Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
04/26/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 215 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| SB 186 | |||
| SB 187 | |||
| *+ | SB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 127 | ||
SB 127-EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS: FINANCIAL INTERESTS
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 127 to be up for
consideration.
6:16:38 PM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Sponsor, described SB 127 as a
straightforward attempt to clearly define a significant
financial interest. When Mr. Bunde investigated former Attorney
General Renkes in the KFx matter, he found there was ambiguity
associated with determining significant financial interest
because Alaska law doesn't provide a hard or fast number or
percentage for that.
The bill defines financial interest on page 2. A financial
holding is significant if it amounts to $5,000 or 1% of the
total value of the company stock, whichever is less.
He reviewed Section 1 and read the statutory definitions for
personal and financial interests. That section contained the
word "or" too many times, which made it too broad. He narrowed
it to just the instances where your action has a conjectural
effect.
Proposed Section 1(b)(2) is new and relates to personal
interest. No money is involved; there are only those interests
that are held without any potential for profit.
6:20:44 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT said assuming he works gas pipeline issues and
that the pipeline goes through, would he have to disclose if his
Fairbanks property value skyrockets in proportion to all other
Fairbanks property.
SENATOR FRENCH replied that wouldn't be a personal interest
because property is a financial interest. Nevertheless, he
opined that he would be absolved because the action has a
conjectural effect. "You can posit a boom off of the gas
pipeline, but it's not necessarily going to be true."
Section 1(b)(3) focuses on financial interest and subparagraphs
(A)(B) and (C) lay out the following three criteria that must be
met to for an insignificant financial interest to occur:
A. You or an immediate family member must hold the interest.
The current ethics statutes already adequately addresses
how you are charged with knowledge of what your relatives
may own in their stock portfolio.
B. It has to involve an ownership that is source of income or
from which a person receives or expects to receive a
financial benefit. That's some sort of concrete financial
relationship that will bring you money.
C. The value is reset to less than $5,000 or 1% of the total
value of the business, whichever is less. Determining the
amount is a balance, but it should be at an amount that
would give the public confidence that decisions are being
made with them in mind and not the public officer.
Finally, the bill broadens the definition of official action
because current statute is ambiguous. As proposed, official
action would include just about anything that is done in the
course of a workday as a state employee.
6:24:52 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked how the $5,000 compares to other states.
SENATOR FRENCH replied Idaho, Kentucky and three or four others
have a limit similar to $5,000.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if the public office disclosure statements
don't require about the same information as (3)(A)(B) and (C)
and would therefore already be available to the public.
SENATOR FRENCH responded there are two things going on there.
The object of disclosure is to let folks know what you own. It
doesn't get you out of an ethical conflict if you have money on
the line. The other thing is that you as a public official don't
make a decision that affects your investments.
CHAIR THERRIAULT posed the hypothetical situation of a
Department of Law employee whose family owned a particular
business and asked if that employee would have to avoid
involvement with anything dealing with that type of business.
SENATOR FRENCH replied if the action that is taken would be more
than conjectural then the answer would be yes. Assume that your
family owns fishing permits in Kachemak Bay and you're an
attorney for the Department of Natural Resources. If a regulator
asks for a written opinion on fishing permits in Kachemak Bay
you should send the work to the next attorney.
6:27:32 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted there were no further questions. He asked
Senator Seekins if he had SB 186, SB 187, and SB 127 noticed in
the Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he thought so.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked the committee members if they preferred
to amend Senator Seekins bills in this committee or move them to
Judiciary to make the changes.
SENATOR ELTON said his preference would always be to see the
changes. He pointed out that he doesn't sit on Judiciary. The
sponsor has said he would change some sections in one of the
bills but the committee doesn't know what those changes are.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Senator Seekins if he was close to having
a committee substitute.
SENATOR SEEKINS said one difficulty is that the drafters are
very busy. He said that Senator Elton or any other member would
be welcome to join the Judiciary Committee and ask any
questions, he said.
SENATOR ELTON expressed appreciation for the offer and said the
unspoken point is that he wouldn't have a vote. These are
substantive issues on bills that were introduced just a few days
ago, he said.
SENATOR HUGGINS remarked he is on Judiciary, but the challenge
is getting the fix.
SENATOR DAVIS suggested talking about moving the bills
individually. SB 186 needs more change than the others.
SENATOR SEEKINS stated that the same concepts would be embodied
in the final bill; it's just getting the right language to
accommodate those concepts.
CHAIR THERRIAULT called a brief at ease from 6:32:53 PM to
6:36:14 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced he would like to move the three bills
as a package. He recessed the meeting to the call of the chair
at 6:37:59 PM.
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT reconvened the April 26, 2005 Senate State
Affairs Standing Committee meeting at 8:11:49 PM April 27,
2005. Present were Senators Elton, Wagoner, Huggins, and Chair
Therriault.
SB 127-EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS: FINANCIAL INTERESTS
8:13:41 PM
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 127 to be up for
consideration.
He asked the sponsor to provide explanation for why he settled
on the particular dollar amount.
8:14:04 PM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Sponsor, explained that the basic idea is
to promote the public trust. First, the lower the number the
more likely it is that the public will view public official
decisions as being in the public's interest rather than as an
investment interest. Second, $5,000 was selected because it is
similar to what is used in other states. The third reason is
that the median income for Alaskans is about $35,000 and so
$5,000 represents over 10% of that annual earning. From the
public's perspective, that's a lot of money.
CHAIR THERRIAULT restated his interest in passing the three
ethics bills as a package and asked for a motion.
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report SB 127 and attached fiscal
notes from committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced that without objection the bill would
move to the next committee of referral.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|