Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/16/2022 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 | |
| SB182 | |
| SB7 | |
| SB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
2:35:22 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 May 10, 2021, February 2, 2022, and February 11, 2022.
Public testimony was opened and closed on February 2, 2022.]
CHAIR HOLLAND asked the sponsor to provide a brief synopsis.
2:35:56 PM
SENATOR SHOWER explained that SB 31 would prohibit binding
caucuses. Under the bill, a legislator cannot bind another
legislator or threaten them with punitive action for not voting
in a certain way.
SENATOR SHOWER read AS 11.41.530(a)
A person commits the crime of coercion if the person
compels another to engage in conduct from which there
is a legal right to abstain or abstain from conduct in
which there is a legal right to engage, by means of
instilling in the person who is compelled a fear that,
if the demand is not complied with, the person who
makes the demand or another may...
(4) take or withhold action as a public servant or
cause a public servant to take or withhold action;
SENATOR SHOWER stated that this language is crystal clear. He
related his own experiences with binding caucuses. He recalled
Senator Kiehl's earlier question and clarified that there was no
intent for SB 31 to apply to legislators holding discussions on
their bills.
2:39:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND explained that the sponsor's stated intent is to
prevent a situation in which a legislator is obligated to vote
for or against a motion under threat of losing staff, funding,
chairmanships, committee assignments, or support for personal
legislation. He asked whether the bill would meet that intent.
2:39:26 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska,
answered that the bill as drafted could meet that intent. The
bill would prohibit certain conduct and place it in the
Legislative Ethics Act. If someone complained about that kind of
conduct, and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics found a
legislator was binding another legislator through threats, the
committee could find an ethics violation.
2:39:56 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND related that Senator Hughes wondered who would
determine whether someone was guilty of an ethics violation
under a binding caucus. She asked if it would be the majority
leadership, an individual negotiating on behalf of the majority,
members of the majority caucus in general, or individual
legislator or "bindee."
2:40:26 PM
MR. KLEIN responded that it would depend on how the complaint is
received and what the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
would consider. He related his understanding that generally, the
committee would review a single legislator's conduct. The
committee could find majority leadership, the leadership of any
caucus, a member joining a caucus, or the "bindee" in violation
of the Ethics Act. It would further depend on whether they were
committing or being bound to commit under the Ethics Act.
2:41:15 PM
SENATOR SHOWER replied that the response made sense. Initially,
he was told that nothing prevented binding caucuses. Thus, the
goal of SB 31 was to put something in statute, so an individual
could be held responsible and the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics could take action.
2:42:31 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND suggested replacing the language on page 1, line
9, "a bill, appointment, veto, or other measure" with "a
procedural vote or budget bill."
2:42:51 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked for a synopsis of the consequences of an
ethics violation.
MR. KLEIN responded that AS 24.60.178(b) provides a list of
potential sanctions. He offered to read the list or provide a
general synopsis.
2:43:32 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND suggested he provide a general synopsis.
MR. KLEIN stated that AS 24.60.178 (b)(1) would impose a civil
penalty of not more than $5,000 for each offense, and AS
24.60.178(b)(1) would provide for any other appropriate measure.
He opined that the most severe penalty would be expulsion from
the legislature. He explained that a committee would recommend
the sanction, such as the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the
recommendation would go to the Senate president. He said any
sanction would require a majority vote of the house or senate
except for expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote.
2:44:21 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND recalled Senator Kiehl's question was whether the
bill could be interpreted to mean that minority members must
have the same resources as majority members. He asked Senator
Kiehl to restate his question.
2:44:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding from the sponsor's
stated intent and Mr. Klein's answers that it would violate the
ethics law if someone said if you don't join a caucus, the
member will get the standard allocation of two staff and 36
range points. In contrast, the majority offices receive three
staff and 57 range points.
2:45:30 PM
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that he had discussed with Senator Kiehl
that the current staff level determinations were not necessarily
right. He stated that the intent specifically was to require a
legislator to vote a certain way or withhold something from them
for not voting with the caucus. He recalled that the coercion
statute under AS 11.41.530(a)(4) makes it is a crime for a
citizen to legally cause a public servant to take or withhold
action. He related that binding caucuses require their members
to vote on the budget or procedural votes and nothing can be
done about it. He opined that no one should be able to require
someone to vote a certain way.
2:46:47 PM
SENATOR HUGHES recalled that when Mr. Klein outlined the process
for ethics violations, he said it required the legislature to
vote on any sanction. She asked if the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics could impose the sanctions, or if it requires
a majority vote by the legislature. She asked for examples of
other sanctions the ethics committee could impose. She further
recalled that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics might
impose a sanction requiring the legislator write a letter of
apology, or it might decide to remove the legislator from
serving on a committee.
2:48:08 PM
MR. KLEIN paraphrased the list of ethics sanctions under AS
25.60.178.
(1) imposition of a civil penalty of not more than
$5,000 for each offense or twice the amount improperly
gained, whichever is greater;
(2) divestiture of specified assets or withdrawal from
specified associations;
(3) additional, detailed disclosure, either as a public
disclosure or as a confidential disclosure to the
committee;
(4) in the case of a legislative employee, suspension
of employment with or without pay for a stated period
of time or until stated conditions are met, or
termination from legislative employment;
2:48:26 PM
(5) restitution of property or reimbursement of
improperly received benefits;
(6) public or private written reprimand;
(7) censure, including, in the case of a legislator,
removal from a leadership position or committee
membership and a determination that the legislator will
not be appointed to serve in a leadership position or
on a committee during the remainder of that
legislature;
(8) placing the person on probationary status;
(9) in the case of a legislator, expulsion from the
house of the legislature;
(10) any other appropriate measure.
2:48:47 PM
MR. KLEIN added that sanctions must be voted on by the majority
of the house or the senate.
2:49:07 PM
SENATOR SHOWER related several scenarios that illustrated a
legislator was being punished for their speech or vote. He asked
if those examples would constitute coercive elements.
2:50:03 PM
MR. KLEIN answered that if SB 31 were to pass, the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics would decide how it would apply.
He stated that he was unsure he had any opinion on whether any
specifically described conduct would be considered binding
another legislator and constitute a violation of the Ethics Act.
Regarding whether threats of punishment were coercive, he
thought that using the commonly understood meaning of coercive
could include threatening action against someone since it could
make a person feel a certain way. However, it would depend on
the specific facts of the complaint and the ethics
investigation.
2:51:04 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he was grappling with drawing a fine line
between organizing and coercing. He related a scenario to
illustrate his point. He said donating to a legislative
candidate because the constituent likes the legislator's stance
on an issue is legal and ethical. However, giving a candidate a
donation to vote a certain way would likely be considered
bribery. He suggested if a caucus agreed with a legislator and
offered the person an opportunity to chair a committee and join
the majority, or a caucus determined the legislator did not
share the caucus goals and denied them membership, or leadership
taking punitive action and pulling the chairmanship seemed to
create a fine line. He was unsure how the committee could
address it. He wondered if it would be left to the ethics
committee to decide. He said he agreed with the intent of the
bill.
2:53:26 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked to revisit an issue. She recalled Mr. Klein
said sanctions must go to the floor for a vote. However, she
offered her view that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
could impose requirements or ask a member to write an apology.
2:54:32 PM
MR. KLEIN offered to further research this and report to the
committee on whether the house and senate must vote on sanctions
or if the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics can impose some
sanctions.
2:55:09 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 182 Support Letters 2.15.22.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 182 |
| SB 182 Sponsor Statement v. G 2.8.2022.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 182 |
| SB 7 SJUD Amendment A.1.pdf |
SJUD 2/14/2022 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 7 |
| SB7 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 7 |
| SB7 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 7 |
| SB 182 Sectional Analysis v. G 2.15.2022.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 182 |
| SB182 Letter of support.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 182 |
| SB 7 SJUD Amendment A.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 7 |
| SB 31 - Ethics Committee Decisions.pdf |
SJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |