Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/11/2022 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
SB23 | |
SB119 | |
SB129 | |
SB118 | |
SB31 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES 2:54:51 PM CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31 "An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under the Legislative Ethics Act." [CSSB 31(STA) was before the committee. SB 31 was previously heard on 5/10/21 and 2/2/22.] 2:55:07 PM CHAIR HOLLAND noted members raised several questions at the last hearing. He related that Mr. Anderson, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics administrator, was available for questions. 2:55:25 PM SENATOR SHOWER said he would like to work with members on amendments. He recalled Senator Kiehl asked whether SB 31 would apply to more than procedural votes or the budget. 2:56:18 PM SENATOR MYERS highlighted his only concern was enforcement issues. 2:56:33 PM SENATOR SHOWER offered to provide context for the bill. He related that legislative leadership docked his staff's pay. Since Mason's Manual or the Uniform Rules didn't address that issue, his staff had no recourse. One goal of SB 31 is to provide recourse if a member was stripped of their committee chair or membership and their staff suffered financial losses. 2:57:59 PM JERRY ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, Legislative Agencies and Offices, Anchorage, Alaska, offered to make general comments on the bill. He stated that he did not find any changes to how parties would file complaints under AS 24.60.170. The caucus process is silent in the Legislative Ethics Act, and it was a product of precedent set through the legislative process. 2:58:48 PM SENATOR SHOWER recalled a felony penalty provision for a statute that stated a person could not influence an elected official to vote or prevent them from voting. However, this has happened under a binding caucus. He said leadership threatened members with direct action that affected legislators, their staff, and their districts if they did not follow the caucus on procedural or budget votes. He said he disagrees that leadership didn't face the consequences for their threatening behavior because it didn't violate any law. If a public member required someone to vote a certain way, they could go to jail, but legislators are not punished if they do the same thing. 3:00:11 PM MR. ANDERSON responded that he had no further comments. 3:00:19 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked for the penalty provisions for violations of the ethics law. She recalled that penalties could be financial or impose certain things. Second, the conduct in question was not about being bribed for receiving a prerequisite (perk), which would fall under criminal law. Instead, the bill states that the person may not commit their vote. She wondered how it would affect a legislator who voted a certain way in exchange for a perk. She said she didn't have enough information. 3:01:53 PM SENATOR MYERS asked if this bill passed in its current form, whether the penalty was an ethics violation or complaint or if the bill should elevate the penalty to a felony. SENATOR SHOWER responded that colleagues expressed concern that the bill would impose a felony. He commented that it might not be politically viable to elevate this behavior to a felony. He related his goal was to establish a consequence for a binding caucus that required another legislator to commit to vote for or against a bill, appointment, veto, or another measure that may come to a vote before a legislative body. He was unsure how to address the issues related to a binding caucus other than to pass the bill to prohibit a binding caucus explicitly. 3:03:59 PM SENATOR KIEHL said the bill carves out an exception for certain votes or informal polls in a caucus. He asked whether it would apply to a formation of a caucus. Since he is not a member of the majority, he has less staff and less pay for staff, which the sponsor has highlighted as forbidden binding mechanisms. He asked whether this bill would apply to the formation of a caucus in the first place. He wondered whether the bill could be interpreted to mean that minority members must have the same resources as majority members. MR. ANDERSON responded that the definitions used in SB 31 were taken from open meetings guidelines. Those guidelines discuss caucus procedures. He stated that some were included and others were not. For example, political strategy is not part of the open meetings guideline. Under AS 24.60.039(g)(1) "caucus" means a group of legislators who share a political philosophy, or have a common goal, or who organize as a group. He said if the complaint met that definition, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would consider it. If the committee found a violation, it would go through the complaint process, including issuing specific sanctions. He deferred to Mr. Klein to further respond. 3:07:03 PM NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, asked Senator Kiehl to repeat the question. 3:07:16 PM SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the bill would apply to the formation of minority or majority caucuses since the sponsor described the binding mechanisms, including fewer staff, pay ranges, and committee chair assignments. MR. KLEIN responded that the bill could apply to the formation of caucuses if legislators were committing for or against a bill or veto. He said if it occurs during the formation, it would not be subject to the exception in paragraph (1). 3:08:57 PM CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
SB 23 Letter of Support - AGC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
SB 23 Letter of Support - Alaska Chamber.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
SB 23 Letter of Support - RDC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
SB 23 Letter of Support - CAP.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
SB 23 Letter of Support - Alliance.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
RDC SB 23 Comment letter 2-11-22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
SB23 - Letter of Support - APF.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
SB 119 SJUD Amendment G.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.5.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.6 as amended.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
SB 23 Public Testimony through 2.12.22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
SB 118 SJUD Public Testimony.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 118 |