Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/28/2017 03:00 PM 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 | |
| HB1 | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB44 | |
| HCR1 | |
| HB175 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
[Contains discussion of HCR 1.]
3:37:17 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44(JUD)
"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."
3:38:06 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor,
stated that initially CSSSHB 44(JUD) contained language making
the proposed legislation contingent on the passage of HCR 1. He
asserted that the proposed amendment eliminates that language
because of the opinion of Legislative Legal and Research
Services that CSSSHB 44(JUD) can now "stand on its own" and the
contingency language is not needed.
3:39:14 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:39 p.m.
3:39:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1 [labeled 30-
LS0208\U.9, Wayne, 3/24/17], which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "employers;":
Insert "and"
Page 1, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 3, lines 16 - 26:
Delete all material.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX complimented Mr. Johnston on his
explanation of Amendment 1.
3:40:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. He stated that
there being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:41:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSSSHB 44(JUD), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSSSHB 44(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HCR 1-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
[Contains discussion of CSSSHB 44(JUD).]
3:42:26 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing an
amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature
relating to voting and abstention from voting.
3:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, expressed
his appreciation for the input from committee members in
achieving the intended objectives of the proposed legislation.
He stated that he is available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if legislators will be instructed on
what constitutes a conflict of interest. He suggested that an
objection on the House floor would not allow the opportunity for
discussion, and an immediate decision would be required of
legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that any legislation requires
awareness of the changes it effects. He said that since the
proposed legislation would change a practice that has been in
the Uniform Rules for decades, information would be disseminated
to the legislators clearly explaining the changes. He asserted
that any new process would require this, and Legislative Legal
and Research Services has a capable and willing staff to provide
that guidance. He stated that it is his responsibility as the
sponsor of HCR 1 to provide information to legislators
explaining the proposed procedural changes and answer questions.
3:47:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that no legislator would be
surprised by an objection, which would occur after he/she
recused himself/herself from the vote. She asserted that if
legislators reviewed the floor calendar in advance, they would
know to discuss any possible conflicts of interest with the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics before a vote.
3:47:44 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor,
stated that Jerry Anderson [Administrator, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] is preemptively preparing for changes that
would occur because of CSSSHB 44(JUD). He added that Mr.
Anderson is making plans to use Interim as an educational period
for legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that in his orientation on ethics
training, the current procedure for declaring conflicts of
interest was never addressed. He said he sees legislators
declaring conflicts, but he does not know the criterion or the
rules regarding the declarations, the objections, or the
subsequent voting.
3:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that he did not support HCR 1 or
CSSSHB 44(JUD). He mentioned that during a recent House floor
discussion of union dues, one-third of the body declared
objections. He asserted that the legislature would get "locked
down in intractable and extensive debate on each and every
concern" about the amount of money earned, its significance to a
family's income, and the extent to which it affects a decision
to vote a certain way. He opined that this would open a
"Pandora's box." He agreed that a conflict of interest in an
employment situation could create a problem, but legislators are
extensively vetted by the public during their campaigns. He
cited the declarations of conflicts on the House floor regarding
the [state] income tax discussion. He mentioned that during
yesterday's House floor discussion regarding the Board of
Fisheries, it was decided that it is acceptable for a Board of
Fisheries member to deliberate on an issue in which he/she has a
direct financial benefit from someone with whom the board is
deliberating. He reiterated that the proposed legislation and
resolution would create problems, and the public is aware of the
conflicts that legislators have.
3:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that the State of Alaska requires
municipality assembly members to recuse themselves from voting
[on issues in which they have a conflict of interest]. She
maintained that assembly members are subject to very substantial
campaigns, just like legislators. She mentioned that assembly
candidates file Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
financial disclosures citing every client with whom they have
done business. She stated, "I just have a hard time
understanding how we can impose these requirements on
municipalities and say that somehow we're just different because
we're the legislature." She mentioned that yesterday's debate
[on the House floor] was about allowing Board of Fisheries
members to participate in the discussion at hand, and not even
about being allowed to vote on an issue. She stated that she
fully supports CSSSHB 44(JUD) and HCR 1.
3:54:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that at the local level if there is
a potential conflict of interest, the assembly president, with
the advice of the staff attorney, makes the determination of
allowing a vote; if other members of the assembly disagree with
that ruling, they can make a motion to override it. He asked
for clarification of the process under the proposed legislation
and resolution: a legislator declares a conflict, and the House
votes on the necessity of an abstention from voting by that
legislator. He asked if that process would occur every time
someone declared a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that each legislator is required
to vote on the budget regardless of a conflict of interest.
Therefore, the declaration of financial conflicts suggested by
Representative Birch would be ruled out of order and not be
subject to the procedures under CSSSHB 44(JUD) and HCR 1. He
agreed with Representative Wool that legislators don't
understand the current rules concerning declarations of
conflicts of interest; therefore, conflicts are declared
unnecessarily. He said that CSSSHB 44(JUD) offers clearer
guidelines as to actual conflicts of interest. He added that
when a person does declare a conflict meeting the guidelines,
under the proposed legislation and resolution, the declaration
would not be debatable, and a vote would be taken to allow or
disallow the abstention.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if the Speaker of the House would be
the person to rule a declaration out of order.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN stated his belief that the chair of the
House Rules Standing Committee would make that ruling.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested that in that case, the ruling on
a declaration of a conflict of interest would be made by that
person. He offered that other members of the body may object to
that ruling. He stated that the process introduced by the
proposed legislation and concurrent resolution is unclear to
him.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that a [declared] conflict that
does not meet the conflict guidelines can be ruled out of order.
He clarified that it is not a majority, but a two-thirds vote
[to allow or disallow the abstention].
3:59:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if there would be potential for the
majority to "hold the minority hostage" by eliminating a
legislator from voting. He offered that a majority vote allows
for this possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN maintained that one cannot take politics
out of the proposed legislation and resolution, and the
possibility offered by Representative Knopp does exist. He
stated that the intent behind HCR 1 and CSSSHB 44(JUD) is for
the 40 elected leaders to "do what's right" and to vote on the
merit of a conflict of interest. He suggested that if a
legislator does allow partisanship to affect his/her vote [on
abstention], that vote would be public record and he/she could
be exposed as "playing politics." He maintained that the
proposed legislation and concurrent resolution would add
transparency for the public.
4:01:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that a two-thirds threshold, as
required under HCR 1, would equally empower both the majority
and the minority.
4:02:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that he likes that [CSSS 44(JUD)]
excludes the operating budget from the conflict of interest
rules. He offered that requiring all legislators to vote on the
operating budget makes the process "cleaner and smoother." He
noted the committee had amended page 2, line 6, of HCR 1, [on
3/2/17], to state that a person cannot abstain from voting
unless there is [consent of] more than two-thirds vote. He
emphasized that under the proposed resolution, the higher
threshold of two-thirds vote is not what is required to force a
legislator to vote but what is required to prevent a legislator
from voting. He referred to CSSSHB 44(JUD), page 3, lines 7-10,
which defines "substantial benefit or harm" as "financial
interest of a substantial class of persons to which the person
belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or
region." He used himself as an example for explanation: as an
electrician, he would not have to be concerned about the class
of electricians benefiting from proposed legislation, but about
himself benefiting above all other electricians. He maintained
that the proposed legislation sets the threshold for conflicts
of interest much higher than it is currently; therefore, there
would be fewer declared conflicts. He stated that changing the
threshold of what is required to force a legislator to abstain
from voting from fifty percent to two-thirds percent also "sets
the bar higher." He added that, in addition, there would be no
deliberation; a conflict would be declared and there would be an
immediate vote.
4:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he shares Representative Birch's
concerns; he "doesn't want to go down a rabbit hole of
objections and votes." He confirmed that the proposed
legislation would not apply to the operating budget or its
amendments. He offered that many potential financial conflicts
would not meet the $10,000 threshold and determining conflicts
may be complicated. He asserted that not all legislators are
familiar with every bill that comes up for a vote on the House
floor. He asked about a situation in which a legislator does
not declare a conflict, but another legislator believes that
legislator should. He asked, "Is that to be dealt with later in
an ethics issue, and that could take months ... and by that time
the vote's already counted?" He referred to Representative
Tuck's example of a legislator who is a member of a profession
declaring a conflict [if the financial benefit or harm for that
legislator is greater than that of a substantial class of
persons of that profession]. He reminded the committee that an
amendment was adopted to change the language [in Section 3,
subsection (j), paragraph (2), of CSSSHB 44(JUD)] that
Representative Tuck cited. He stated that education would be
needed and offered his hope is that legislators would know when
it is appropriate to declare a conflict. He conceded that there
will be some "growing pains," and he offered that other state
legislatures have similar rules.
4:09:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that if a group of legislators
had the two-thirds vote needed to disallow a vote, they would
have enough votes to pass or vote down a bill and would not need
to use forcing an abstention as a political tactic.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN, in response to Representative Wool, stated
that if one legislator felt that another legislator neglected to
declare a conflict of interest, then the first legislator could
file a complaint with the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics; the process for dealing with this situation would be the
same as it is currently.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN, in response to Representatives Birch and
LeDoux, conceded that APOC filings and the campaign process
afford the public a great deal of information about a candidate.
He asserted that the proposed legislation would maintain that
transparency for future legislation on topics that had not been
considered by the public previously. He encouraged committee
members to contact his office for any other questions or
concerns.
4:12:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report HCR 1, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCR 1(STA) was
reported out of committee.