Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/23/2003 01:07 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 89-LOBBYING/ LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIR SEEKINS informed members that a proposed committee
substitute was prepared (version I). He said the committee
substitute clarifies that someone who engages clientele for the
business, occupation, service or profession of including
legislative or administrative action is a lobbyist. It further
defines those people who fall in the "four-hour group." It also
includes one more definition that uses the phrase "communicate
directly."
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Version I is new to this meeting.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it is. He explained the handout is a visual
aide to show how the committee substitute (CS) will read in its
final form.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt version I as the working
document before the committee.
SENATOR ELLIS objected and asked for another explanation of the
substantive changes.
CHAIR SEEKINS explained:
... It takes the professional lobbyist and puts them
in the first place rather than in the second place so
they just switched around (A) and (B) from the old
bill. It basically says that if you are a professional
lobbyist, you are one. And then, secondly, it goes in
paragraph (B), which would be on page 2 - it says that
a person who receives wages or other economic
consideration, including reimbursement of travel and
expenses, to communicate directly with any public
official for the express purpose of influencing
legislative or administrative action and during more
than 40 hours in any 30 day period in one calendar
year, would also be required to be a registered
lobbyist.
He said the words "regular" and "substantial" were removed. It
says instead that if a person engages in certain activities for
a certain length of time, that person is considered to be a
lobbyist.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to Subsection 8(B)(ii) and noted it
now says 40 hours in any 30-day period.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed and clarified that the words, "in any 30-
day period in one calendar year" were added.
SENATOR ELLIS removed his objection, therefore version I was
adopted.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if, under version I, a lobbyist is
considered to be anyone who engages clientele for the business,
meaning anyone who actively represents another person. He asked
if he offered to work for GCI for $1,000 per month to do a
specific job in the Legislature that only took him 10 minutes,
he would be considered to be a professional lobbyist.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he would and, as he understands the current
law, he would have to register before he could begin to
represent GCI.
SENATOR FRENCH then asked if the other category of lobbyist is
someone who receives wages or other economic consideration,
including reimbursement for reasonable travel and living
expenses, which would include a sole business owner.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it could be a sole business owner, an
employee, or anyone who was paid or got compensated as part of
his or her job. He added if it is solely one's job, that person
is in a different category.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if Chair Seekins' service manager came to
the legislature to discuss a bill about repair procedures and
was paid a wage and reimbursed for travel, that employee would
not be considered to be a lobbyist because he did not spend more
than 40 hours in any 30 day period.
CHAIR SEEKINS said that is correct.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if that would affect the "public" lobbyist
- the schoolteachers or school board lobbyists.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it would not because public employees are
exempt.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he prefers 40 hours in any 30 day
period, as opposed to one month. He did not want to see people
use the calendar month to postpone discussions until the
beginning of the next month and "reset the clock."
SENATOR OGAN asked why the language on page 1, line 9, that
reads, "by means including but not limited to the provision or
use of information, statistics, studies, or analyses in written
or oral form or format" was deleted.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he does not know why that language was there
in the first place. He explained, "Quite frankly, influencing
legislative action would mean to me to communicate directly for
the purpose of influencing legislative action." That is already
included in the first part of the bill.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked that a staff member from the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) respond to that question.
MS. BROOKE MILES, Executive Director of APOC, said she was also
curious about why it was dropped. However, since lobbying is
done through direct communication, specifying the kind of
materials used within that communication is unnecessary.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he removed it to get rid of the clutter.
SENATOR ELLIS indicated that Chair Seekins' original proposal
contained 80 hours and APOC proposed an increase from four to 16
hours. He asked why Chair Seekins cut his original 80 hours to
40 hours.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he looked at what other states do in terms of
time. He noted that 40 hours is actually a little less than one-
third of the time an average person works in a month. Therefore,
if a person lobbies for more than one-third of his time per
month, he feels that person should be a registered lobbyist. He
said APOC's proposal of 16 hours is a move in the right
direction but it did not go far enough.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the chair could concede that some people
could come to Juneau and spend 80 hours lobbying and not have
much of an impact, while others who are not professional
lobbyists could spend an hour and have an enormous impact on the
public treasury or the public interest. He said he would hate to
see this policy change be naive about how business is really
conducted in the Capitol.
CHAIR SEEKINS said from his limited experience, he believes the
amount of time someone spends lobbying is nowhere equated to the
effectiveness of their effort.
SENATOR OGAN said a good lobbyist might only need to be here for
two hours while a bad one might spend 80. He said it is hard to
quantify, but a number has to be put on somewhere.
SENATOR ELLIS asked, with all due respect to the Chair, why the
committee would accept the chair's judgment, with his admitted
limited experience, regarding a reasonable time limit in place
of what has been recommended by the APOC, who has been observing
this business for years.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he does not see it as a matter of judgment;
it is a matter of preference. He believes APOC would agree to a
higher number than 16. He added that 40 hours is one opinion of
where the loop is that is not too big or too small yet captures
and requires those people who lobby as a profession or as part
of their job to be registered lobbyists. Those who are not but
can provide insight to legislators should not be precluded from
the rest of the process. He said he is not sure they are
lobbying when they are being helpful and pointing out pitfalls.
That is different than trying to influence legislation. He said
what he really doesn't want is to limit public input in any way.
SENATOR OGAN commented that in response to Senator Ellis's
point, ultimately the committee as a whole, the Senate as a
whole, and the full body will make the decision. Anyone is free
to propose amendments to the bill.
SENATOR ELLIS said he would vote for 20 hours.
CHAIR SEEKINS said 40 hours is less than 25 percent of a full
time job.
SENATOR FRENCH said his perspective is from the viewpoint of his
average constituent who is busy with life and may send one e-
mail during an entire session, but most likely sends none. Most
people do not bother to communicate with their legislators at
all. He said he wants to make certain his constituents know who
has influence over him and feels that legislators should err on
the side of caution about making sure the public knows who is
talking one-on-one to legislators about bills. With a limit of
40 hours, a person could spend about 4 days per month pushing
legislation at the legislature without ever having to register.
That is much more time than any of his constituents will ever
spend and much more time than the general public will spend
behind closed doors pushing legislation, and those people will
never have to tell the world they are lobbying. He said he would
prefer to limit the number of hours to 8 so that if a person
spends more than one full working day per month with
legislators, that person is doing way more than the average
person and should register for that particular legislative year.
If that activity was a one-time situation, the person does not
have to register the next year and can donate to anyone he or
she wants to.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether that would include public employees
and, if not, why not if they are pushing an agenda.
3:10 p.m.
SENATOR FRENCH said it would not because those people would be
advocating for a systemic change, which does not benefit them
directly. He pointed out a commissioner who discusses the need
for a change to the Department of Corrections' budget or the
need for more prison guards does not have a personal stake in
that issue.
CHAIR SEEKINS said if the public has the right to know who is
influencing legislators, the public should know who everyone is
and legislators should be the ones to report.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said Chair Seekins decreased his initial
number of 80 hours and he recalls the first debate where
anything off of the existing four hours was considered to gut
the regulations. He said both ends of the spectrum have seen
considerable movement. He stated:
I am a little bit troubled by the focus on perhaps a
few individuals and just the previous comments that
says, well, if you want to come down and exercise your
right to speak to an elected official, you can do so
if you agree to give up your constitutional rights for
a year. I just don't understand why that's necessary.
SENATOR FRENCH replied if it is Senator Therriault's position
that it is a constitutional right to donate money, that's a
constitutional right that he has yet to have explained to him in
a Supreme Court case. Supreme Court cases have long
differentiated between speaking, advocating and spending money
on one's own behalf and finding some right to donate money. He
does not believe there is a case that says a person has a right
to donate money. It is a false dichotomy that has run throughout
much of the debate on this issue.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked the wish of the committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if a fiscal note was provided.
MS. MILES told members that APOC submitted a zero fiscal note.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted he had one dated April 4 that was
prepared by the committee.
MS. MILES affirmed that APOC submitted a zero fiscal note.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSSB 89(JUD), version I, from committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
SENATOR ELLIS objected. He said he fully appreciates that Ms.
Miles and APOC staff have been under a lot of pressure and
tension this legislative session due to a lot of discussion
among legislators and the administration about several pieces of
legislation. He said he wanted to recognize what they have been
through and appreciates Ms. Miles' and APOC's attempt to speak
up for the public interest.
CHAIR SEEKINS said that APOC has worked well with he and his
staff and, while they may not agree on all points, APOC staff
has acted very professionally.
The motion to move CSSB 89(JUD) from committee carried with
Senators Ellis and French opposed and Senators Ogan, Therriault
and Chair Seekins in favor.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|