Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/24/2020 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB124 | |
| HB201 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 201-DEFENSE OF PUB. OFFICER: ETHICS COMPLAINT
1:31:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 201, "An Act relating to legal representation of
public officers in ethics complaints."
1:32:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX as prime sponsor of HB 201, stated that a
committee substitute (CS) was available that would help to cut
down on some "excess verbiage" that was present in HB 201. She
explained that the proposed CS would make it clear that the
attorney general may not represent the governor, lieutenant
governor, or any other public official in an ethics violation
complaint. She expressed that this would leave the regulations
formed 10 years ago in place, and the status quo would continue
as it has for the past 10 years.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the proposed legislation would apply
to the attorney general.
1:33:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she thinks the language
"another public officer or former public officer" would include
the attorney general. She remarked that Dan Wayne from the
Legislative Legal Services could speak more to that topic.
1:34:24 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State
Legislature, remarked that Representative LeDoux was correct;
the attorney general was encompassed by the term "public
officer."
1:34:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there were no further
questions, asked for a motion to adopt the CS as the working
document before the committee.
1:34:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 201, Version 31-LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20,
as a work draft.
1:35:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he would like to know whether
the changes to the proposed legislation meant that the committee
would be moving away from conversations pertaining to
reimbursements, and whether these changes should affect the
legislative branch in addition to the executive branch. He
expressed that he found those conversations to be rather
interesting and fruitful in the past two hearings.
1:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that that is the direction the
proposed legislation was going to take. She said she wanted to
make the proposed legislation "nice and simple, and this CS
accomplishes that."
1:36:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained the objection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reiterated the point that he thinks those
conversations were both interesting and fruitful, and he hopes
that a way to continue them can be found. He stated that he
could not see a better vehicle for discussing those points than
HB 201.
1:36:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Drummond,
Stutes, LeDoux, and Claman voted in favor of the motion to adopt
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 201, Version 31-
LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20, as a work draft. Representative
Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Version S was adopted as a
work draft by a vote of 5-1.
1:37:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that there might be a potential
conflict between existing legislation under Title 23, which he
said spells out that the attorney general is the legal advisor
of the governor, and the legislation proposed under CSHB 201,
which would make it so the attorney general cannot advise the
governor on certain things.
1:37:59 PM
MR. WAYNE responded that the constitutional requirement is to
represent the office of the governor in an official capacity,
not in a personal capacity as in the defense of an ethics
complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that he was trying to find a way
that the proposed legislation could be misused, and he asked
whether it would be possible for someone to file a complaint
against the governor whenever he/she wanted to deprive the
governor of advisement from the attorney general or whether
there would be firewalls in place to prevent this.
MR. WAYNE replied that the proposed legislation only deals with
complaints filed under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act,
and any other situation involving litigation, disagreements
about the law, or the limits of the governor's authority would
not be covered under CSHB 201.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled a situation from the previous
year, in which the governor was sending out social media
regarding the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), and he asked
whether a complaint filed against the governor for something
related to that would "trigger" the Executive Branch Ethics Act
and prohibit the attorney general from offering legal advice to
the governor.
MR. WAYNE replied that he could think of two ways that the term
"trigger" might be relevant to the [Executive] Branch Ethics
Act: First, when an officer is elected to public office the Act
is triggered and the elected official is responsible for
following it. Second, misuse of government resources by a
public official, for political or personal purposes, might
constitute a violation of the Act and someone could file a
complaint. He remarked that if no complaint was filed, as in
the hypothetical situation Representative Eastman had
referenced, then the legislation proposed under CSHB 201 would
probably not be applicable because it only applies to complaints
filed under the Executive Branch Ethics Act. He pointed out
that page 1, lines 7-8, of Version S state that specifically.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how difficult, time consuming, and
costly it is for someone to file a complaint against the
governor. He remarked that he could see how a situation may
arise in which the governor has not acted improperly but someone
might not want the governor to be able to work with the attorney
general on a certain policy issue and might file a complaint to
prevent them from working together.
MR. WAYNE answered that his recollection of the complaint
provisions of the Executive Branch Ethics Act is that there is
no cost to file a complaint, and it may be relatively easy for a
complaint to be filed; however, it is difficult for a complaint
to pass through the various stages required to make it to a high
level decision. He remarked that he has never filed a complaint
and does not have first-hand experience with the process.
1:42:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it would be difficult for
someone to file a complaint on a whim, and later - if it is
admitted that the complaint was politically motivated and made
to separate the governor and attorney general - whether there
would be any penalty for that.
1:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that her thought on the topic is
that the attorney general could not advise the governor as far
as the ethics complaint goes, but he/she could advise the
governor for anything else that does not pertain to that
particular ethics complaint.
1:44:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he agreed with Representative
LeDoux's analysis. He said, as an example, that someone who is
opposed to proposed legislation regarding electronic
notarization could lobby against the proposed legislation by
sending letters to the governor asking for him/her to not sign
the bill, but could also file an ethics complaint against the
governor saying that he/she took money from title companies in
the last election and is conflicted on this topic. He said that
he thinks the attorney general could still give advice to the
governor on signing the bill but could not provide advice
regarding the ethics complaint.
1:45:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was any penalty for
filing fraudulent ethics complaints against a public official.
He wondered whether there was something that could be done to
rework the language in line 6 and line 7 of the proposed
legislation under Version S to prevent it from being
misinterpreted.
1:46:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she did not see how changing
the language would be misinterpreted or needed to be made
clearer.
1:46:47 PM
MR. WAYNE commented that any statute or legal provision is
subject to the interpretation of the individual reading it and,
in this instance, it seems to him that the most likely
interpretation of the proposed legislation is that it is limited
to complaints which are filed.
1:47:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there were no further
questions, discussed the committee's options for Version S.
1:49:13 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:51 p.m.
1:51:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that during the at-ease it was suggested
that, since this was the third hearing on HB 201 in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, the bill could be moved from
committee. He asked whether there was any objection to moving
Version S out of committee.
1:51:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he would object to the motion.
He expressed that he thinks more discussion on the proposed
legislation would be fruitful.
1:52:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 201, Version 31-
LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
1:52:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to the motion.
1:52:42 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Shaw,
Drummond, Stutes, and Claman voted in favor of moving CSHB 201,
Version 31-LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB
201(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee by a vote of 5-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 124 v. S 2.17.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 v. A 4.12.2019.PDF |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sponsor Statement v. S 2.20.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sponsor Statement v. A 4.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sectional Analysis v. S 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Explanation of Changes v. A to v. S 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - Letters Receieved by 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Fiscal Note DNR-RO 2.14.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 201 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. S 2.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 v. U 2.10.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Sponsor Statement 2.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Summary of Changes v. U to v. S 2.24.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.8.20.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |