Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/20/2018 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SCR1 | |
| HB87 | |
| HB44 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
4:41:13 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order and announced the
consideration of House Bill 44 (HB 44).
4:41:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, provided the following sponsor statement for HB 44:
I believe that we all here understand the importance
of a citizen legislature. We recognize the importance
of having representatives and senators from all walks
of life for the betterment of our state; because of
that fact, the standards of ethical conduct for state
public officials needs to distinguish between those
minor conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society
and those conflicts which are substantial and
material.
The intent of HB 44 is to increase transparency within
the Legislature and allow the public to see with the
utmost certainty that conflicts of interest in our
capitol building are taken seriously. The intent of
this bill is not to stop a legislator from voting on
an issue as we all are elected officials sent here to
represent our constituents. The language in this bill
does not directly stop a legislator from voting or
ever outright disqualify them, the bill just simply
lays out a standard form for which a legislator can
decide for themselves if they have a substantial
conflict.
HB 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 or opposing a particular piece
of legislation would have to be greater than the
benefit of the general public of Alaska that would
receive due to legislation in order to require
abstention. The bill recognized 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.
Twenty-nine other states have language such as what we
are proposing that references the potential conflict
of interest from an employer.
HB 44 creates transparency by creating a clear and
concise standard for legislators to use to determine
if they have a conflict of interest. I believe that
building trust between the Legislature and public
should be one of our primary concerns and HB 44 is an
example of the Legislature building that trust for
increased transparency.
4:45:00 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced page 2, line 15, of the bill:
Immediately preceding 12-month period receive more
than $10,000 of income.
She asked if the sentence refers to actual dollars or if it
would also include in-kind remuneration.
4:45:31 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, referenced the definition in AS
24.60.990 that the income is aggregate, it is not in-kind but
real dollars.
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that the income could be from stocks or
some kind of "other" income as well.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that AS 24.60.030, section 2, line 22
addresses Senator Giessel's question regarding interest in a
business, investment, real property, lease or other enterprises.
He added that legislative voting on the Permanent Fund dividend
(PFD) would affect all Alaskans the same way and is not a
conflict.
4:47:22 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked what problem HB 44 is trying to fix.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN replied that the bill addresses trust from
the general public's standpoint by declaring conflicts in more
public arenas. He noted that 29 other states have legislation
that affects an employer. He summarized that HB 44 raises the
conflict definition to a better standard.
4:49:56 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL commented as follows:
This is really a foundational question. Periodically
each one of us stands before our constituents. We live
in what is a form of democracy. The word "democracy"
comes from a couple of Greek words that mean, "Rule by
the voting district," that's what the word "democracy"
means and we stand for our voting district
periodically, different periods of time based on the
body that we serve in, and those districts know us or
the voters certainly do, the people that turn out to
vote. So, I can think of particular people that this
bill might target so to speak, and those particular
legislators are well known by their voting district
who rule by selecting that person to represent them
because that person has that knowledge that they want
of their views carried forward to the Legislature. So,
I just put that out there, I think this is a very
restrictive criterion for a state like ours which has
a very small population, we represent relatively small
areas, it's one thing if we were in New Jersey and we
had 300,000 people in a Senate district, that's not
the case here. We are well known to our voters who
rule in our district. So, I just put that out there as
a philosophical question; again, I don't see that
there is a "why" for this.
4:51:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN explained his intent as follows:
My belief as a newly elected official, finding ways
that we can add trust and transparency to what we do
in Juneau is important to me. You mentioned how we
rule in Alaska in a small-population state and a small
state with a low number of representatives and
senators. Other citizen legislatures around the
country, New Mexico for example, has a citizen
legislature that they receive zero pay for their work
as elected officials and they have a standard for
conflict of interest much higher than ours in terms of
when they rise to conflict, when they rise to abstain
from voting. So obviously different states handle it
in different ways of what they see fit and do with
their citizenry and how they represent.
Again for us, my belief was just elected officials I
think always can improve in terms of our interaction
with the public in how they know us and setting a
higher standard is something I strive to do and I
think that this bill helps achieve that; it also, in
our language regarding family and employers, the
immediate family is a definition by statute so if your
spouse owned a marijuana business your voters might
not know that, but if this was enacted and a conflict
arose and a huge tax increase on that industry was
happening, you can declare a conflict and have your
conscious free that your voters know that you are
enacting on their behalf and not anyone who is
directly impacted by your actions.
I greatly take to heart your perspective and I agree
with very much of it and I think it is something that
we always need to be talking about.
4:53:59 PM
CHAIR MEYER agreed with Representative Grenn's comments;
however, he referenced legislatures in the 1970s where the body
voted on declared conflicts where the process ended up being
political. He opined that the current process for conflicts has
been found to be the best and fairest. He agreed with Senator
Giessel that making conflicts so restrictive will result in no
one running for office. He pointed out that all legislators do
financial disclosures in a careful manner. He asked how the
$10,000 threshold for a financial conflict was arrived at.
MR. JOHNSTON replied that the $10,000 threshold was derived from
AS 24.60.990 and the intent was to stay consistent with Alaska's
existing statute.
4:56:41 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed a legislative brief written on June
23, 2015 by Jerry Anderson, administrator for the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. She pointed out that Mr.
Anderson related a close economic association with AS 24.60.070
where the committee determined that $250 or more qualifies as
"substantial." She continued as follows:
Here we have $250 and then someplace else we have
$10,000. It seems like there is a lot of bars being
set and which one do we follow? Perhaps Senator
Coghill has comments on this because I know he serves
on Legislative Ethics.
CHAIR MEYER pointed out that the next committee of referral is
the Senate Judiciary Committee, a committee that Senator Coghill
chairs and can address at that time.
SENATOR WILSON asked if Mr. Anderson was available to address
the committee.
4:58:15 PM
JERRY ANDERSON, Committee Administrator, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
addressed the question regarding the $250 threshold for close
economic association.
That is not a statutory $250 amount that was part of
legislation, but rather the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics interpreting and administering the
act where the $250 was determined by the committee and
that in particular was with regard to a shared-calling
plan where it was determined that the benefit was more
than $250 for each of the people that were legislators
and legislative employees who shared a calling-plan;
that has since been clarified where previously it was
not clarified what a substantial interest was by
statute.
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced the same legislative brief on page 2
regarding a list of states with numerical or proportional
thresholds and noted that Alaska's current statute states the
following:
Has or seeks contracts in excess of $10,000 annually
for goods and services with the Legislature or with an
agency of the state.
She asked if the intent is to change the statute to $10,000
worth of income.
5:00:06 PM
MR. JOHNSTON explained as follows:
AS 24.60.990 is the definition for AS 24.60.030, but
if you look at AS 24.60.030, which is the section that
the bill references, there's actually no monetary
value placed in that section for a legislator to
determine a conflict of interest, so that's why we
found that amount and we are trying to create that
more concise list for legislators to look at to see if
they did have a conflict of interest and the $10,000
amount fit with not trying to penalize like
contractors, anyone that does that kind of contract
work with individual clients; if they make $4,000 or
$5,000 per contract building a home or doing a
remodel, we did not want to penalize them for needing
to do a conflict of interest or maybe ethics opinion
for all of their clients if they were working for many
different individuals, we just didn't want to penalize
them in that way. So, the $10,000 threshold fit with
that kind of idea as well.
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that she was not sure Mr. Johnston
clarified her question and commented as follows:
I see completely two different things. What we have in
AS 24.60.990(b) talks about seeking contracts, so if
you are a legislator and you are serving in the
Legislature and you know that one of the agencies is
going out for a contract to let's say lay carpeting in
one of their buildings and the contract would be for
$10,000 or more annually, that would represent a
threshold for a conflict of interest; but, what is
happening in this bill is you are actually broadening
that out significantly to be $10,000 worth of income
that is of any kind in a year. So, that's kind of what
I am seeing as the contrast here and that is what I
was trying to get down to.
5:02:34 PM
CHAIR MEYER held HB 44 in committee and noted that public
testimony remains open for the bill.