote.
11:39:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked what in the current process avoids
declaring conflicts of interest, and what triggered the
introduction of SSHB 44.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN said he does not have any personal anecdote
to relay, and that the proposed legislation was drafted without
input from anyone within or without the legislature. He
asserted that his staff worked on SSHB 44 independently. He
added that they solely focused on creating transparency so that
the public can trust what the legislators are doing, when there
is a perceived conflict of interest. He added that there is
nothing that happened recently in the legislature prompting him
to introduce the proposed legislation. He said, however, as he
went door to door, his constituents mentioned that they felt
legislators were doing their voters a disservice by not being
more open and transparent. He said some referred to the lack of
transparency as "tarmac disease" - when legislators hit the
tarmac, the constituents "didn't know everything that was
happening." He contended that people were looking for ways to
know exactly "what was happening in Juneau." He said he has
responded that there are cameras everywhere, social media, and
documentation. He attested that the legislature does a very
good job of trying to share everything done in the legislature.
He maintained that anything that can be done to put more on the
public record should be done. He opined that SSHB 44 does that.
11:42:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that currently "this building is
a remarkably partisan building" and offered his belief that if
the public were aware of how partisan it is, they would be
shocked. He mentioned that in the State of Hawaii, there are 25
senators. He said that currently all 25 senators are members of
the Democratic Party. He went on to say that two years ago, 24
of the senators were Democrats and one was a Republican. He
offered the following hypothetical scenario: The one Republican
senator in Hawaii is a pineapple grower with a pineapple farm on
the north shore of the island of Oahu. A Democrat has a
"pineapple bill" and wants a unanimous vote. He is concerned
that the Republican has a conflict of interest and would vote
against his pineapple bill. Representative Josephson suggested
that when the conflict of interest was declared by the
Republican, the 24 Democrats would gang up against the
Republican and find that the declared conflict was substantial;
therefore, the Republican must be recused from voting. He
expressed his concern that a member of the minority would not
get the same objective hearing on a conflict of interest debate
[as a member of the majority]. He asked, "How do you resolve
that?"
MR. JOHNSTON replied that there are many steps leading up to a
legislator needing to recuse himself/herself during a floor
session. He added that SSHB 44 leaves it up to the legislator
to "stand on the floor" and make his/her own declaration of a
conflict and request to abstain. No one can stand on the floor
[of the House or Senate] and "call someone out." He said that
in that scenario, the single minority member could request an
advisory opinion from the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
prior to his/her declaration in the floor session. He offered
that if the committee issued an advisory opinion that the
legislator does not have a conflict, then the legislator can
avoid declaring a conflict during the floor session and would
have that opinion as backup if the majority members filed an
ethics complaint. He concluded that there would be checks and
balances and no super-majority control.
11:46:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON posed a scenario as follows: There is a
district with all pineapple farmers. The people of the district
have elected a pineapple farmer because that person is
representative of the district. She asked if every time a
pineapple bill comes before the legislature, the legislator
would have to declare a conflict and would not be able to vote
on the bill. She said that the people of the district, in
essence, have lost their representation on the issue that most
concerns them.
MR. JOHNSTON said that under SSHB 44, simply being a pineapple
farmer facing a pineapple bill does not constitute a conflict of
interest. He asserted that it is "what's in the bill" that
counts. He offered that if there is a tax on all pineapple
farmers that is the same across the board, then the legislator
would have the right to vote on that bill, because the bill is
affecting the entire class of persons, industry, or region the
same. He said if that pineapple bill only gives a tax incentive
for pineapple farms over 1,000 acres, and that legislator owns
the only pineapple farm over 1,000 acres, then that would
constitute a substantial conflict, which should be declared. He
said that simply being a part of an industry does not constitute
an outright conflict of interest. There must be something in
the proposed legislation that sets that legislator apart from
the rest of the class to constitute a conflict of interest, such
as only he/she would benefit or be harmed by the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed two concerns: in an attempt to
err on the side of caution, most legislators will over-declare;
and in an effort to avoid voting on controversial legislation,
legislators will want to be "conflicted out."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that declaring a conflict of interest
allows a legislator to avoid voting on proposed legislation from
which he/she may personally benefit. He offered that currently
it only takes an objection from one member to override that
declaration in the legislature. Consequently, the legislator is
required to vote on the proposed legislation. He opined that it
is appropriate that the full legislative body decide if a
legislator should vote, rather than just one person. He
asserted that SSHB 44 offers protection for all members of the
legislature, since there are times when a vote may hurt one's
political career and times when a vote may hurt one's private
career. He suggested the following scenario: A legislator is
part owner of a nail salon. A proposed legislation benefits
that nail salon, because it is the only salon that can handle
the training [mentioned in the proposed legislation]. The
legislator may be voting on behalf of the industry, but there is
only one nail salon that can provide the services.
Representative Tuck asked whether that legislator should be able
to vote on that proposed legislation. He opined that SSHB 44 is
an innocent bill, which would allow the full [legislative] body
to decide if a legislator should vote on proposed legislation,
rather than allow one person to decide.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that SSHB 44 would be held over.