Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/21/2012 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| HB292 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 292 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 89 - LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
1:13:16 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(JUD), "An Act clarifying that
a legislator or legislative employee is allowed to accept
certain compassionate gifts; allowing legislators and
legislative employees who are representing persons in an
administrative hearing to contact hearing officers and attempt
to influence the outcome of the hearing if they are
professionals licensed in the state, and allowing legislators
and legislative employees who are not professionals licensed in
the state to contact hearing officers for the purpose of
influencing the outcome of the hearing in certain instances;
requiring the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to maintain
a public record of certain ethics disclosures made by
legislators and legislative employees; prohibiting a public
member of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics from
disclosing confidential information without authorization;
clarifying the ethics disclosure requirements for tickets to or
gifts in connection with charity events; amending disclosure
deadlines under the Legislative Ethics Act; relating to requests
to refrain from disclosure under the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to the applicability of certain provisions of the
Legislative Ethics Act to certain legislative employees,
volunteers, and interns; establishing a seat for an alternate
public member on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics;
clarifying the requirements related to participation by
alternate public members and alternate legislative members in
the proceedings of the committee; amending the definition of
'legislative employee' in the Legislative Ethics Act; and
repealing a procedure for appointment of alternate legislative
members."
[Before the committee was HCS CSSB 89(STA), as amended on
3/19/12; on 3/19/12 the motion to adopt Amendment 2 was tabled.]
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON indicated that Amendment 2 - addressing
Section 11's proposed AS 24.60.112, pertaining to the
applicability of certain provisions of the Legislative Ethics
Act to legislative interns - was before the committee, and that
Amendment 2's adoption would result in legislative volunteers
also being subject to certain provisions of the Legislative
Ethics Act; Amendment 2, labeled 27-LS0452\O.2, Wayne, 3/14/12,
read:
Page 11, line 8:
Following "interns":
Insert "and volunteers"
Following "intern":
Insert "or legislative volunteer"
Page 11, line 11, following "intern":
Insert "or legislative volunteer"
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON mentioned that forthcoming amendments in
members' packets would be addressing the issue of legislative
volunteers further.
1:14:10 PM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Coghill,
concurred with Vice Chair Thompson's summarization of
Amendment 2, adding that one of the aforementioned forthcoming
amendments would address the length of time a legislative
volunteer or legislative intern would have to be providing
services before he/she would be required to take legislative
ethics training.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER [remade the] motion to adopt Amendment 2
[text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion,
and noted that the motion had been tabled during the bill's last
hearing in order to provide members time to consider the issue
of length of service.
1:16:29 PM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, in response to
comments and questions, explained that under existing law,
neither legislative trainees - legislative interns as they would
be statutorily referred to upon passage of the SB 89 - nor
legislative volunteers are required to take legislative ethics
training, but the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has
recommended that they be required to do so, hence Section 11's
proposal to additionally reference AS 24.60.155 in AS 24.60.112.
She, too, referred to the aforementioned forthcoming amendment,
and indicated that under it, only those legislative interns and
legislative volunteers who work at least 30 days [in one
legislature] would be required to take legislative ethics
training.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 2.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON ascertained that there were no further
objections, and announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:19:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 27-LS0452\O.3, Wayne, 3/20/12, which read:
Page 11, line 10:
Delete "24.60.155,"
Page 13, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 24.60.155 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 24.60.155. Legislative ethics course. (a) A
person who is a legislator, legislative employee,
public member of the committee, legislative intern, or
legislative volunteer shall complete a legislative
ethics course administered by the committee under
AS 24.60.150(a)(4) within 10 days of the first day of
the first regular session of each legislature or, if
the person first takes office or begins service after
the 10th day of that session, within 30 days after the
person takes office or begins service. The committee
may grant a person additional time to complete the
course required by this section.
(b) A legislative intern or legislative
volunteer who serves fewer than 30 days in one
legislature is not subject to the requirements under
(a) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. MOSS indicated that under Amendment 3, AS 24.60.155 would be
repealed and reenacted so as to provide legislative interns and
legislative volunteers with the same deadlines for completing
required legislative ethics training as it provides legislators,
legislative employees, [and public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics,] and so as to provide that
legislative interns and legislative volunteers serving fewer
than 30 days aggregate during a two-year legislature would not
be required to take legislative ethics training. In response to
a question and comments, she pointed out that under the bill as
amended thus far, except for completing legislative ethics
training within stipulated timeframes, all legislative interns
and legislative volunteers would be required to comply with
[certain provisions of] the Legislative Ethics Act from the very
first day of service.
MS. ANDERSON added that a legislative intern or legislative
volunteer wouldn't have to wait until he/she had served 30 days
before taking legislative ethics training; pointed out that
being nescient of the laws with which one must comply isn't an
excuse for not complying with those laws; and acknowledged that
Alaska's existing statutory disclosure requirements for
legislative employees/interns/volunteers are different than they
are for legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON, after ascertaining that there were no
further objections, announced that Amendment 3 was adopted.
1:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 27-LS0452\O.4, Wayne, 3/20/12, which read:
Page 5, line 25, following "hearing":
Insert "whose names are public"
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to Section 2's proposed exception
to the prohibition against being involved in an administrative
hearing so long as one's contact is inadvertent and ex parte and
its fact and substance are promptly disclosed to all parties and
made part of the record, and indicated that Amendment 4 - by
modifying who such contact must be disclosed to - would address
a concern about how one could comply with the disclosure
requirements of that provision as currently written when not all
the names of the parties have been made public.
MS. MOSS concurred, and offered as an example a situation
involving minor children.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:40 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to comments, withdrew
Amendment 4.
1:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to [instead] adopt
[handwritten] Conceptual Amendment 5, which read [bold
formatting applied to underlined text, all other punctuation as
provided]:
page 5 lines 25-26 strike all language and insert
"employee to all parties to the hearing whose names
are public and to the hearing officer for transmittal
to all parties whose names are not public; and the
contact is made a part of the record."
[Members objected for the purpose of discussion.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that under Conceptual
Amendment 5, all parties would be notified of the inadvertent ex
parte contact regardless of whether their names have been made
public, and confidentiality would be maintained.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON noted that Section 2 of the bill is
proposing to delete from existing AS 24.60.030(i) its last use
of the words, "the contact is", and asked Representative
Gruenberg whether he is intending for Conceptual Amendment 5 to
instead retain that wording in Section 2's proposed
paragraph (3).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes, and indicated that that
language would provide clarity regarding what must be made part
of the record, that being the fact and substance of the
inadvertent ex parte contact.
1:43:00 PM
TERRY L. THURBON, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of
Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration (DOA),
relayed that Conceptual Amendment 5 would provide for a process
that would have to be undertaken anyway, as a practical matter,
in situations where the names of the parties are being kept
confidential. She, too, offered as examples situations
involving minor children, and surmised that even without the
adoption of Conceptual Amendment 5, an adjudicating authority
would forward the required disclosure on to any unnamed parties.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments, characterized
disclosure of contact by a legislator or legislative employee as
"super" important - dealing with the very integrity of the
process - regardless that making such disclosure might place a
small burden on the legislator or legislative employee. He
expressed a preference for establishing the proposed disclosure
process in statute.
MS. MOSS characterized the adoption of Amendment 5 as
appropriate, adding her belief that it wouldn't hurt to clarify
the process in statute.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON removed his objection to the motion,
ascertained that there were no longer any other objections, and
announced that Conceptual Amendment 5 was adopted.
1:49:33 PM
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, line 30:
Delete:
"or a rate-making proceeding"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
MS. MOSS explained that Amendment 6 would address a concern
raised during the bill's last hearing regarding Section 3's
proposed definition of the term, "administrative hearing" -
specifically its proposed stipulation that a rate-making
proceeding is not an administrative hearing for purposes of
AS 24.60.030, the Legislative Ethics Act's provision addressing
prohibited conduct and conflicts of interest. Under
Amendment 6, a rate-making proceeding would be considered an
administrative hearing for purposes of AS 24.60.030,
subsection (i) of which stipulates that a legislator or
legislative employee may not attempt to influence the outcome of
an administrative hearing by directly or indirectly contacting
or attempting to contact the adjudicating authority. In other
words, under Amendment 6, a legislator or legislative employee
would be prohibited from trying to influence a rate-making
proceeding via any such contact or attempted contact.
MS. THURBON, characterizing rate-making proceedings themselves
as being more quasi-legislative than quasi-judicial, indicated
that that's why the statute pertaining to administrative hearing
officers and the office of administrative hearings excludes
rate-making proceedings as being administrative hearings, just
as informal conferences/reviews are also excluded - neither are
classic adjudications.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES remarked that that argues for not adopting
the Amendment 6, offering her belief that the statutory
definitions of what constitutes an administrative hearing ought
to be consistent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Amendment 6 be
withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the motion to
adopt it.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON withdrew Amendment 6.
1:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 7,
labeled 27-LS0452\O.5, Wayne, 3/21/12, which read:
Page 13, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "are hourly employees who"
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 15's proposed
AS 24.60.990(a)(11) - defining the term, "legislative employee"
for purposes of AS 24.60, the Legislative Ethics Act -
specifically its proposal to use the term, "hourly employees" in
place of the list of certain employees who are not considered to
be legislative employees in that they perform functions that are
only incidental to legislative functions. He opined that
whether a person is an hourly employee is irrelevant for
purposes of requiring him/her to comply with the provisions of
AS 24.60.
MS. MOSS indicated that the change proposed by Amendment 7 is
acceptable because proposed AS 24.60.990(a)(11) would continue
to stipulate that the term "legislative employee" does not
include individuals who perform functions that are incidental to
legislative functions.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to comments, relayed that the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics could further define the term,
"legislative employee", perhaps via an advisory opinion.
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON removed his objection, ascertained that
there were no further objections, and announced that Amendment 7
was adopted.
1:57:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 8,
labeled 27-LS0452\O.6, Wayne, 3/21/12, which read:
Page 5, line 28, following "quasi-judicial hearing":
Insert ","
Page 5, line 29, following "agency":
Insert ", that formulates issues of law and fact
in terms of specific parties and specific transactions
and that is conducted according to procedures that
provide to parties who may be bound by the outcome
adequate notice and the right to argue and present
evidence;"
VICE CHAIR THOMPSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 3's proposed
definition of the term, "administrative hearing", and explained
that Amendment 8 would add language [elaborating] the phrase,
"quasi-judicial hearing" as that phrase is used to define the
term, "administrative hearing" for purposes of AS 24.60.030.
Amendment 8's proposed additional language, he relayed, was
taken from the 2006 Alaska Supreme Court case, City of Saint
Paul v. State Department of Natural Resources [in which the
court referenced its description of the essential elements of an
administrative adjudication from its 1991 case, Johnson v.
Alaska State Department of Fish and Game]. Amendment 8, he
added, is intended to codify the court's [description] - which
he characterized as well-accepted - and clarify the term,
"quasi-judicial hearing" as it's used in [proposed AS
24.60.030(j)].
MS. MOSS expressed concern that Amendment 8 would cause
confusion, rather than provide clarity.
MS. THURBON declined to address that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES and VICE CHAIR THOMPSON expressed disfavor
with adopting Amendment 8.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 8.
2:05:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 9,
labeled 27-LS0452\O.7, Wayne, 3/21/12, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "gifts;":
Insert "specifying that a Legislative Ethics Act
restriction on legislative voting applies to committee
hearings and floor sessions;"
Page 5, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 24.60.030(g) is amended to read:
(g) Unless required by the Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature, a legislator may not vote on
a question, in a committee hearing or during a floor
session, if the legislator has an equity or ownership
interest in a business, investment, real property,
lease, or other enterprise if the interest is
substantial and the effect on that interest of the
action to be voted on is greater than the effect on a
substantial class of persons to which the legislator
belongs as a member of a profession, occupation,
industry, or region.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 9 - adding a
new Section 2, renumbering the remaining sections, and providing
for a conforming title change - would alter AS 24.60.030(g) such
that it's stipulation that a legislator may not vote on certain
questions would apply during both committee hearings and floor
sessions. Mentioning that an advisory opinion issued by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics indicates that existing
subsection (g)'s stipulation only applies to questions voted on
during floor sessions, he expressed a preference for ensuring
that that same stipulation also applies to questions voted on
during committee hearings.
MS. MOSS indicated that the sponsor believes that Amendment 9's
proposed change ought to be addressed as a change to the Uniform
Rules, which requires [passage of a concurrent resolution
requiring] an affirmative two-thirds vote of each body.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he thinks Amendment 9 is unnecessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 9.
2:09:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HCS CSSB 89(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS
CSSB 89(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB292 Sectional 2.24.12.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB292(L&C) version I.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB292 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB292 Legal Opinion.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB292-DCCED-INS-02-24-12.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB292 Explanation of Changes from Version A to Version M.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB 89 HCS (STA) fiscal note.pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| Sponsor Statement HCSCSSB 89(STA).pdf |
HJUD 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| Memo re Single Subject rule.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Westlaw Croft v. Parnell.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 292 Memo re Contracts Clause Issue.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| SB 89 Amendments.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SB 89 |