Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
04/03/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB108 | |
| HB193 | |
| HJR13 | |
| HJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 193 - LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT 1:31:23 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 193, "An Act relating to representation by a legislator or legislative employee of another person in an administrative hearing; relating to charity events under the Legislative Ethics Act; requiring compensation of public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain information from disclosure requirements of the Legislative Ethics Act; relating to the selection of alternate members and the participation of members and alternate members in formal proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and its subcommittees; and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent service,' 'legislative purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and 'private benefit' for the purposes of the Legislative Ethics Act." [Before the committee was CSHB 193(STA).] 1:32:31 PM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff, Representative John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Coghill, explained that Section 1's proposed AS 24.60.030(a) uses the term "gift" instead of "lawful gratuity", thereby making the ethics provisions of Title 24 consistent, and provides that legislators' legislative mailing lists may be used for campaign purposes. Section 2's proposed AS 24.60.030(i) adds new language that would protect legislators and staff, when assisting constituents, from violating the Legislative Ethics Act as the result of unintentional encounters with those involved in administrative hearings; for example, if a constituent requests assistance with a problem with a state agency but doesn't inform the legislator or legislative staff that the issue is already being addressed at the administrative hearing level, currently, just by contacting the agency, the legislator or legislative staff is violating the Legislative Ethics Act, but under proposed AS 24.60.030(i), the legislator or legislative staff could be cleared of any wrongdoing. MS. MOSS explained that Section 3's proposed AS 24.60.080(a) would allow a legislator or legislative staff to receive [from a lobbyist a gift worth less than $250 if the gift involves a charitable event; that Section 4's proposed AS 24.60.080(c) allows a legislator or legislative staff to receive such a gift worth $250 or more as long as it is not given by a lobbyist]; and that Section 5's proposed AS 24.60.080(d) requires a legislator or legislative staff to report the amount of any such gift worth $250 or more. The aforementioned monetary limit for lobbyists applies to lobbyists, immediate family members of lobbyists, and persons acting on behalf of lobbyists. Section 6's proposed AS 24.60.105(d) exempts a person from making a required disclosure under AS 24.60 if doing so would violate the U.S. Constitution, the Alaska State Constitution, or any other state or federal law [protecting confidential information]. Section 7's proposed AS 24.60.130(f) would allow public members of legislative committees to receive compensation of $150 per day when attending committee meetings. MS. MOSS explained that Section 8's proposed AS 24.60.130(n) - in addition to providing for the appointment of alternate public members to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics - would require an alternate member participating in a [meeting/proceeding] of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics due to a regular member - either legislative or public - being unable to participate, to participate for the duration of the [meeting/proceeding]. Section 9's proposed AS 24.60.990(a) adds definitions [for the terms, "constituent", "constituent service", "legislative purpose", "nonlegislative purpose", and "private benefit"]. 1:37:24 PM JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, mentioning that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is familiar with the [changes proposed by CSHB 193(STA)], explained that Section 6 would cover situations in which a person provides or receives medical services, for example, but can't make the required [close economic association] disclosure regarding that relationship because doing so would violate the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); this issue was raised by someone seeking an advisory opinion from the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. Characterizing Section 9's definition of "constituent" as very, very broad, she indicated that that shouldn't be a problem because currently there are other sections of statute that cover situations involving campaigning and doing something for a private benefit - which is now also being defined in Section 9 - as was the case in an incident wherein the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics issued a complaint decision regarding a legislator whom it found in violation for sending a newsletter [regarding a campaign issue] to individuals who were not within the legislator's constituent district. 1:39:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether under the bill, a legislator would continue to be able to provide services to people even though they don't live in the legislator's district. MS. ANDERSON said yes. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the alternate public member provided for in Section 8 would be entitled to the compensation provided for in Section 7. MS. ANDERSON said he/she would be but only if he/she were participating in the meeting in an official capacity. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether that would also be the case if an alternate public member was asked to come to a meeting just in case he/she might have to participate in just a portion of the meeting. MS. ANDERSON pointed out that the language in Section 8 stipulates that alternates who are required to participate in a proceeding are required to participate in the entire proceeding. In response to further questions, she offered her understanding that alternate members would only be called to participate in a meeting if a regular member was unable to participate, and would not be called in to participate in a meeting just on the chance that a regular member might need to leave the room for some reason. [Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that an alternate member should be able to participate in just a portion of a meeting - say for one agenda item - and still receive compensation for doing so. MS. MOSS offered her understanding that if both the regular member and the alternate member are at a meeting in an official capacity, then both would receive compensation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in possibly amending the bill to insure that an alternate member could participate in just a portion of a meeting and receive compensation for doing so. 1:43:42 PM MS. ANDERSON said that another provision of statute already addresses situations in which a regular member must recuse himself/herself due to a conflict of interest. She offered her understanding that the language in the bill isn't intended to allow a regular member to simply step out of the room for a few minutes and have the alternate member take that person's place and vote on an issue. [Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.] REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the language of the bill is meant to address quorum issues; if a regular member has to recuse himself/herself, there would then be an alternate member to take the regular member's place. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that an alternate public member ought to be able to fill in for one regular member when addressing a particular topic and then fill in for another regular member when the committee moves onto another topic, and that an alternate public member should receive compensation even if he/she sits through the meeting just in case he/she might be called upon to fill in but then ultimately doesn't have to. MS. MOSS offered her belief that that is what would occur because the alternate would be there in an official capacity. In response to a question, she posited that the bill is clear on that issue. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether anything in either current law or the bill would prohibit an alternate member from participating in just one agenda item during a meeting. MS. ANDERSON indicated that there is not. 1:47:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that according to language in Section 8, if an alternate public member has to participate, he/she must participate for the duration of that meeting. He questioned whether this means that if a regular public member were unable to address one agenda item because of a conflict, then he/she would be unable to participate in the rest of the meeting as well, because the alternate member would have started participating. MS. ANDERSON indicated that Section 8 is meant to address a concern that public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics don't have an alternate member to sit in for them; the intent is to have an alternative public member available if, for any reason, a regular public member cannot attend a meeting. She clarified that Section 8 is addressing both meetings and proceedings, and that a proceeding would have to do with a particular complaint and could, for example, require attention during three separate meetings. In such a situation, an alternate member taking the place of regular member due to a conflict of interest specific to that complaint would have to attend all three of those meetings. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether a legislative member who is late for a meeting must then sit out the meeting because his/her alternate had to take his place. MS. ANDERSON said that's how she would read it. In response to another question, she offered her belief that the requirement that an alternate participate for the entirety of a proceeding applies only to complaint proceedings, not "a full committee meeting." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether, in a situation in which a regular member knows he/she has a conflict of interest with regard to a particular agenda item and therefore recuses himself/herself from participating in that agenda item, the alternate member would be required to take the regular member's place during the entire meeting. MS. ANDERSON offered her understanding that in such a situation, the alternate member would only have to participate in that specific agenda item, but would still be entitled to compensation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that that's been the practice for legislative members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and so he therefore assumes that that is the intent [for public members as well]. MS. ANDERSON concurred. 1:54:47 PM MS. MOSS, in response to a question, repeated her explanation of Section 6. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised that Section 6 would apply in situations involving [someone in the medical field]. MS. ANDERSON concurred, repeated her previous comments regarding Section 6, and explained that under that provision, a legislator or legislative staff could write an explanation to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics regarding why he/she is not making a particular disclosure, and if the committee considers the explanation to be sufficient, then there would be no need for the person to make the disclosure. In response to a question, she explained that Section 6 pertains to disclosures of close economic associations, not financial disclosures required by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that the language in Section 6 was chosen instead of trying to establish a particular dollar- amount threshold. MS. MOSS, in response to a question, pointed out that the written explanation is only required if requested by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics or a person acting on its behalf. CHAIR RAMRAS questioned how the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics or a person acting on its behalf would even know to request a written explanation. MS. ANDERSON suggested that perhaps the language in Section 6 on page 9, lines 2-3, that says, "a person who refrains from making a disclosure under this subsection shall" could be changed to instead say, "a person who is required to make a disclosure under this subsection shall". In response to a request, she described what constitutes a close economic relationship for purposes of being required to disclose such, and offered some examples. CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that the language of Section 6 ought to also specify that the person who chooses to refrain from making a disclosure shall notify the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics that he/she wouldn't be making the disclosure; in this way, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would know that it might need to request a written explanation. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that Section 6 should also specify that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' request for a written explanation be kept confidential. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the language on page 8, line 30, be changed to say in part, "A person may request to refrain from". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that that request to refrain should also be in writing. CHAIR RAMRAS concurred. 2:10:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to add the words "submit a written request to" on page 8, line 30, after the word "may". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:11:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to add language to Section 6 specifying that "this correspondence shall not be considered a public document disclosable unless the ... committee or the staff determines that it is disclosable except to the extent that they say it must be disclosed, that there's no right of privacy." CHAIR RAMRAS objected. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the correspondence now referred to in Section 6, as amended, would need to be identified as confidential. MS. ANDERSON explained that doing so would not be necessary, because correspondence received by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is confidential. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2. MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question, explained that under statute, complaint proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics are confidential, but committee members do not have to sign confidentiality agreements, though she did have her temporary staff person do so upon being hired. She acknowledged that perhaps committee members should do so as well. CHAIR RAMRAS then turned members' attention to AS 24.45.051(b)(1) which read: (b) A lobbyist required to report to the commission under (a) of this section, who provides or pays for food or beverage for immediate consumption by a legislator or legislative employee or a spouse or domestic partner of a legislator or legislative employee shall report the date the food or beverage was provided or paid for and the recipient's name and relationship to the legislator or legislative employee, unless the food and beverage (1) cost $15 or less; or 2:17:06 PM CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, to alter AS 24.45.051(b)(1) such that "$15" would be changed to "$35". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he was amenable to the amount being changed to "$50" instead. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he was not. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the amount listed is merely the threshold that triggers the reporting requirement for lobbyists, and surmised that a threshold of $35 would be a reasonable amount, and that a threshold of $50 would not be exorbitant. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that when lobbyists treat a legislator or legislative staff to a meal, it is often dinner, rather than lunch, and includes spouses. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the threshold amount includes tips. MS. ANDERSON said it does not, and that this was a policy call made by the APOC. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to amend Amendment 3 such that the new proposed threshold amount would be $50. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was amended. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 3, as amended. CHAIR RAMRAS stated that Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted. CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to questions and comments, pointed out that the reporting requirement outlined in AS 24.45.051(b)(1) pertains only to food and beverage for immediate consumption, not the room rental where a meal might take place. 2:30:57 PM MS. MOSS turned members' attention to AS 47.14.235 - which pertains to the confidentiality of the Citizen Review Panel - and suggested that the committee might wish to amend HB 193 such that similar language would apply to members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. MS. ANDERSON concurred. MS. MOSS suggested that Conceptual Amendment 4 could add language that read: "A person attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics or a member or staff of the committee may not make any disclosures related to information obtained during a review by the committee." CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. MS. MOSS acknowledged that it might be better for the new language to refer to a proceeding of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that currently only parts of a meeting of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics might be confidential, and said she doesn't want to make the whole of such meetings confidential. MS. ANDERSON explained that the term "proceeding" as used in the Legislative Ethics Act refers specifically to ethics complaints. She surmised, therefore, that Conceptual Amendment 4 could be amended such that confidentiality would apply to proceedings and advisory opinions. 2:34:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment 4. MS. ANDERSON, in response to a request, offered the following language as constituting the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4: "A person attending a meeting of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, or a member or staff of the committee, may not make any disclosure related to a proceeding under AS 24.60.170 or an advisory opinion request under AS 24.60.160". MS. MOSS, in response to a question, explained that under the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4, the aforementioned language would be added to Title 24 via a new subsection. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that some information disclosed in a proceeding under AS 24.60.170 or an advisory opinion request under AS 24.60.160 may start out being confidential but will then end up becoming public, and expressed concern that the language of the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4 could become a problem. MS. ANDERSON said she does not envision that it would become a problem because existing statute already provides that such information shall become public after certain details are redacted. CHAIR RAMRAS, offering his understanding that there were no objections to the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4, announced that Conceptual Amendment 4 was amended. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended. CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended, was adopted. 2:36:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 26-LS0656\T.2, Wayne, 4/3/09, which read: Page 10, line 30, through page 11, line 4: Delete all material and insert: "(21) "private benefit" means a benefit that is conferred, on a person, with a purpose that is mainly a non-legislative purpose." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the bill's current definition of the term, "private benefit" was mis-drafted, and that Amendment 5 provides for a new, cleaner definition. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. [Although not formally announced, Amendment 5 was treated as having been adopted.] 2:37:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, labeled26-LS0656\T.1, Wayne, 4/3/09, which read: Page 4, line 26: Delete "A [EXCEPT" Insert "Except when representing another person for compensation subject to AS 24.60.100 and as a professional who is licensed in the state, [" Page 4, line 31: Delete "A]" Insert "] a" REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 6 would allow a licensed professional to represent another person for compensation in a hearing. He offered his understanding that this language is similar to that which was suggested by Chief Administrative Law Judge Terry Thurbon, and that the language was removed in the prior committee. He opined that it is extremely important that people be able to obtain counsel, adding that anyone providing such counsel would be subject to the rules of professional conduct and thus risk disciplinary action for violating those rules. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed. MS. MOSS explained that Ms. Thurbon was neutral "on this issue," and that the concern expressed in the prior committee was that any legislator who represented a person in an administrative hearing would have a certain amount of influence just by virtue of being a legislator. However, as some have pointed out, there are legislators who represent people as part of their profession, and so could be hired to represent a client before an administrative hearing officer. Amendment 6 would allow such to occur. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the policy question being raised is, are legislators citizens first and then legislators, or are they legislators and can therefore never be citizens. His view, he relayed, is that although legislators have reporting responsibilities, they are citizens first and should therefore be able to pursue their professions. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then withdrew his objection. CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 6 was adopted. 2:41:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 193(STA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 193(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB108 version P.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| HB108 Amendment P.2.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| HJR13.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB193.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 193 |
| HJR2CommitteePacket.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB193Amendments.pdf |
HJUD 4/3/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 193 |