Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/18/2021 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 | |
| SB40 | |
| SB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
3:48:13 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31 "An Act relating to binding
votes by or for a legislator under the Legislative Ethics Act."
Speaking as sponsor, he introduced SB 31 reading the sponsor
statement into the record [original punctuation included]:.
SB 31 addresses the ethics statute and bans the
practice commonly known as a "binding caucus." The
tradition of the binding caucus in the Alaska State
Legislature has been used to suppress the voice of the
people, the use of coercion and enticements to
manipulate the actions and votes of their elected
Representative or Senator. The caucuses are formed
with the enticement of perks of being a majority
member, including but not limited to: influence within
the organization, chairmanships of important
committees, better office space, more staff to help
you be effective. All of these are not nefarious on
their face, but as applied in the binding caucus, they
are exchanged for the participating Representative(s)
or Senator(s) vote on key issues such as the budget.
AS 24.60.039(g)1 "Caucus" means a group of legislators
that share a political philosophy or have a common
goal or who organize as a group. Ultimately it is a
caucus of ideas. Because it does not state the use of
coercion or enticements are not prohibited should not
be misconstrued that it is permissible, especially
since these two activities are prohibited for private
citizens under Alaska Criminal statutes.
Where the nefarious intent creeps in is the quid-pro-
quo required to join the club. In exchange for the
"enticement" of the associated perks, under a binding
caucus, a legislator is expected to blindly vote for a
budget before it exists and has never seen that a
small group of "leadership" members supports. It has
also been used as an arbitrary tool for supporting any
floor vote the presiding officer decides is a
"procedural vote."
Control of legislators through a binding caucus
consolidates power into a tiny group of legislators,
those in leadership, the presiding officer, the
majority leader, the rules chair, the finance co-
chairs. When a caucus member capitulates to the
pressure, their constituents are compromised. When a
caucus member is "disciplined," it also
disenfranchises that elected official that the voters
put into the majority party.
This practice is only accepted in the State of Alaska.
The sponsor contacted a Senator from 49 other states,
and all but one stated they do not use or permit the
practice of a binding caucus in their state.
Public pressure has forced the Senate to not organize
under the binding caucus. It's time to codify this
unethical practice of forcing legislators to vote
against their conscience, and ultimately their
constituents. If the 49 other states in the union can
do business without a binding caucus and coercion to
pass legislation, Alaska can too.
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked the sponsor for introducing the
legislation.
3:52:38 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska read the following sectional
analysis for SB 31:
Section 1; Adds the definition of a "caucus" and
"legislative body" to the guidelines of the open
meetings Act under the legislatures ethics code.
Section 2; Creates the ethics violation of binding
another legislator to commit their vote on any matter
that may come before the legislature. Clarifies that
voting for selecting an officer or leader of a
legislative body is an allowable practice. It also
clarifies that running an informal poll, aka as a
"chit sheet," is an allowable practice.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if "binding" was a term of art.
MR. OGAN answered yes and it might need a definition in statute.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he had been in the minority all but one
term when there was a bipartisan coalition. He described the
circumstance that the minority caucus never talked about how to
vote on any topic.
3:55:40 PM
CHAIR SHOWER described a discussion in a previous legislature in
which Senators were told that if they wanted to join the
majority caucus they were expected to vote for the budget and to
follow the procedural rulings. Failing to do so would result in
the loss of all the perks associated with being in the majority.
He related his experience of watching colleagues sit almost
frozen into inaction when told the vote was binding even though
it may go against their constituents. He related his personal
experience and maintained that the last leadership team used
enticement and coercion.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what it means to bind another person and
if people who act as spokespersons for their bosses are bound by
the same ethics rules as legislators.
CHAIR SHOWER answered that this bill addresses legislators only.
He asked Mr. Ogan to confirm that it had no bearing on staff.
4:00:04 PM
MR. OGAN advised that SB 31 expressly mentions legislators. He
related his experience as a legislator in a semi binding caucus.
The focus was to pass a budget and the understanding was that
nobody would get everything they wanted. He also described the
late-night floor sessions where the minority held the body
hostage trying to add things to the budget.
4:03:43 PM
TERRENCE SHANIGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided a law enforcement
perspective on SB 31. He said there are multiple places in the
Open Meetings Act and the statutes governing ethics, bribery,
and coercion that talk about it being improper to influence the
official actions and duties of public officials. He said there
are technical ways to get around the requirements but the
sponsor's office was always able to find ways that they continue
to apply. He described the transition from enticement to bribe
to coercion when it comes to influencing the vote.
4:07:05 PM
CHAIR SHOWER added that the irony over the last two years was
that the members who were coerced were the ones trying to reduce
the budget. He said what SB 31 ultimately is about is ensuring
that legislators are free to vote for the benefit of those they
represent and the statutes back that up.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed support for the bill and related a
personal experience of being punished for not going along with
the binding caucus.
SENATOR HOLLAND said he favored the bill, but would suggest
rephrasing the language on page 1, line 8 to say, "A legislator
may not request or require a commitment," or "A legislator
cannot promise their vote in a future situation."
CHAIR SHOWER said he may consider that.
4:16:29 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI reiterated that he had never been part of a
binding caucus and invited the members to join the minority
caucus.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Ogan to read the coercion statute into
the record.
4:17:23 PM
MR. OGAN read AS 11.41.530(a)(4):
(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;
MR. OGAN clarified that SB 31 seeks to regulate the behavior
internally as an ethics issue, not a criminal issue.
SENATOR HOLLAND offered his understanding that the majority in
the other body formed as a binding caucus.
CHAIR SHOWER said he believed that was correct.
CHAIR SHOWER restated that his experience with a binding caucus
was overwhelmingly negative.
SENATOR REINBOLD added that the personal story she related
happened on March 16, 2015 and she found it shocking.
4:22:02 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 31 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 31 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 3/18/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 3/18/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| Remote Participation Memo.pdf |
SSTA 3/18/2021 3:30:00 PM |
Legal Memo |