Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/16/2010 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB348 | |
| SB194 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 348 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 348-PERSONNEL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
8:09:58 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 348, "An Act relating to the membership of the state
personnel board."
8:10:15 AM
MICHAEL SICA, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 348 on behalf of Representative Lynn,
sponsor. He reminded the committee that HB 348 would change the
membership of the Alaska State Personnel Board from three to
five. The governor would make an appointment from a list of at
least three nominees selected by the chief justice of the Alaska
Supreme Court. Furthermore, the proposed legislation would
ensure that at least one member of the political party of the
candidate for governor who received the highest number of votes
and one member of the political party of the candidate for
governor who received the second-highest number of votes would
serve on the board. Mr. Sica explained that the reason for the
legislation is to create a board that operates with greater
independence.
MR. SICA said Sections 2 and 4 are conforming sections. He
described Section 3 as a "conflict" section, because it would
prohibit board members from certain activities that may lead to
or be perceived as a conflict of interest. Mr. Sica said
Section 5 relates to the duration of terms.
8:12:01 AM
CHAIR LYNN said there are two reasons for the proposed bill.
First, it would protect the governor from unfair criticism from
the public, by reassuring the public regarding the personnel
board appointments. Second, it would help the governor to know
that he/she is receiving unbiased decisions from the board.
8:14:19 AM
WILLIAM MILKS, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law,
stated that the bill as currently drafted would change the
process for appointment to the personnel board, wherein the
governor would make an appointment from a list of nominees
chosen by the chief justice, and the governor's choice would be
subject to confirmation by the legislature. He reminded the
committee that the Department of Law has taken the position that
these types of restrictions on the governor's appointment power
create constitutional issues. He explained that is because
Article 3, Section 26, of the Alaska State Constitution directly
addresses appointments to commissions or boards and provides
that the board member shall be appointed by the governor,
subject to confirmation of the legislature. He referred to a
case, Bradner v. Hammond, in which the court indicates that
Sections 25 and 26 are clear. He related that the executive's
point of power is limited only as set forth in Section 26, which
provides for confirmation.
8:16:27 AM
MR. MILKS said the department is aware that there are a number
of statutes that have been enacted that provide for the governor
to appoint from lists; however, he said the department has held
the position that appointments from lists raise constitutional
issues under Bradner and under the Constitution of the State of
Alaska.
CHAIR LYNN asked, "Has this been a problem in these other
appointments?"
MR. MILKS answered, "Well, I suppose any case can always be
brought in litigation, so, that's there, just like this bill
would be there; we do identify that issue." Mr. Milks said
other types of limitations exist, such as qualifications for
certain boards or commissions where there may be requirements
for members to hold certain advanced degrees in order to address
certain issues. He said that has not proved to be a significant
issue, whereas "strict appointments off lists" has.
8:18:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what the governor's rights are in
making appointments, under current law.
8:18:19 AM
MR. MILKS answered by citing Article 3, Section 26, of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
When a board or commission is at the head of a
principal department or a regulatory or quasi-judicial
agency, its members shall be appointed by the
governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the
members of the legislature in joint session, and may
be removed as provided by law. They shall be citizens
of the United States. The board or commission may
appoint a principal executive officer when authorized
by law, but the appointment shall be subject to the
approval of the governor.
MR. MILKS, in response to Representative Gatto, said the Bradner
case relates to Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska. He explained that the legislature passed a statute to
enable itself to provide for confirmation of deputy heads of
departments and 19 specific directors of divisions, and in the
Bradner case, the court decided that the effort to require
confirmation of these executive branch appointees violated the
separation of powers. Mr. Milks said there is also language in
the court's decision regarding Sections 25 and 26, which
"indicates that ... the powers have been separated here through
the constitution, and shows ... where the legislative [branch's]
power is and where the executive [branch's power is]."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned if it is against separation of
powers when [the governor's] appointments are subject to
confirmation by the legislature. He added, "That gives us
authority over the governor's ability to appoint."
MR. MILKS responded that the provisions and the Bradner case
exist, but he cannot predict how "this entire system plays
itself out" if a court reviews any particular statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a governor could repeatedly demand
three additional appointees, and continue to refuse them all.
8:22:00 AM
MR. MILKS responded said he thinks that the proposed legislation
does provide for the ability to ask for additional names.
CHAIR LYNN suggested this is somewhat parallel to when the
legislature had to fill the vacancy in the Senate and several
lists were submitted before the governor made an appointment.
8:22:38 AM
MIKE FORD, Assistant Attorney General & Legislative Liaison,
Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau),
Department of Law, concurred that there are some parallels to
that situation in the sense that there are some gray areas.
Statute offers certain guidelines, he said, "but there are some
gaps." He said the situation to which Chair Lynn referred
highlighted some of those gaps.
MR. FORD offered his understanding that the department is
pointing out that since the 1976 Alaska Supreme Court case,
there have been a lot of variations on a theme. He said the
legislature passed some provisions that may not comply with the
state constitution, but there has not been litigation to the
point that the department has any new information to present to
the legislature. He clarified:
So, all we're trying to do is say we think there's an
issue here. Obviously, if this became law and no one
challenged it, there is no issue, but if it does
become law and someone does challenge it, then the
court's going to have to look at this case and decide
if it's still valid law. If it is, then the bill you
have in front of you could create some problems.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that that could be said of almost any bill
passed by the legislature.
MR. FORD responded that some bills raise more issues than
others.
8:24:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked which would insulate the governor from incoming
complaints: the system in place now or the one proposed in HB
348.
8:24:42 AM
MR. FORD said he thinks the bill does provide at least a layer
of insulation; it would create a system where there is some
distance between the governor and the board.
8:25:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined, "If it's okay to do it with
appointing a Senator, surely [it] should be okay ... to do it
with appointing someone to the personnel board."
8:25:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN observed that the fact that the terms on
the personnel board are six years and staggered means that some
members will be left over from the previous governor; therefore,
the governor could not be accused of stacking the board.
CHAIR LYNN expressed his hope that by having a larger number of
board members, there would be a greater diversity of opinion
when it comes to making decisions.
8:26:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language in HB 348,
beginning on page 1, line 15, through page 2, line 3, which read
as follows:
A vacancy in an unexpired term shall be filled by
appointment by the governor for the remainder of the
term. The appointment is made from a list of nominees
and subject to confirmation in the same manner as a
full-term appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that language is written in a way
that would allow a person to serve on the board until the
legislature comes into session and confirms his/her appointment.
8:27:58 AM
MR. FORD noted that proposed language in the sentence preceding
line 15 read, "the member remains in office after expiration of
the term until a successor is confirmed". He said he does not
see that there would be a vacancy.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that there could be a situation
in which someone dies before his/her term expires. He said it
appears that the bill is anticipating those situations, and he
wants to ensure that a person will be able to fill that vacancy
and serve until his/her confirmation or rejection has been
decided. He stated that the last thing he wants to see is a
political fight over an appointment.
8:29:29 AM
MR. FORD stated his belief that serving before actual
confirmation is the usual practice. In response to Chair Lynn,
he confirmed that that applies to the attorney general, as well.
8:32:02 AM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System,
stated that although the Alaska Court System typically does not
support or oppose bills, it is not enthusiastic about HB 348.
The court occasionally is involved in forwarding names for
nominations. For example, the court forwards names to the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and appoints the fifth
member of the redistricting board. However, Mr. Wooliver said
the court is reluctant regarding the proposed legislation for a
couple reasons. First, there is an inherent political aspect to
the appointment process, and the court must pay attention to the
political affiliation of the names it submits. This is a
political environment, which the court generally tries to avoid.
The other area of concern, he related, is that unlike the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, which deals with ethics issues,
the personnel board keeps an eye on how personnel in the
executive branch is managed. He stated, "The court is reluctant
to take on a role that is even kind of minor and indirect in
determining how that management defers or how that management
staff is put in place."
8:34:04 AM
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to Chair Lynn, said the court's
reaction to the proposed legislation does not have to do with an
issue of workload.
8:34:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Mr. Wooliver if he can suggest who
better to bring forth these names.
MR. WOOLIVER answered no. He said he understands the rationale
behind proposing that the court make the list of nominees.
8:35:05 AM
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to Chair Lynn, said he is not sure how
the chief justice would select the names, but it could involve a
combination of accepting names from interested parties and
searching for suitable parties.
8:35:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to a term on page 1,
line 10: "party of the candidate for governor". He pointed out
that as soon as the election is over, the governor is no longer
a candidate, and he asked how that term applies to a governor
making appointments.
8:36:23 AM
MR. WOOLIVER said he interprets that language to mean that in a
typical election, there is a candidate from each major party,
and one of them gets the highest number of votes, while the
other gets the second-highest votes and does not become
governor. He speculated that the language may come from the
existing language of the appointment process for the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. He said Representative Gatto
is correct that at the point of making the appointments, the
governor would no longer be a candidate.
8:37:09 AM
MR. SICA offered his understanding that the language in that
section of the proposed legislation merely refers to the last
general election, and it comes from AS 15.13.020(b), which read
as follows:
(b) The governor shall appoint two members of
each of the two political parties whose candidate for
governor received the highest number of votes in the
most recent preceding general election at which a
governor was elected. The two appointees from each of
these two parties shall be chosen from a list of four
names to be submitted by the central committee of each
party.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, in response to Chair Lynn, said that
response cleared up the issue.
8:38:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that it would be a fairly
cumbersome process for the chief justice to propose to the
governor, who would then propose to the legislature. He
suggested one alternative would be for the governor to propose
appointees to the legislature without involving the chief
justice. The other option, he proffered, would be to have the
chief justice propose appointees to the legislature, without
involving the governor. He said he favors the latter approach,
because it would avoid the appearance of impropriety that may
result in having the governor choosing members for the chief
ethics board for the executive branch. He asked Mr. Wooliver to
comment.
8:39:25 AM
MR. WOOLIVER responded that the court's only concern is being in
the process. He offered his understanding that it would make no
difference to the chief justice where he/she sends a nominee's
name.
8:40:31 AM
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to Representative Seaton, said the
proposed process of having the chief justice submit "a name," at
which point the legislative confirmation process would take
place, does not cause him concern, because that process is
similar to the one currently used for the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
8:41:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she can see no difference between
the current method and having the chief justice send a list of
three people to the governor - the governor would still have the
ability to turn down those on the list. She stated, "I'm not
sure why it's too cumbersome of a process here when it's not too
cumbersome somewhere else."
8:42:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks traditionally the
requirement has been to submit three names, but that is not a
statutory requirement. In response to Chair Lynn, he clarified
that he thinks the reference to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics is specific and direct in statute, but he
does not want the committee to draw too much comparison to what
traditionally has been done.
8:44:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would like clarification
regarding what the statutes require and what is traditionally
done.
8:45:01 AM
MR. WOOLIVER, in response to Representative Johnson, reviewed
the process by which a judge is appointed. He said there are
certain statutory qualifications that have to be met. The
applicants submit their names to the judicial council, which is
a body made up of members of the bar association and public
members confirmed by the legislature. The chief justice sits as
the official head, but only votes in the case of a tie. He said
that committee goes through a public comment period and
selection process, then it sends at least two names for each
vacancy to the governor. The governor then chooses from that
list to make the judicial appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that that is not dissimilar to
the process being discussed by the committee, except for the
confirmation process with the legislature.
MR. WOOLIVER responded that it is a little different, but there
are some similarities. He said one [difference] is that "one's
in the constitution."
8:46:26 AM
NICKI NEAL, Director, Division of Personnel & Labor Relations,
Department of Administration, reminded the committee that at the
last bill hearing, there had been a question regarding the zero
fiscal note. She said the personnel board consists of volunteer
members, and it is the current members' preference to meet
during the noon hour, with quarterly meetings that typically
last one to two hours. Because of this, the department
currently does not pay for members' travel costs. She explained
that due to the short duration of the meetings, any members from
out of town can participate via teleconference. She said the
department expects this pattern to continue.
8:48:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:48:13 AM to 8:48:34 AM.
8:48:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, responding to Representative Wilson's
previous question, said the Constitution of the State of Alaska
sets out that if there is a vacancy in the legislature, the
procedure for filling that vacancy shall be provided by law. If
there is no provision in the law, the governor shall fill the
vacancy by appointment. He relayed that AS 15.40.330 does not
specifically require that the political party shall send names
to the governor. AS 15.40.330 read as follows:
Sec. 15.40.330. Qualification and confirmation of
appointee.
(a) The appointee shall meet the qualifications
of a member of the legislature as prescribed in Sec.
2, art. II of the state constitution, shall be a
member of the same political party as that which
nominated the predecessor in office, and shall be
subject to confirmation by a majority of the members
of the legislature who are members of the same
political party which nominated the predecessor in
office and of the same house as was the predecessor in
office. If the predecessor in office was not
nominated by a political party or if no other member
of the predecessor's political party is a member of
the predecessor's house of the legislature, the
governor may appoint any qualified person. If the
appointee is not a member of a political party, the
appointment is not subject to confirmation. If the
appointee is a member of a political party, the
appointment is subject to confirmation as provided by
this section for the confirmation of political party
appointees.
(b) A member of a political party is a person who
supports the political program of a party. The filing
for office of a candidate as an independent or no-
party candidate does not preclude a candidate from
being a member of a political party. Recognition of an
independent or no-party candidate as a member of a
party caucus of members of the legislature at the
legislative session following the election of the
independent or no-party candidate is recognition of
that person's party membership at the time filings
were made by party candidates for the preceding
general election.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he hopes that answered
Representative Wilson's question.
[MS. WILSON nodded.]
8:51:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he composed two amendments
[forthwith called Amendment 1 and Amendment 2] to address his
previously stated idea regarding either having the chief justice
submit to the legislature or having the governor submit to the
legislature. The language of the latter amendment is taken from
the language in the existing Legislative Ethics statute. In
response to Chair Lynn, he said the second amendment would take
some power out of the governor's hands, but would "avoid the
possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest, because
these are the people that would judge his own ethics."
8:52:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks the governor should be involved.
8:53:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that there is a difference
between this process and the Legislative Ethics process. He
continued as follows:
If there is an ethical complaint against a member of
the House, then it's judged by a subcommittee of the
committee on Legislative Ethics consisting of the
members of that committee from the House and the
public members. If there's an ethical complaint
against a Senator, it's judged by the Senate members
and the members of the public. So, this is a little
bit different than that, and that may be why they
require two-thirds separate vote rather than in a
joint session. So, ... they'll be voted on separately
in the Legislative Ethics process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the reason he chose doing it this
way is because it would not be necessary to wait until a joint
session and the issue could be taken care of right away. He
related the other reason is because if the process is being
truncated, it would make sense to be certain there is more
unanimity, and two-thirds is a super majority. This would
ensure that the people chosen are not "terrifically
controversial."
CHAIR LYNN remarked that sometimes when a person is known as
controversial it means he/she is not afraid to address important
issues. He reiterated that he thinks the governor should have a
hand in deciding the makeup of boards and commissions.
8:56:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Amendment 1 had been offered.
8:56:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided, with some
handwritten changes]:
Page 1, Line 5 after the word "and"
Delete: the rest of line 5 through the word
"nominations" on line 8
Insert: "ratified by two-thirds of the full
membership of the senate and two-thirds of the full
membership of the house."
Page 3 line 9
delete "chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court
insert "goveror"
Page 3 line 9
delete "governor"
insert "legislature"
8:57:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to Conceptual Amendment 1.
8:57:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative Seaton,
said his intent in offering Conceptual Amendment 1 is that for
each position the governor would propose one name.
8:58:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON concluded that [with Conceptual Amendment
1], the proposed legislation would expand the number of members
to five and "leave everything else in law as it currently is."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG confirmed that is correct.
8:58:38 AM
MR. SICA noted that Conceptual Amendment 1 would not delete the
language [in Section 1] regarding the members of each political
party. He noted that Rule 46 addresses confirmation of
appointments, and language in it read, "Such appointments are
subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the full
membership of the legislature in joint session." He related
that Rule 46 makes reference to Sections 25 and 26, Article III,
of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
9:00:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned how the governor would ensure
that the board has at least one member from the political party
whose candidate for governor was elected and one member from the
political party whose candidate for governor was not elected,
when it is the legislature that has the final word through
confirmations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Representative Gatto makes a good
point and suggested that the language may need to be drafted to
address that issue.
9:02:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks the purpose of the bill is
two-fold: to increase the membership of the board, and to
somewhat insulate the governor from the direct appointment
process. He opined that the court would be an appropriate body
to be making the list. If there was a resignation of a person
with a political party affiliation, the court would submit the
names of individuals with the same party affiliation, so that
whoever was selected from that list could be confirmed. He
maintained his objection to Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that [Conceptual Amendment 1] would defeat
the basic purpose of the proposed bill.
9:04:19 AM
MR. SICA suggested that it might be helpful to understand the
history of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and how
the chief justice of the court became involved. He said in
1986, then Chief Justice Robinowitz wrote that although he did
not seek the task, he did not object to appointing the public
members. Mr. Sica speculated that Chief Justice Robinowitz
realized that in his position he was probably the most
impartial, and he understood the need to be the one to do the
appointing.
9:05:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1, in
view of the arguments made against it. He said he would not
offer the other amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the previous comment on Rule
46, noted that appointments by the governor are made pursuant to
AS 39.05.080, which states: "Except as otherwise provided in a
law relating to the positions or memberships on a specific board
or commission, appointment to a position or membership shall be
made in the following manner:" Representative Gruenberg stated,
"This would be an exception in that, because this is AS
39.25.060, so I do not believe it would violate Rule 46."
9:06:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language on page 2,
line 15, which read:
(3) lobby, employ, or assist a lobbyist.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that at the last
hearing he had suggested inserting "for compensation". He said
he wants to avoid "an ethical charge against somebody because
they work together on something else and could be considered
assisting a lobbyist when it had nothing to do with lobbying or
they weren't being employed by a lobbyist."
9:07:42 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled R.1, which read
as follows:
Page 2, line 15:
Delete ", employ, or assist"
Insert "or directly employ"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes. He
questioned the word "directly".
9:08:22 AM
MR. FORD said Representative Seaton has pointed out an issue
that should be resolved by the committee. He recommended adding
"for compensation" after the word "lobbyist" on line 15 [in
Section 3, paragraph (3)].
9:09:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN withdrew Amendment 2.
9:09:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, as
follows:
Page 2, line 15:
Following "lobbyist"
Insert "for compensation"
9:09:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative Wilson,
said "for compensation" would modify "assist a lobbyist".
9:11:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to paragraphs (1) and
(2), preceding the language in Conceptual Amendment 3.
Paragraph (1) would prohibit a board member and board employees
and contractors from holding a campaign for elective office.
Representative Gatto asked if that means they could not help a
legislator in his/her campaign.
MR. FORD said he thinks a reasonable interpretation of that
language is that the member could assist a legislator in his/her
campaign but could not run for office him/herself.
MR. FORD, in response to Representative Gatto, said he
interprets Conceptual Amendment 3 to mean the proposed
compensation language would apply only to the assisting of a
lobbyist.
9:13:16 AM
MR. FORD, in response to Representative P. Wilson, reiterated
his understanding that under Conceptual Amendment 3, the member
could assist a legislator in his/her campaign but could not run
for office him/herself.
9:14:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Conceptual Amendment 3. He
stated:
There are only ... five people in the whole state
government involved in this, and they're acting as
quasi-judicial people in very important respects. For
most of the time, they're acting as quasi-appellate
people on the board, and they would conduct the
hearings themselves for the governor, lieutenant
governor, and attorney general. And whether they're
assisting the lobbyist for compensation or not, I
think it avoids the appearance of an impropriety in
either case, and I would hope we don't just limit it
for compensation, because that will provide a loophole
for somebody to say, "I'm delighted to assist you, you
just can't pay me." And I think quasi-judicial people
should stay away from that.
9:15:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved an amendment to Conceptual Amendment
3, to move "employ or assist a lobbyist for compensation" to a
new [paragraph] 4, to treat it as "another thought other than
lobbying itself."
9:15:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to the proposed amendment to
Amendment 3 for discussion purposes. He said he thinks the term
"employ" implies there is a contract under which a person is
paid for services rendered.
9:16:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he believes there is a difference
between lobbying and employing a lobbyist.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Representative Seaton
may wish to separate the language into three categories:
"lobby", "employ", and "assist a lobbyist". He said he would
not object to that.
9:17:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected to the proposed amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
clarified that his intent is to have the language moved into a
new paragraph 4, not into Section 4.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that makes a difference to her.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection to the
proposed amendment to Conceptual Amendment 3. He said he would
not object if Representative Seaton were willing to accept his
aforementioned proposal to further separate the terms.
9:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would accept that amendment to the
proposed amendment to Conceptual Amendment 3.
[The amendment to the proposed amendment to Conceptual Amendment
3 was treated as adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to the proposed
amendment, as amended, to Conceptual Amendment 3.
CHAIR LYNN announced that the proposed amendment, as amended, to
Conceptual Amendment 3, was adopted.
9:20:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 3, as amended. He reiterated his opinion that the
members of the board serve quasi-judicial positions and should
not be assisting lobbyists, whether or not they do so for
compensation.
MR. SICA suggested it would be helpful for the committee to look
at the definition under AS 24.45.171(11), which read as follows:
(11) "lobbyist" means a person who
(A) is employed and receives payments, or who
contracts for economic consideration, including
reimbursement for reasonable travel and living
expenses, to communicate directly or through the
person's agents with any public official for the
purpose of influencing legislation or administrative
action for more than 10 hours in any 30-day period in
one calendar year; or
(B) represents oneself as engaging in the
influencing of legislative or administrative action as
a business, occupation, or profession;
MR. SICA stated, "I think if someone holds a door open for a
lobbyist, they're not assisting a lobbyist, they're assisting a
person. I think when we talk about 'assist a lobbyist', we talk
about assisting them in this definition."
9:22:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested using a term that encompasses not
just lobbyists, but also those "involved in influencing." He
said, "It's something for the committee to look at before we get
ourselves in the trap of saying, 'Can't do it for a lobbyist,
but you're not a lobbyist on the second week because you didn't
meet those minimums.'"
9:24:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested using the term "assist in
lobbying".
9:24:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Conceptual
Amendment 3, as amended, to change "assist a lobbyist", now in
the new paragraph 5, in Section 2 of the bill, to read: "assist
in lobbying".
9:25:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
9:25:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
clarified that the issue is not judicial officers but personnel
board members, and the focus of Section 3 is prohibitions, which
means under the proposed Amendment 2 to Conceptual Amendment 3,
as amended, the board members would not be allowed to assist in
lobbying.
9:28:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection to the proposed
Amendment 2 to Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended. There being
no further objection, it was so ordered.
9:28:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 3, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her understanding that the
final result of Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended, is that a
board member cannot assist in lobbying for compensation.
REPRESENTATIVES GRUENBERG AND GATTO responded no.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she thought the original amendment
added the words "for compensation".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded as follows:
That is correct, and we solved that because it was the
act of lobbying that we're taking out. So, it doesn't
matter whether it's for compensation or not - you may
not assist in lobbying. And we get rid of the problem
of opening the door for a lobbyist as a person. So,
... this was conceptual, because, of course, "employ"
in number 4 is going to have to "employ a lobbyist".
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated that the original amendment
used the words "for compensation" and those words are still
there.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded, "No, I removed those in my
amendment to the amendment."
9:30:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that [paragraphs (3), (4),
and (5)], under the proposed Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended,
would read as follows:
(3) lobby
(4) employ a lobbyist
(5) or assist in lobbying
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no further objection,
Conceptual Amendment 3, [as amended], was adopted.
9:31:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to paragraph (2) of
Section 3, on page 2, line 14, which read as follows:
(2) be an officer of a political party,
political committee, or group; or
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that without specifying political
group, a board member would not be allowed to be, for example, a
captain of a basketball team.
9:31:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4] as
follows:
Page 2, line 14:
Between "or" and "group"
Insert "political"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He said he wants to make
certain the amendment is conceptual. He removed his objection.
CHAIR LYNN announced that [Conceptual Amendment 4] was adopted.
9:32:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he cannot remember the exact word,
but an adjective is needed with the word "group".
CHAIR LYNN recommended that issue be addressed in the next
committee of referral.
9:33:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5,
to removed the final "or" from page 2, line 14, and insert it
between the new paragraphs (4) and (5). There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted.
9:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a need for a letter to be
drafted for the House Judiciary Standing Committee regarding an
"important point" raised previously by Representative Gatto.
CHAIR LYNN and REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that the point
would be remembered by the three members of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee who also sit on the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
9:34:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 348, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 348(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|