Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/03/2001 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 103-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS Number 0958 CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN), "An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics." Number 0925 SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify as sponsor of SB 103. He said SB 103 contains a number of clarification and cleanup items related to the existing Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and ethics statutes. SENATOR THERRIAULT spelled out the changes: · Section 1 clarifies that multiple groups controlled by a single candidate will be treated as a single group for purposes of the contribution limit. · Section 2 adds thank-you advertisements to the list of permissible uses of unused campaign funds. · Section 3 increases the value of personal property that may be retained by a candidate. The current law allows office materials such as a computer, stationery, and stamps worth a total of $2,500 to be carried forward to the next campaign; SB 103 increases that amount to $5,000. It also permits a candidate to keep a bulk mail permit used in one campaign to use in the next campaign. It sets the value of campaign signs at zero so they can be carried forward. · Section 4 provides that money held by public entities may be used to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition or question under limited circumstances. · Section 5 clarifies and further defines contributions, saying that accountants and attorneys can volunteer their services. · Section 6 adds new exceptions to and clarifies the prohibition on use of public assets and resources by legislators and legislative employees for nonlegislative purposes and certain previously prohibited public political used. Number 0170 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification of Section 5. SENATOR THERRIAULT directed attention to page 4, line 22. TAPE 01-32, SIDE A SENATOR THERRIAULT acknowledged that the drafting was confusing, but said the meaning is that accountants and attorneys can volunteer their professional services and there is no limit on those contributions of services. Number 0090 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if he had a volunteer come in and do computer work on his mailing list, would that be compensated time or not under SB 103. SENATOR THERRIAULT said that individual would be able to volunteer his or her time. The change SB 103 is making is that a professional person, specifically an accountant or an attorney, can volunteer his or her time and not be restricted by the hourly rate that they generally charge and coming up against a monetary limit. Number 0255 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still had concern about professional services, specifically what was meant by "other professional services" besides accounting and legal services. SENATOR THERRIAULT consulted with staff regarding Representative Crawford's question about a person contributing computer services. He clarified that a computer professional's contribution would be capped at a certain value, but that SB 103 specifically exempts accountants and attorneys from that limit. Number 0377 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD understood that to mean that the accountant he paid to help him with his APOC report could have volunteered those services. SENATOR THERRIAULT said that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still had concerns about the professional services, which she wished to look into further. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he understood the exemption for accounting services, but did not see a distinction between an attorney and a computer person helping a campaign. SENATOR THERRIAULT said it had seemed to the Senate that after a campaign, a candidate might need accounting services because of the [APOC] reports, and might need legal services if there were a recount. At that time, campaign funds might be exhausted and if professionals were willing to donate those services, it could be appropriate. "It was a policy call," he added. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if the only purpose of the provision was for recounts. He thought a candidate could use the party's attorney for that. He expressed concern because he did not understand the point of it. SENATOR THERRIAULT said it is a policy call for the legislature to consider. With respect to Representative James' question about professional services, the prohibition against the computer person already exists in statute. Number 0617 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he had been through a recount. His opponent had a couple of attorneys who came in as volunteers. He questioned at the time whether that was legitimate, and was told this was "after the fact of the campaign" and under the present law did not have to be counted as a contribution. He did not see in SB 103 any limitation to recounts. If a candidate were to violate campaign finance laws and needed an attorney, it seemed to him that person would be able to get an attorney to volunteer the time, and that didn't seem quite right. SENATOR THERRIAULT said Representative Crawford was absolutely right. It is not just the recount issue. If somebody challenged a candidate's residency or said the candidate had violated an APOC ruling, the candidate would be allowed to use the volunteered services of an attorney. It is a policy call for the legislature to decide if it wishes to allow that type of assistance. Number 0745 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he understands this provision to apply not just to a candidate, but also to the political party. He asked if that was allowed only during a campaign. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said an attorney or accountant would be able to volunteer his or her services at any time. REPRESENTATIVE FATE recalled times during campaigns when the use of an attorney by any political party had been so excessive that it far exceeded the amount that otherwise could have been donated. He mentioned the last gubernatorial campaign, during which APOC discovered problems that candidates had to contest, "and it was very expensive," he said. "I think this is a good approach to solving that problem." SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that Brooke Miles of APOC was on the teleconference line and might wish to comment on that section. Number 0842 SENATOR THERRIAULT continued: · Section 5: A portion of Section 5 deals with the party's advocating for its slate of candidates. It is limited to two or fewer mass mailings before each election. It also says that a candidate can release polling information as long as the poll was limited to issues and did not mention the candidate and was not taken at the direction of the candidate. The last portion of Section 5 deals with communications in the form of a newsletter from a legislator to constituents, and indicates that incumbents can send out those newsletters and not count the cost as a contribution to that incumbent's campaign. · Section 6 deals with communications by groups to their membership, such as a union newsletter or a corporate newsletter. If the cost of such a normal mailing to members of the group is $500 or less, it is not considered a campaign contribution. · Section 7 concerns the use of legislative offices, changing the allowable period of time from five days before and after the session to ten. · Sections F through J are activities already permitted through internal advice or formal rulings of the Ethics Committee, and the change is just codifying those sections. Also, on page 9 are two sections on ethics that appear in statute in other places, so this is just making corresponding change. CHAIR COGHILL asked about the extended use of office space at the beginning and end of session. SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that right now, legislators are permitted to utilize their offices if they wish to do so, and the change is just broadening that period of time by five days at either end of the session, increasing the total number of days from 130 to 140. Number 1087 SENATOR THERRIAULT said Section 9 had been added by the Senate Finance Committee. It allows a gift of transportation from one legislator to another. "It clarifies that if I was going hunting with Representative Coghill, ... he could fly me out to the hunting camp; that would be allowed." he explained. "Or if Representative Coghill was going to fly down to Mat-Su to participate in some function ..., I could catch a ride with him if he was flying a personal plane." Number 1170 CHAIR COGHILL observed that time was short, and "there's a lot of stuff in here." Number 1197 SUSIE BARNETT, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, testified by teleconference. She said she and the committee chair, Dennis "Skip" Cook, were in general concerned about amendments to the ethics code that have a piecemeal effect. "The ethics code is becoming more and more disjointed over the years as it gets amended and more difficult for legislators and legislative employees to comprehend," she said. "So I guess we are urging caution, and if there are amendments, to please ensure that they are brought in and tied from one section to another." MS. BARNETT said they also are concerned that disclosure required by the ethics code not only benefit the public, but also help legislators and legislative employees in evaluating the influences, gifts, and commitments of those in the legislative branch. "And so on that note, we recommend adding a disclosure requirement to the subsection just referenced by Senator Therriault which is on page 11, subsection 9, ... lines 8-12, ... [requiring] disclosure if the value is over $250." CHAIR COGHILL asked her to repeat her recommendation. MS. BARNETT said they recommend adding a gift disclosure requirement if the value of the gift of transportation is valued at more than $250. It would still be allowable; there wouldn't be a cap on it. "It's just that once it kicked in at $250, much like any of our other gift disclosures, you would need to file a disclosure report. I haven't prepared an amendment to that because ... Terry Cramer of Legal is the one who can tie all the pieces together. There are several sections in the ethics code that refer to disclosure," she said. Number 1369 SENATOR THERRIAULT told the committee that the change allowing gifts of transportation was a policy call, and that he was amenable to whichever way they want to look at it. "There's the full gamut of not requiring it [disclosure], just saying it's allowable; requiring disclosure just to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics ("Ethics Committee"); or requiring public disclosure," he said. Senate Finance chose to not have any disclosure, ... [but] "if the [House State Affairs] committee wants to consider one of those methods of disclosure, that would be certainly within your purview." Number 1440 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "Are we assuming that this little trip that you made out hunting was because the two of you are friends or because you're a legislator and he is a supporter?" SENATOR THERRIAULT acknowledged that would be hard to determine. "We're clearly not allowing Representative Coghill, if he had a plane, to fly me ... from village to village during a campaign. Currently under the law, if there is a hearing going on in McGrath on predator control and Coghill was going to fly out there, I could go because it would be a gift for a specific legislative purpose. But now when we're getting into the area of just going hunting or maybe he ... just wants to fly me out around the Tanana Valley ... to show off his new plane, that's what we're really clarifying is that area, and I guess what Ms. Barnett is asking that if we allow that to happen, that we at least have some kind of tracking or disclosure on it." MS. BARNETT confirmed that was, correct, adding, "It's just that it needs to be tied into our disclosure section, but it would only affect this particular disclosure." Number 1585 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES proposed adopting that disclosure as a conceptual amendment [Amendment 1]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if the committee was going to hold SB 103 for further discussion. CHAIR COGHILL noted that SB 103 had been noticed in another committee and declared his intent to send the conceptual amendment to the drafter and the bill to the next committee of referral. "It's my intention to go ahead and move on this issue," he said. "I think it's unfortunate the time is short, but that's going to be true now probably until the end of session. We're going to have to make sure we stay as concise as possible. I've ried to do that and still allow for as much public discussion as possible. At this point though, we've come to the time where we must either act or fold." Number 1650 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said if the committee was going to act, he would like to make one more conceptual amendment [Amendment 2]: Page 5, line 26, Delete "other than legal" REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2. Representatives Crawford and Hayes voted for Amendment 2. Representatives Fate, James, Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted against Amendment 2. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 5 to 2. Number 1734 SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the disclosure required by Amendment 1 was disclosure to the Ethics Committee alone or public disclosure. "That does need to be clarified," he said. pointing out that the Ethics Committee receives some information that is simply tracked by the committee but not disclosed to the public. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he would feel more comfortable with public disclosure. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected, saying disclosure to the Ethics Committee was fine, but that public disclosure was going too far. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES responded, "I will keep it as is and we can vote." SENATOR THERRIAULT clarified that Representative Hayes' amendment called for disclosure to the Ethics Committee and that the information disclosed would be public. Number 1829 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Senator Therriault for further clarification. "What is going to be disclosed? Is it going to be the total concept of any time that you associate yourself with an elected official?" he asked. SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 11, lines 8-12, saying the disclosure requirement applied specifically to a gift of transportation from one legislator to another worth at least $250. REPRESENTATIVE FATE observed that a gift of transportation could be almost anything, and some things between friends are completely outside the realm of politics. "To bring this even to the Ethics Committee is a stretch, but to bring it to the public is really a stretch," he declared. Number 1912 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he would have problems with this, too. "It includes if you came to Kodiak and I took you halibut fishing, how do we figure out what the cost of that is?" he asked. "If you were to go on a charter, it could easily exceed $250, but ... it's just a silly thing, I can't see us even getting involved in that. I'm against the whole issue." REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD volunteered, "If I went to Kodiak I'd certainly want the halibut trip if I could get Representative Stevens to take me, but ..." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS interjected, "It's coming back that's the problem, Sir." REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD continued, "... but also I think we could be opening a can of worms here. Using Senator Olson as an example just because he has a plane, he could take a person of his choosing around to different villages and it could be just friendly, but it could run into thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions by the amount of travel that he might give. I certainly think that we need to have public disclosure of that sort of thing." Number 1993 SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that this section of statute deals specifically with ethics. In addition, there are the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) statutes. If Senator Olson was flying somebody around during a campaign and they were meeting with officials, that would be campaigning, and those contributions of transportation would all be disclosed and limited under APOC, he said. Number 2026 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed concern about whether traveling to "all these different villages in the off year" would be considered campaigning. He pointed out that it could be construed to help in a subsequent campaign even thought it wasn't in the time immediately before an election. SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that if the activity triggered the existing APOC laws, that would all be disclosed and limited under APOC. "We're just talking here about what is ethical for you to receive from another legislator as far as transportation," he emphasized. "The APOC statutes and their triggers operate completely ... [apart] from this section of statutes." Number 2074 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that private aircraft is about the only way to get to many villages, and if somebody goes up there to visit, that's how they're going to travel, and it's "no big deal." Number 2094 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES gave an example of Senator Olson going out to a village because they're having a potlatch or a party: It's not a campaign season, and Representative Foster's relatives are out there, and he wants to go, and Olson is going and ... [so Representative Foster] gets in and goes. It has nothing to do with campaigning; it has only to do with some personal experience that you're having. That's what this applies to, is that correct? SENATOR THERRIAULT said that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that to him, the issue boils down to his thinking full disclosure to the public is not a bad thing. CHAIR COGHILL called for another vote on the conceptual amendment, Amendment 1, specifying that the disclosure of a gift of travel would be made to the Ethics Committee and then to the public. A second roll call vote on Amendment 1 was taken. Representatives Crawford Hayes voted for Amendment 1. Representatives Fate James, Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted against Amendment 1. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 5 to 2. Number 2186 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSSB 103(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS wished to clarify that the committee had just dealt with amendments proposed in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, and that [CSSB 103(FIN)] still included Section 9 as proposed by Senator Therriault. CHAIR COGHILL said that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected. CHAIR COGHILL said he was going to recess to the call of the chair, but first wanted the committee to vote on CSSB 103(FIN). A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, James, Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted for CSSB 103(FIN). Representatives Crawford Hayes voted against CSSB 103(FIN). Therefore, CSSB 103(FIN) moved out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of five to two. CHAIR COGHILL recessed the committee at 10:15 a.m., announcing that it would reconvene immediately after the floor session to take up SB 93. [A new tape was inserted when the meeting was reconvened, and therefore there is no recording on Tape 01-32, Side B.] TAPE 01-33, SIDE A
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|