Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/18/2019 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 | |
| SB89 | |
| SB35 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 89-LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS
1:32:43 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 89, "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics
Act; and providing for an effective date."
1:33:31 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, as
sponsor of SB 89, paraphrased from his sponsor statement:
SB 89 clarifies uncertainties that have emerged after
the 2018 passage of SCS CSSSHB 44(STA) (known as
"House Bill 44" or "HB 44"). Specifically, certain
portions of HB 44 eroded Alaskans' ability to have
full, constitutionally required representation by a
citizen legislature. In some cases, conflict
provisions are currently so restrictive that a
legislator cant live in "the real world," with a
family, and do the duties that they were elected to
do.
For example, successful miners can't carry a mining
bill. Successful commercial fishermen can't carry a
fishing bill. The alleged "conflicted" subject matter
can only be discussed in a public forum, including a
committee and the floor, and only upon declaring a
conflict to the legislature.
In addition: A legislator's spouse or immediate family
cannot be connected to the alleged "conflicted"
subject matter either. In essence, legislators that
have a certain expertise in a field, or that are most
knowledgeable, or because of broad family connections,
can't talk about multiple subject areas that are
important to the state of Alaska, except under,
essentially, unreasonably tight conditions.
Those elements combined damage the legislative
process. Currently there can be no private meetings on
any "conflicted" subject matter. There are severe
restrictions on "official action," in multiple forms
(including drafting of legislation and mere
discussion). A vast "net" of alleged "conflict" now
exists because of the bill's language extending
"conflict" to immediate family members. "Conflicts"
have been expanded to "financial interests" and
measured against "the general public."
What are the proposed changes? 1. Definitions are
being changed back to the way they existed, prior to
HB 44 (2018). 2. The "committee process" language is
being removed. 3. "Financial interest" is being
changed to back to "equity or ownership interest." 4.
eneral public" is being returned to "substantial
class of persons to which the legislator belongs as a
member of a profession, occupation, industry, or
region." 5. There is an immediate effective date.
Please join the Senate Rules Chair in supporting this
necessary legislation.
1:33:56 PM
CHAD HUTCHISON, Majority Counsel, Senator John Coghill, Juneau,
introduced himself.
1:34:12 PM
SENATOR COGHILL stated the genesis of SB 89. Last year the
legislature passed House Bill 44, which changed provisions
related to ethical standards of conduct. He referred to two of
ten sections in AS 24.60.030(a)-(j). It became clear that the
bill made it more difficult to determine unethical behavior
since the law extended to legislators' family members and
private activities, making the law ambiguous. Legislators who
want to follow the ethics law became unsure of entanglement due
to their knowledge and expertise on issues. For example, one
legislator who also works in the mining industry has gained
substantial knowledge about the industry. Under House Bill 44
law, this legislator could not hold conversations about the
industry, offer amendments, or craft a bill to address issues
within the industry because the legislator exceeded the $10,000
limit on earnings.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that these concerns were not the
typical ethical concerns but are ones related to the process.
The current ethics law raised serious doubts about what
legislators could do.
SENATOR COGHILL referred to an advisory opinion that was
approved in November [2018 by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics. He offered additional examples, such as
legislators whose family members work in the oil and gas
industry, could not participate in the bill process except to
hold public discussions or vote on the floor. Instead, these
legislators would need to declare a conflict of interest and ask
to be excused from voting. Again, these provisions were so broad
that legislators felt the need to declare a conflict if they or
their family members were involved in or had knowledge of any
industry in Alaska, he said.
1:37:39 PM
SENATOR COGHILL referred to SB 89 to AS 24.60.030(f)-(g), which
reset the standards of conduct and reverts to the pre-House Bill
44 ethics law. It would remove the language related to family
members. He explained that under House Bill 44 law, a legislator
might later find out that a family member had earnings of
$10,000 or more on an issue that came before the legislature,
making the legislator "unethical" after the fact. Under SB 89,
if legislators are seeking employment or acquire benefits or
losses, they can declare a conflict of interest and ask to be
excused from voting. Post-House Bill 44 law extends beyond
identifying unethical behavior and created a process that lended
doubt about whether legislators were following the ethics law.
The ethics law is designed to promote public trust, he said.
He clarified that SB 89 would not rewrite the entire Ethics Act
but would revert to ethics language that would clearly identify
conflicts of interest. He acknowledged that the legislature may
decide to revise the standard of conduct code at a later date.
He characterized SB 89 as a discrete reset that clarifies
ethical behavior. He emphasized that legislators want to serve
the public and uphold the highest standards. He said that his
staff will explain how the bill accomplishes this.
1:40:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on the change in
disclosures.
SENATOR COGHILL said that SB 89 reverts to pre-House Bill 44 law
to address conflict of interest disclosures within a committee
and on any floor vote. He said it is very important before
official action occurs that any disclosures are made, which is
the floor vote.
1:41:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to page 2, line 16, of SB 89 to the
language "shall not vote" instead of "shall declare a conflict
of interest." She asked whether this is the intent.
SENATOR COGHILL answered that Section 2 pertains to the Uniform
Rules of the Alaska State Legislature and states that
legislators may not vote if they have an equity or ownership
interest in an issue that is beyond a substantial class of
people. For example, if a legislator is the only one receiving a
pay raise or obtaining a contract, he/she may not vote. The
legislator must stand up on the floor, state the conflict, and
make a motion to be excused from voting. It is up to the body to
excuse the legislator from voting, he said.
He deferred to Chad Hutchison to provide reasons why legislators
should vote even when the perception of a conflict of interest
exists. He said it really comes down to legislators'
constitutional duty to represent their constituents and
determine when they have a real conflict of interest. He said
that the "perceived conflict" is a bigger problem than the
actual conflict. He said that having a motion in front of a
committee could create a "perceived conflict." He said that SB
89 would like to return it to a real conflict.
1:43:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said it could be viewed as strengthening the
ethics law.
SENATOR COGHILL said that if legislators have a real conflict,
they should not be allowed to vote. He said the distinction is
if the individual benefit is greater than the group benefit, the
legislator should not vote. He said that it typically has not
happened in the legislature. However, the current law is so
ambiguous that it creates perceived conflicts. He said that the
pre-House Bill 44 law has been tested in the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics. It makes everyone think about real
conflicts, he said.
1:45:38 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she understands that the bill drafters did not
realize how the ethics law would be interpreted under House Bill
44 law. She asked whether the sponsor was aware of specific
problems during his tenure in the legislature. She hoped for
reassurances that problems would not be bubbling up if this bill
passes.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that Alaska has a citizen legislature,
comprised of legislators with backgrounds as pilots, in law
enforcement or the military. They work as teachers, accountants,
and lawyers. He worked in a Christian counseling position, he
said. He identified potential personal conflicts. For example,
if his pay was increased or his position was guaranteed, and he
did not declare a conflict, it would be unethical. He said if a
legislator was a teacher who worked in a school that was singled
out for raises, that would be a conflict and the legislator
should be excused from voting. However, it would not be
unethical if a legislator is a teacher and generally spoke about
[issues that affect schools] or if someone worked in an industry
and discussed issues related to the industry without obtaining a
specific benefit. In those instances, the legislator would
declare the perceived conflict, and the body would allow the
legislator to vote. During his 20 years serving as a legislator,
many perceived conflicts have been declared. However, no one has
had a specific cost or benefit that prevented him/her from
voting. Alaska has unique geographical fisheries and some people
believe that legislators who commercially fished had a conflict,
but the issues were broadly discussed, and they were not
prevented from voting. In Alaska, many legislators come from
industries or enterprises that are impacted by legislation,
including shipping, fishing, schools, and legal professions.
These legislators bring their expertise gained from working in
their respective fields, but unless they obtain a specific
benefit that exceeds the benefit others in the industry obtain,
they do not have a conflict of interest.
1:48:59 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said it goes beyond the industry to obtaining a
benefit not given to "a substantial class of persons to which
the legislator belongs." He said that he has worked in the oil
and gas industry and in the fishing industry. He has always
declared a perceived conflict of interest when matters affecting
those industries are being voted on. However, the legislature
has rulings from [the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]
that they were acting on behalf of a substantial class and not
as individuals. He said that ethics should not be based on
whether legislators like the outcome, but rather if they have
real conflicts of interest.
1:49:57 PM
SENATOR COGHILL agreed. He said that SB 89 brings the definition
back to "a substantial class." Currently, a conflict of interest
could be related to an involvement in a business, property,
profession, private relation, or a source of income that results
in the legislator receiving or expecting to receive a benefit
greater than the general population. He offered his belief that
this would likely put most legislators in a unique circumstance.
He emphasized that the language needed to be changed to greater
than the effect on "a substantial class of persons to which the
legislation belongs as a member of a profession, occupation,
industry, or region"]. He emphasized the need to remove any
ambiguity in the ethics law. He characterized House Bill 44 law
as one that created unintended consequences.
1:51:26 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON said he would discuss some constitutional issues
that have arisen since House Bill 44 law was implemented. He
pointed out that during the committee process last year, Mr.
Wayne recognized constitutional issues with House Bill 44.
1:52:24 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 2.
To be clear: This bill does not repeal the majority of
the ethics legislation (House Bill 44)(2018) passed
last year
1:52:28 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON paraphrased slide 3.
The following remains intact:
trianglert Prohibitions on expenditures and contributions by
foreign-influenced corporations and foreign nationals
in state elections.
trianglert Limitations on member travel.
trianglert Per diem restrictions
trianglert The Legislative Council's ability to adopt policy on
per diem and moving expenses.
trianglert Lobbyist restrictions on buying food and beverages for
members or staff.
trianglert Gift restrictions to members
He noted that the gift restrictions to members of $250 or more
was not included in House Bill 44, but it still remains intact.
1:53:03 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she wanted the record to reflect she is eager
to fix the issues with the ethics law that have impacted her so
much.
1:53:22 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 4, "What this bill does:"
Simply resets the conflict provisions to the way they
were prior to House Bill 44
(HB44)(2018).
1:53:37 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 5, "Noteworthy: How many
Constitutional Issues Have Emerged Because of the Conflict
Provisions of HB44 (2018)?"
trianglert Alaska Constitution - Article II
Legislature - Diminishment of Core Legislative
Functions and Representation
trianglert Example: Successful miners can't talk or meet
("official action") about mining legislation in
private. In addition, the miner can't carry
legislation. Successful commercial fishermen/women
can't talk about commercial fishing in private.
The fishermen/women can't carry legislation.
trianglert Federal Constitution - First Amendment
Fundamental Right
trianglert Freedom of Speech for legislator and
constituents
trianglert Right to assemble
trianglert Right to petition the government for redress
trianglert Alaska Constitution Article I, Sections 1, 5, &
6
trianglert Article 1, Section 1 "Equal Rights"
trianglert Article 1, Section 5 "Freedom of Speech"
trianglert Article 1, Section 6 "Freedom to Assemble and
Petition"
He said that there are a number of constitutional problems with
the conflict provisions. He said this slide lists the
fundamental rights, which can be restricted, but the government
can only do so if it is necessary to a compelling governmental
interest and the restriction is narrowly tailored for the least
restrictive alternative.
MR. HUTCHINSON referred to the State of Alaska v. Planned
Parenthood case in 2007. He said that the Alaska Supreme Court
extensively discussed this issue.
He pointed out the list of fundamental rights on the slide,
beginning with the diminishment of core legislative functions
and representation. He said that the legislators need to be able
to talk to their constituents.
MR. HUTCHINSON said that Article I of the U.S. Constitution is
the most important section from the constitutional founders'
perspective. Any restriction of Article II rights granted by the
U.S. Constitution, such as voting or freedom of speech, must be
the least restrictive alternative. When legislators cannot talk
to certain constituent groups on legislation or potential bills,
based on their background or the constituents' background, it
represents a major constitutional violation. For example, one of
the reasons Senator Coghill got elected may be because he has
expertise in placer mining. However, he cannot speak with
constituents on these matters or propose legislative changes
under the current legislative ethics law. Instead, he must shift
the issue to someone else who may not have the background.
He said that the 14th Amendment contains a due process provision
and any infringement, such as liberty, must be narrowly tailored
in the least restrictive alternative.
MR. HUTCHISON reviewed the issues listed on slide 5 related to
the Alaska Constitution. He said that Article 1 provides that
similarly situated people cannot be treated differently. He
highlighted that people from the travel industry wanted to speak
with a legislator, but due to the connection to an immediate
family member, the group cannot meet with the legislator. He
emphasized that it is too broad, and not the least restrictive
alternative. He cautioned members to consider these factors when
amending this bill.
1:57:50 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 6, Section 1 amends AS
24.60.030(e)."
trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)?
trianglert Currently, a legislator can only take official
action on an alleged "conflicted bill" in public
discussion or debate (including in committee and
on the floor).
trianglert In addition, the legislator is "conflicted" if
the subject matter is connected to the legislator
(or the legislator's immediate family) if the
legislator (or the immediate family) made over
$10,000 in the immediate 12-month period.
trianglert The practical result?
trianglert No private meetings about the "conflicted"
subject matter.
trianglert A severe restriction on official action, in
multiple forms (drafting of legislation,
discussion, etc.)
trianglert A vast "net" of "conflict" because of the
extension to the immediate family.
trianglert See Advisory Opinion 18 05 for more information.
He said it is noteworthy that the sponsor of House Bill 44
provided a chart that had two states with more than $10,000,
including Michigan and Texas with $25,000 as their threshold.
There was an acknowledgement that a wide scope exists for what
constitutes "conflicted" such as a percentage of a financial
interest in a particular business. Under the Alaska Supreme
Court interpretation of fundamental rights, it's important to
consider whether $10,000, the immediate 12-month period, or the
expansion to include family members is truly least restrictive.
He suggested these things will be debated by legislators through
the committee process.
MR. HUTCHINSON said the practical result of [House Bill 44]
means that no private meetings can be allowed. It severely
restricts official action, including drafting legislation or
amendments. Further, the net of conflict has been extended to
include family members and is not the least restrictive
alternative, as compared to pre-2018 law, he said.
1:59:40 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 7, "What are the proposed
changes?"
trianglert The language is returned to the language used
before 2018, prior to the passage of HB 44.
trianglert This includes the following:
trianglert The language is returned to "unless
required by the Uniform Rules of the
Alaska State Legislature."
trianglert Passages that restrict legislator
advocacy to only narrow avenues of
public discussion or debate are
eliminated.
trianglert The language re: "immediate family" is
eliminated.
trianglert The income threshold of "$10,000" for
the "preceding 12-month period" is
removed.
He pointed out the bill would return to the language in Uniform
Rule 34(b). He pointed out that Mason's Manual rules are also
tied to this rule. He suggested reviewing Sections 24, 522 and
560 of Mason's Manual. He referred to Advisory Opinions 0402,
0801, 1105, and 1301 to provide interpretations of conflict
prior to passage of House Bill 44 in 2018. He emphasized that
concern about extending conflicts to legislators' immediate
family and the $10,000 threshold exist because they are not the
least restrictive alternatives. Other states have higher
thresholds and these issues must be debated.
2:01:12 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 8, "Section 2 - Amends AS
24.60.030(g)."
trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)?
trianglert Currently, conflicts (which are expanded) have to
be declared in the committee process and the
floor.
trianglert Conflicts are expanded to "financial interests"
of a business, investment, real property, lease,
or other enterprise. There is an expansion to
measuring the "interest" against "the general
public."
trianglert The practical result?
trianglert Discussion on relevant issues is severely
restricted.
trianglert Conflicts will have to be declared in the
committee process. If there is an alleged
"conflict," there are legitimate concerns
about passing otherwise viable legislation
from the committee because members would be
barred from private discussion on certain
topics.
trianglert A broadening of the "scope of conflict" cast
a "wide net."
2:02:38 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 9, "What are the proposed
changes?"
trianglert The committee process" language is being
removed.
trianglert "Financial interest" is being changed to back to
"equity or ownership interest."
trianglert "General public" is being returned to
"substantial class of persons to which the
legislator belongs as a member of a profession,
occupation, industry, or region.
2:03:16 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 10, "Section 3 simply repeals AS
24.60.030(j)(2) and 24.60.990(a)(6)."
AS 24.60.030(j)(2) says:
"substantially benefit or harm" means the
effect on the person's financial
interest is greater than the effect on the financial
interest of the general public of the
state.
trianglert This language is being removed.
trianglert Reasoning:
trianglert Clarifies uncertainty.
trianglert Fairly easily, a legislator can have an
alleged "substantial" "financial interest" in
a specific area that's greater than most of
the general public of the state. The spectrum
is wide as it can pertain to businesses,
investments, real property, leases, or,
broadly, other enterprises.
trianglert Since the language of "general public" in AS
24.60.030(g) is being changed back to
ubstantial class of persons to which the
legislator belongs as a member of a
profession, occupation, industry, or region,"
this passage is appropriate for removal.
2:04:07 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 11, "Section 3 - Continued
trianglert AS 24.60.990(a)(6) says:
"financial interest" means ownership of an
interest or an involvement in a business,
including a property ownership, or a professional or private
relationship, that is a source of
income, or from which, or as a result of
which, a person has received or expects to receive a
financial benefit.
trianglert This language is being removed.
trianglert Reasoning:
trianglert Since the language of "financial
interest" is being changed in AS
24.60.030(g) back to "equity or
ownership interest," this provision is
being removed.
2:04:41 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 12, titled "Section 4."
trianglert Section 4 makes the act effective immediately.
2:04:57 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 13, "This clarification attempts
to find the right balance."
trianglert High moral and ethical standards among public servants
in the legislative branch are essential to government
trust, respect, and confidence of the people of this
state. See Advisory Opinion 19-01. See also AS
24.60.010(1).
trianglert Right of members to represent their constituencies is
of such major importance that members should be barred
from their constitutionally required representative
duties only in clear cases of personal enrichment.
trianglert
Members are encouraged to review Uniform Rule 34(b),
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure at sections
241, 522, 560, Advisory Opinion 2004-02, Advisory
Opinion 2008-01, Advisory Opinion 2011-05, and
Advisory Opinion 2013-01 for interpretations of
conflict prior to 2018
2:05:48 PM
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to the final slide, slide 14, "Questions?"
2:05:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he was unsure of some of the constitutional
arguments, especially in terms of the least restrictive means.
The legislature is exempt from the Open Meetings Act, which is a
set of rules imposed on the executive branch, school districts,
and municipalities. It is vastly more restrictive than anything
the legislature is operating under. He asked whether the Open
Meetings Act is unconstitutional.
MR. HUTCHINSON explained that what he can say is
unconstitutional is when constituents cannot meet with their
legislators because of conflict provisions related to House Bill
44 law. That is unconstitutional because it prohibits
legislators who have a similar background from participating on
an issue, whether it is mining and the legislator is a miner, or
fishing and the legislator is a fisherman. He said that
commenting on the Open Meetings Act is beyond the scope of his
testimony today. He emphasized that infringements, such as
constituents not being able to meet at any level with their duly
elected representatives due to a conflict provisions that are
too strict is a violation.
2:07:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL turned to disclosure. He asked whether he was
arguing that constitutional issues exist with disclosure.
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that is correct. It has to be the least
restrictive alternative in terms of disclosures. He pointed out
the sponsor of House Bill 44 law presented information that
indicates other states disclosure levels are much higher, with
Texas and Michigan at $25,000. In addition, the scope of what
qualifies as immediate family is much more limited. The problem
in Alaska is that the scope is broadened so much it essentially
prohibits people from talking to their legislators and violates
Article I and Article II of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska.
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that disclosure does not have anything
to do with who legislators can talk to or what meetings can be
held. He acknowledged he is not an attorney, but he was pretty
sure that "least restrictive" does not mean that [Alaska] must
adopt the highest state threshold for dollar amounts. He said
that the public official financial disclosures require
disclosure threshold of $1,000. He asked whether those reporting
requirements are unconstitutional.
MR. HUTCHINSON related his understanding he was talking about
disclosures. He clarified that he is not discussing the Alaska
Public Offices Commission disclosures that candidates and
legislators must file, although they coalesce, but this is
something different. He explained that if the monetary amount
affects your immediate family and that creates such a broad
scope of conflict that legislators are prohibited from talking
with representative groups that may have the same background as
your wife, husband, or immediate family, it raises the issue as
to whether it is truly the least restrictive alternative. He
offered his belief that this will be an ongoing debate. He
argued that the legislature operated for years [prior to passage
of House Bill 44] so it obviously was not the least restrictive
alternative.
2:10:13 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out she served on the Legislative
Ethics Committee when the two advisory opinions were issued. She
said she thought they went far beyond [the least restrictive
alternative], and she was pretty frustrated with the advisory
opinions. In fact, she was a dissenting vote. She recalled the
opinion would impact legislators who belonged to a union, Native
organization, fishing group, oil and gas industry, or health
care. She anticipated that it would affect every legislator. She
acknowledged the public wants ethical legislators, but if it
creates barriers for constituency groups concerned about an
issue important to the district, it is problematic.
2:11:51 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 89.
2:12:15 PM
VIKKI JOE KENNEDY, representing herself, Kodiak, urged members
to stay accountable and ethical. She stated that she has been in
Juneau for the last fifteen months. She said she was in Juneau
when House Bill 44 passed the legislature last year. She said
that any bill that holds everyone accountable and cautious about
ethics is a good thing. She was told in January she could not
talk to a senator. She said when legislators sit on boards and
legislators can financially benefit [from decisions made by the
board], it could be an issue. She said she has seen "a lot of
fine things" happening [in the legislature], but she thinks
strictness makes everyone "stay aware". She said she has carried
a copy of the [Constitution of the State of Alaska] with her
since she arrived in Alaska. She urged members to stay
accountable and ethical. She said she appreciates the work the
committee was doing on SB 89.
2:14:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony on SB 89.
2:14:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to language being repealed in the
definition section of the ethics law. He said that deletes
language [in AS 24.60.990(a)(6), "financial interest" means
ownership of an interest or an involvement in a business,
including a property ownership, or a professional or private
relationship, that is a source of income, or from which, or as a
result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a
financial benefit.] He read the language, "from which, or as a
result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a
financial benefit." He asked if SB 89 were to pass, whether
legislators would not need to disclose any "hefty" increase or
benefit they received from a program implemented via legislative
action.
MR. HUTCHINSON said he thought the person would be subject to
APOC, depending on the amount. He said that advisory opinions
required certain disclosures must occur. There have been ethical
rulings on a case-by-case basis on whether it represented a
substantial interest. He stated, informally, that anything over
$250 is generally interpreted as a substantial interest by the
Legislative Ethics Committee. He presumed that if it is a
significant amount, it must be disclosed on the legislative APOC
reports. He emphasized that this bill does not change any of the
APOC reporting requirements, but it ensures that the scope of
influence is not expanded so much that people cannot meet with
certain groups since they have common ties or their immediate
family.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the legislative legal counsel if anything in
SB 89 changes what must be disclosed in the APOC financial
disclosure.
2:16:54 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Juneau, answered that it does not. He said that
SB 89 changes what must be disclosed on the floor, but not the
financial disclosures under AS 24.60.200.
SENATOR KIEHL clarified his question, that if it is not through
an equity interest in a business or real estate, but it would
enhance his finances, whether he would not have to rise and
declare [a conflict of interest on the floor.]
MR. WAYNE interpreted the bill to mean that the income could
fall under "other enterprise" or "business, investment real
property, or lease." If it did not fall under one of those
categories, then Senator Kiehl is correct that it would not need
to be disclosed or require requesting to abstain from a vote.
CHAIR HUGHES asked under SB 89, if it were to pass, whether the
disclosure would only apply if it gave that person a benefit
beyond the people in that industry or class or region.
MR. WAYNE answered that is correct. He directed attention to
lines 23-24, "a substantial class of persons to which the
legislator belongs as a member of a profession, occupation,
industry, or region class of persons." He said that language
would modify part of the sentence before that language, that it
is all part of one calculation. He said that at the end of that
calculation the legislator would need to determine whether to
disclose a conflict or request to abstain.
2:19:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that the conduct Senator Kiehl is
describing would either be bribery or else the legislator must
report it as a conflict of interest. He clarified that if the
legislator was the only one receiving the benefit or the benefit
is separate from the substantial class, it represents a true
conflict that must be declared, and the legislator cannot vote.
Legislators still must declare any perceived conflicts so the
whole world has knowledge. For example, if he owned rental units
and a bill came before the legislature related to landlord-
tenant rights, he would declare a perceived conflict prior to
voting on the measure even though the law would affect him the
same as anyone else who is a landlord. Therefore, he would not
have a true conflict of interest and would be allowed to vote on
the bill.
2:21:04 PM
MR. WAYNE said that he appreciates that clarification. He
related a scenario in which a legislator is not being paid for
his/her vote, but the legislator would still benefit from
legislation, such as a tax break, or something other people will
not get. He said if the legislator did not own a business,
investment, real property, lease, or other enterprise, then [the
language in SB 89] is silent. He asked whether it is okay for a
[legislator] to benefit as long as it is not a business or
investment benefit.
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that without him mentioning "a
substantial class," that his answer is incomplete.
MR. WAYNE agreed. He acknowledged that if a legislator is going
to be $2,000 richer next year if the bill passes is one thing,
but if the bill is a permanent fund dividend bill everyone else
benefits, so he/she would not need to declare a conflict of
interest.
MR. HUTCHINSON explained that it would be determined on a case-
by-case basis, which is the reason for the advisory opinions. He
pointed out that other avenues exist if people think unethical
behavior is occurring, such as censure. Elections and recalls
can remove people from office, and sanctions exist for people
who are unethical. Currently, a particular representative has
ongoing sanctions with financial repercussions.
SENATOR KIEHL said, "Not if you write those rules out of the
law. Then those avenues are not available, right?"
MR. HUTCHINSON answered no, that the behavior occurred before
House Bill 44 and it exists to this day. The individual member
is still making payments because of behavior that was found to
be unethical.
2:24:23 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he will have to do research on the member who
was found to be unethical without violating any of the ethics
code.
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that there was a violation.
[SB 89 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 89 - Bill - 3 13 19.PDF |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - Sponsor Statement - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - PowerPoint Presentation - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - Sectional Analysis - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| SB 89 - Supporting Document - AO 19 01 - 3 13 19.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 89 |
| CSSB35 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |
| CSSB35 Explanation of Changes from Version A to U.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 35 |