Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/02/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB97 | |
| HB44 | |
| HCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
3:16:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44 "An Act
requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or withholding
official action or exerting official influence that could
benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain employers;
requiring a legislator to request to be excused from voting in
an instance where the legislator may have a financial conflict
of interest; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was CSSSHB 44(JUD).]
3:18:24 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:18 p.m.
3:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30-
LS0208\U.3, Wayne, 3/2/17], which read:
Page 2, lines 26 - 28:
Delete "a substantial class of persons to which
the legislator or the family member who has the
financial interest belongs as a member of a
profession, occupation, industry, or region."
Insert "the general public of the state."
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "."
Insert "[A SUBSTANTIAL CLASS OF PERSONS TO WHICH
THE LEGISLATOR BELONGS AS A MEMBER OF A PROFESSION,
OCCUPATION, INDUSTRY, OR REGION]."
Page 3, lines 8 - 10:
Delete "a substantial class of persons to which
the person belongs as a member of a profession,
occupation, industry, or region"
Insert "the general public of the state"
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that Amendment 1 would make changes
to page 2, lines 26-28, of CSSSHB 44(JUD). She explained that
the proposed amendment would delete the language "a substantial
class of persons to which the legislator or the family member
who has the financial interest belongs as a member of a
profession, occupation, industry, or region" and replace it with
"the general public".
3:21:01 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:21 p.m.
3:21:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked the drafter of the amendment to
clarify the proposed changes to page 2, line 31, of CSSSHB
44(JUD).
3:22:22 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
stated that the change to page 2, line 31, is a conforming
change due to the deletion of the language on page 2, lines 26-
28. He mentioned that under Amendment 1, the deleted language
would be moved to page 2, line 31, and displayed in uppercase
letters and bracketed for clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 3, lines 8-10, of CSSSHB
44(JUD) and stated that Amendment 1 would delete the language "a
substantial class of persons to which the person belongs as a
member of a profession, occupation, industry, or region" and
insert "the general public". She explained the proposed
amendment by giving the following example: A legislator who was
a member of the alcohol industry considers proposed legislation
that affects the entire alcohol industry but doesn't affect the
legislator's business to a greater extent than the industry in
general. Under CSSSHB 44(JUD), as currently written, the
legislator would be allowed to vote on the proposed legislation.
Under Amendment 1, if the proposed legislation affects the
industry to a greater extent than the general public, the
legislator would not be allowed to vote on the proposed
legislation.
3:24:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK gave an example for clarification of
Amendment 1: Proposed legislation would reduce the cruise ship
head tax. If the legislator was the owner of a cruise ship
line, even though his/her cruise line would not be impacted
differently from other cruise lines, he/she would not be
permitted to vote because the cruise lines would be impacted
"over the general public."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed.
3:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that [under Amendment 1] if a
legislator was involved in any industry and proposed legislation
affected that industry, with the assumption that the general
public is not a part of that industry, the legislator would be
required to abstain from voting on the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed and added that the legislator would
have to have "a financial interest" as defined by CSSSHB
44(JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered the possibility that the proposed
amendment could affect non-financial issues for a class of
workers, which is different from the general public. He
suggested that a lawmaker in that class would have to declare a
conflict of interest.
3:27:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to his trade as an electrician and
asked if Amendment 1 would apply to legislation proposing new
safety standards.
3:28:20 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor of
CSSSHB 44(JUD), confirmed that Amendment 1 refers only to
situations involving financial gains or losses.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if, as a licensed electrician, he
would have to abstain from voting on proposed legislation that
reduced the required number of continuing education credits for
license renewal, thus reducing the cost.
MR. WAYNE stated that Amendment 1 refers to financial decreases
as well as increases. He added that regarding proposed
legislation changing the requirements for accreditation, if the
effect on the financial interest of the legislator is greater
than the effect on the general public, then the legislator would
be required to declare a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX emphasized that the financial interest
would have to be substantial, and there is no change in the
proposed legislation in that regard. She stated that the change
under Amendment 1 addresses the situation in which the effect of
that interest is greater [for the legislator] than for the
general public.
MR. WAYNE agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX cited the example of a legislator who
owned $100 in stocks in a cruise ship enterprise and suggested
that this would not constitute a substantial interest.
MR. WAYNE agreed that it probably would not, but the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics is the final arbiter of those
determinations.
3:32:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his concern that these questions
will all funnel into a logjam before the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that these issues would not
funnel into the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, since
the legislators would be voting on declared conflicts and
subsequent recusals. She added that the declaration of
ownership in stocks in an industry affected by proposed
legislation would become a [conflict of interest] matter for the
legislature to decide.
3:34:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he has concerns about the
entanglements that CSSSHB 44(JUD) would engender on the House
floor as legislators attempt to assess conflicts of interest.
He added that every elected legislator in Alaska has something
else going on in his/her life. He maintained that the public is
aware of the other interests through the Public Official
Financial Disclosure (POFD) and through the crucible of primary
and general elections. He opined that the current process, in
which the legislator declares a possible conflict on the
legislative floor and a single objection from the body allows
the vote, is sufficient. He mentioned the different procedure
used in local governments: the conflict of interest
determination is delegated to the presiding officer and can be
overruled by the body. He opined that CSSSHB 44(JUD) would
create huge delays, the current procedure works, and there are
sufficient checks and balances for conflicts of interest.
3:37:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL removed his objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, it was so ordered.
[CSSSHB 44(JUD) was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR 1 Draft Proposed Amendment 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 1 |
| HB 44 Draft Proposed Amendment U.3 3.2.17.PDF |
HSTA 3/2/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 97 Draft Proposed Amendment A.1 3.2.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 97 |