Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/07/2017 05:30 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 | |
| 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 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
5:32:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first 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).]
5:33:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on CSSSHB 44(JUD).
5:34:46 PM
BARBARA HOOD testified that she supports CSSSHB 44(JUD) and
believes it to be a step in the right direction. She asserted
that if a legislator has a conflict of interest, it is very
important that he/she not act on the public's behalf unless the
full legislative body is aware of the conflict of interest and
has weighed in on the merits of the advantages or disadvantages
of allowing the member to vote. She stated that with so many
issues facing legislators, public faith and confidence in the
process are of utmost importance. She offered that when
conflicts of interest are not addressed openly, public
confidence in legislative actions is undermined. She emphasized
that the integrity of the legislative process depends on
Alaskans knowing that all the decisions made on their behalf are
in their best interest and not influenced by conflicts of
interest.
5:37:15 PM
JAKE JACOBSEN testified that he supports passage of CSSSHB
44(JUD). He expressed his belief that legislators should be
ashamed of themselves for their lack of ethics rules. He
asserted that an honest person would want to "put teeth into"
the ethics rules.
5:39:02 PM
MARGO WARING testified that she appreciates the attempt to
provide more guidance to legislators regarding conflict of
interest, but she opined that the proposed legislation "leaves
things to be desired." She expressed her belief that most
voters mistakenly believe that legislators are not permitted to
vote when they have conflicts of interest, because they feel it
is inappropriate.
MS. WARING explained her concerns with CSSSHB 44(JUD). She
stated that on page 2, Section 1(e)(3), the standard that is
used [for conflict of interest] is employment, and she asserted
that other financial aspects should be recognized. She
mentioned that subparagraph (D) [under Section 1(e)(3)] refers
to receiving a financial benefit of more than $10,000 of income,
but there is no mention of a comparable increase in the value of
one's assets or other financial interests. She opined that the
standard is artificially high and referred to the "Corrupt
Bastards Club" [a group of former Alaskan legislators implicated
in a federal corruption investigation], who accepted bribes for
less than $10,000.
MS. WARING referred to AS 24.60.030(g), which states that the
Uniform Rules take precedence over the statute. She suggested
that there is a lack of "teeth" in the Section 1 of the proposed
legislation if any change to the Uniform Rules can negate what
the section states. She concluded by offering that the proposed
legislation represents a move in the right direction, but
additions are needed. She opined that the most important
addition would be the requirement that a legislator must abstain
from voting if he/she has a conflict of interest.
5:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Ms. Waring's mention of the
[Corrupt Bastards Club] bribery case and offered that the
proposed legislation includes nothing about bribes.
MS. WARING responded that the point she was making was that
experience demonstrates that people will "do things" for a
financial benefit of less than $10,000.
5:44:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP agreed that changes to CSSSHB 44(JUD) are
needed. He asserted that there are many conflicts of interest
that are not financial. He also agreed that the current process
for declaring conflicts of interest on the floor of the House
and Senate is inadequate. He opined that the legislature seems
to "err on the side of caution, and our floor procedures
sometimes don't function very well." He stated that he is
reluctant to create a situation in which legislators over-
declare [conflicts of interest]. He said that he does not
recall that anyone in the Corrupt Bastards Club truly had a
conflict of interest. He asked Ms. Waring if she is aware of
any specific instances of conflict of interest [among
legislators].
MS. WARING replied that she agreed that there are potential
conflicts of interest that are not financial. She added that
she thinks that the standard for financial conflict of interest
specified in CSSSHB 44(JUD) is a high bar. She mentioned that
in recent years, people have been excused from abstaining from
voting, thus made to vote. She stated that in her many years of
experience and involvement with the legislature, she believes
that many legislators with conflicts of interest have voted.
5:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that in the Twenty-Eighth Alaska
State Legislature, 2013-2014, a representative failed to declare
a conflict of interest and was found in violation [of AS
24.60.030(g)].
5:48:03 PM
DOUGLAS MERTZ testified that for many years he was an assistant
attorney general for the State of Alaska. He relayed that part
of his duties was to administer the Alaska Executive Branch
Ethics Act passed by the legislature to apply ethics rules and
procedures to members of the executive branch and members of
boards and commissions. He said that as an attorney, he is also
aware of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which applies to judges
and others in the judicial branch. He attested that for the
other two branches of state government, the rules are clear and
strict: if you have a conflict of interest, you do not take
official action. He maintained that it is only the legislature
that has effectively exempted itself from that rule. He stated
his belief that the public is aware and aghast at the current
procedure on the House and Senate floor allowing a single
objection to excuse a conflict of interest. He opined that
Alaskans believe legislators are not consistent in applying
[conflict of interest] rules to the branches of government. He
asserted that the rules should be the same for every public
servant: if someone has a conflict of interest, then he/she
should not take official action.
MR. MERTZ said that he is aware of the argument that requiring a
legislator to abstain from voting deprives that member's
constituents of that vote. He asserted that most of the
constituents would not mind being deprived of a biased vote -
one motivated by money or an improper interest.
MR. MERTZ referred to Section 1 of CSSSHB 44(JUD) and contended
that the proposed legislation mentions items that might benefit
a legislator's family or employer, but not the legislator
himself/herself. He agreed with previous testimony that not all
conflicts of interest are financial and mentioned the
possibility of a "romantic" conflict of interest. He
recommended that a conflict of interest not be defined solely in
terms of money. He concluded by reiterating that for all public
servants, if there is a conflict of interest, then they should
not take official action.
5:52:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if Mr. Mertz was aware of any
instance on the floor of the House or Senate in which someone
declared a conflict of interest, there was no objection raised,
and the legislator was not permitted to vote.
MR. MERTZ responded that he is not aware of any such instance.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that, in theory, if someone
announced an egregious and obvious conflict of interest, there
would be no objection. He offered that each representative
spends a great deal of time communicating with the public, is
"hired" by about 5,000-10,000 voters, and submits a Public
Official Financial Disclosure (POFD). He suggested that the
public has the information and tools to make a judgement on the
representative it elects and any potential conflicts of interest
of that representative.
MR. MERTZ agreed that the public is the final arbiter but
questioned whether the public gets the necessary information.
He said that he doubts whether the members of the Corrupt
Bastards Club reported on their POFDs the payments they
received. He added that an impropriety may well be under the
table and out of sight, in which case the voters have a
handicap.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that people who are going to lie,
cheat, and steal, will do so regardless of the rules
established. He said that his concern is regarding 40
legislators "getting tangled up" during the floor session trying
to determine conflicts of interest.
5:56:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that a judge who knows a defendant
in a trial will recuse himself. He asked Mr. Mertz if his
testimony took into consideration a citizen legislature, one
whose members have other jobs when not in session.
MR. MERTZ answered that legislators should be meeting with and
listening to their constituents, as long as they are not doing
it in a way that involves money or some other improper
emolument. He said he believes that to be a critical
distinction. He mentioned that judges must recuse themselves
not only if there is a conflict of interest but if there is the
appearance of a conflict of interest. He reiterated that there
is a high standard for the other branches of government
[regarding conflict of interest].
5:58:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that the Corrupt Bastards Club is
a low bar, those people were punished, and the "system" has
changed quite a bit since then. He referred to the various
possible conflicts of interest and mentioned a recent vote on
the floor concerning one of the boards and commissions. He said
that a legislator was a dues-paying member of the board
overseeing the industry in which the legislator was licensed to
practice. He asserted that questions related to conflicts of
interest arise often and are difficult to sort out.
MR. MERTZ maintained that the rules must be crafted with reason.
He added that no one would say, "If you're an engineer, you must
never vote on a bill which affects engineers."
6:00:27 PM
GEORGE PIERCE testified that CSSSHB 44(JUD) is a good start but
needs more work. He expressed his belief that a legislator
should be excused from voting on legislation, if he/she has a
financial conflict of interest. He added that no legislator
should be allowed to override another legislator's declared
conflict of interest. He opined that a legislator should, out
of conscience, abstain from voting, and he said he does not
recall that ever happening.
MR. PIERCE stated that he supports Section 2 of CSSSHB 44(JUD)
and that too many times it appears that legislators vote in
favor of their personal interests instead of serving the public.
He gave as an example [the passage of] Senate Bill 21, in which
the deciding vote was cast by a legislator who was a manager for
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. He opined that the vote constituted
a definite conflict of interest. He said that he supports the
administrative hearing process mentioned in Section 3 of CSSSHB
44(JUD). He paraphrased Section 5 of CSSSHB 44(JUD), which read
as follows:
This Act takes effect only if the Thirtieth Alaska
State Legislature passes a resolution that amends Rule
34(b), Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature,
to require a member to request to be excused from
voting on a question before a house of the legislature
when the member has a conflict of interest that is
reasonably likely to influence the member's vote on
the question, and allow a member's abstention to be
approved or disapproved by a majority vote.
MR. PIERCE emphasized that Uniform Rule 34(b) needs to be
changed. He expressed his disapproval of the current procedures
allowing a vote regardless of a declared conflict of interest.
He maintained that declared conflicts of interest should be put
to a vote. He opined that legislators with conflicts of
interest being allowed to vote constitutes a corrupt system. He
added that the same standard that applies to municipal governing
bodies should apply to the legislature: if there is a conflict
of interest, the member may not vote.
6:04:33 PM
CARL BERGER testified that he believes each legislator must
determine his/her own appropriate course of action if he/she has
a potential conflict of interest. He added that the key to
addressing potential conflicts of interest is ensuring that
no conflicts of interest are involved in any decision-making
process, thus maintaining transparency and public trust in all
activities of both bodies of the legislature at all times. He
urged the committee to support those guiding principles through
the proposed legislation.
MR. BERGER suggested that changes to the proposed legislation
would strengthen legislative integrity and public trust. He
maintained that community and state leaders lead by example when
financial conditions, such as the current budget dilemma,
require it. He said that Governor Bill Walker reduced his
salary by 40 percent to support cost savings; all Alaskans have
given up 50 percent of their permanent fund dividend (PFD); many
Alaskans are willing to tax themselves for the good of the
state; and many state employees have taken pay cuts or reduced
work hours. He contended that the legislators continue to
collect an exorbitant amount in per diem, a $50,400 salary for
three to four months' work, an office expense allowance of
between $12,000 and $20,000 for minimal office expenses, per
diem when living at home, lavish multiple trips worldwide at
state expense that are junkets with no real purpose or activity
reports, and moving allowances that include washers, dryers,
pianos, compressors, and other questionable goods. He opined
that the "time for all of you to clean house is long past," and
he urged the committee to "do the right thing."
6:07:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed testimony on CSSSHB 44(JUD). He
announced that CSSSHB 44(JUD) would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB44 Comments 3.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/7/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB127 Supporting Document-Support Screenshot 3.17.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/7/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| HB127 Supporting Document- Annual PFD Individual Payouts 3.16.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/7/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| HB127 Sectional Analysis ver A 3.17.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/7/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| HB127 Sponsor Statement 3.17.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/7/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| HB 127 Supporting Documents- Supporting Letters.pdf |
HSTA 3/7/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |