Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/10/1993 03:30 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE
JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES
February 10, 1993
3:30 p.m.
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
SENATE MEMBER ABSENT
Senator George Jacko
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chairman
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Ed Willis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Public Members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics
WITNESS REGISTER
ISAAC CHARLTON
4027 Birch Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Public member to testify.
WILLIAM BROWN
9150 Skywood
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Public member to testify.
LEO A. LAND
P.O. Box 122
Haines, Alaska 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the hearings.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-9, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the joint meeting of the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees to order at 3:40 p.m. to
discuss the appointment and selection of two people to the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics: ISAAC CHARLTON and
WILLIAM BROWN.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced the chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, and the
remainder of the House committee members.
SENATOR TAYLOR invited MR. CHARLTON to make an opening
statement.
MR. CHARLTON explained he liked to do public service and had
participated, mostly on the local level, since leaving
college. He equated ethics with his employment as a risk
manager and as a certified public accountant.
SENATOR TAYLOR opened the hearing to the legislators for
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS discussed with Mr. Charlton his
employment with the University of Alaska, where he teaches
correspondence and night courses.
Number 124
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked a hypothetical question
suggesting Mr. Charlton might have a conflict of interest on
the budget of the University of Alaska while sitting in
judgement on a legislator.
MR. CHARLTON explained why it would be no conflict for him.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned whether there might be a
perception of conflict by the public.
MR. CHARLTON said he was far removed from the budget
process.
SENATOR LITTLE expressed her appreciation to Mr. Charlton
for his interest in the position and asked about his state
and national organizations, which have their own code of
ethics.
MR. CHARLTON listed four organizations, described the ethics
component of each, and gave an example.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN quoted Mr. Charlton's remark that there
was no fee large enough to jeopardize his license, and asked
why he didn't include "conscious or ethics."
MR. CHARLTON explained that any compromise of conscious or
ethics could lose his license.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked which he held in highest esteem.
MR. CHARLTON said he was considered to be an ethical
employee and described the relationship among the points
suggested by Representative Green.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Charlton if he had ever been
in a compromising situation in his past.
MR. CHARLTON said he was not aware of any.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was anything
embarrassing in his background.
MR. CHARLTON couldn't think of anything relevant.
Number 240
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained there had been a criminal
investigation sheet done on the other persons interviewed
for the Ethics Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN assured her a criminal check had been
made and both Mr. Charlton and Mr. Brown have no criminal
record.
Number 256
SENATOR LITTLE asked about the voting record and was
referred to the last page.
SENATOR TAYLOR gave copies of their voting record to the two
participants, and there was some discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Mr. Charlton if he had a
particular attitude about the complaints noted in the
newspaper.
MR. CHARLTON said the persons involved would be considered
innocent until proven guilty. He described a TV interview
the previous day in Fairbanks in which he had answered
similar questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about other pressures besides the
news media experience.
MR. CHARLTON described media attention he had received when
there was a short-fall in the University appropriation
because of the liability insurance crisis. He described
additional interviews related to other interests.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned the time constraints on
his employment in the event the Ethics Committee was kept in
Juneau for a prolonged period of time.
MR. CHARLTON explained he had discussed it with his
supervisor, to the satisfaction of both. Mr. Charlton
described time he had taken off for medical problems, and
how he had depended heavily on his staff.
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked for clarification as to
whether he would have difficulty with the stress of the job.
MR. CHARLTON assured her he was well.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered about Mr. Charlton's general
health.
MR. CHARLTON explained the physical repairs had been to
correct an inherited condition.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND questioned possibly having three out
of five Ethics Committee members from the University of
Alaska and asked Mr. Charlton if he knew two of the other
candidates.
MR. CHARLTON state he did not.
Number 436
SENATOR TAYLOR queried Mr. Charlton as to his life
experiences and family. He described his employment
schedule, his spouse, his children, and his involvement in
building, repairing, and racing cars.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Charlton's opinion of lawyers. He
explained the legal procedures in his office and how
attorneys were selected by the RFP process.
Number 488
SENATOR LITTLE asked Mr. Charlton about his general feelings
on the use of alcohol, and he said it was fine in
moderation. Since his heart problems, Mr. Charlton said he
no longer used any alcohol.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Charlton for his candid answers
and wished him luck.
MR. CHARLTON asked what would happen next, and there was a
general discussion on the votes to be taken, assigned
counsel, and the ethics code.
SENATOR TAYLOR next welcomed MR. WILLIAM BROWN to the "hot
seat" and asked for his opening statement.
MR. BROWN explained his political interests during his two
years in Juneau, as well as previous political involvement
before coming to Juneau. He felt he had the attributes to
be able to see all sides of an issue.
Number 581
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for some background information on his
work experience and family.
MR. BROWN explained he had moved from Tacoma, Washington,
had been a college professor since 1977, was married this
past summer, and studied in many places because his father
was in the navy. He described his life in Juneau working on
his house.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Brown if he knew Mr. Curry.
MR. BROWN admitted to knowing who he is, but said he has
little contact due to their different teaching assignments.
Number 612
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Brown if he might have a
conflict of interest on the budget of the University of
Alaska with sitting in judgement on a legislator.
MR. BROWN said he would probably be aware of it, but felt he
could see both sides and make objective opinions. He didn't
know how it would be perceived by the public.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed concern at having state
employees on the Ethics Committee because of a possible
perception that the public would think a state employee
would be overly protective.
Number 660
MR. BROWN said he thought being objective was part of being
a scientist.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Brown how he would handle
his teaching schedule if the Ethics Committee would be busy
for weeks on end.
MR. BROWN explained how his teaching schedule could be
modified to meet the needs of the Ethics Committee. He did
hope the meetings would be in Juneau, but he described a
contingency plan for trips to other places. In addition,
Mr. Brown said he does research and writing, which could be
postponed in the event of a prolonged Ethics Committee
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, in reference to Mr. Brown's letter,
asked for clarification on one of his statements dealing
with economics.
MR. BROWN gave an example to explain his point of view as an
economist, and he contrasted his view to that of Mr.
Charlton's.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested Mr. Brown would be bringing
in external things to make a judgement call.
MR. BROWN said it might help to see the intent through an
economist's view point. They discussed vague facts,
negative intent, and being innocent until proven guilty.
Mr. Brown said he was not looking for negative intent.
Number 732
SENATOR TAYLOR paused in the deliberations to announce some
economic news for the state - a $630 million tax settlement
with British Petroleum America.
SENATOR LITTLE thanked Mr. Brown for his application to the
Ethics Committee and stated he wanted to know if he had any
familiarity with the Bush communities in Alaska.
MR. BROWN explained that before moving to Alaska he had
spent some time backpacking, but he hadn't lived in any
other part of the state. Much of his knowledge about the
Native culture, he said, was from his wife who is a weaver.
SENATOR LITTLE asked Mr. Brown if he had any experience with
press pressure.
MR. BROWN related a story to indicate he was a bit chary of
the press. He explained how he would respond to the press
if asked about an ethics case.
SENATOR LITTLE questioned him as to whether he had formed
any opinions about recent events involving legislators.
MR. BROWN said he was aware of the events and explained what
he would say.
Number 821
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Brown if he had ever run
for a partisan office.
MR. BROWN reviewed working on campaigns, but said he never
actually ran for a partisan office.
Number 840
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Brown for clarification on
his information base for judging people who have run for
elected office.
MR. BROWN speculated as to why running for office might help
him be more perceptive about the workings of the
legislature.
TAPE 93-9, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. BROWN said he had no reason to believe legislators were
less ethical than any other occupations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said it seems that ethical behavior
in politics is very complex, is not an ordinary life, nor
are legislators a normal type of citizen.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed with what Representative Davidson
attempted to portray, but was unable to think of an analogy
that would be of assistance. He gave an example to show the
inadvertent occurrence in government.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said Senator Taylor had portrayed it
correctly.
MR. BROWN acknowledged the difference in the life of a
legislator and those in the academia, and referred to
Senator Taylor's hypothetical example for his answer. They
discussed conflict-of-interest and voting self-interest.
Number 209
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she was impressed with Dr. Brown's
objectivity to look at both sides of an issue, and said she
would not apply for an ethics position. She asked to whom
he owed his responsibility in his judgement.
MR. BROWN said he would not compromise his own ethics, and
would step down rather than do so. He described himself as
a compassionate person.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how Mr. Brown could judge fairly
under the pressure of being a member of a Democratic group
who would want a certain decision.
MR. BROWN acknowledged he was a Democrat, but explained the
focus would be on the ethical issue rather than his
political party.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS quoted his statement, "If everything
I read in the paper is completely factual ...." and asked
Mr. Brown if his imagination could stretch to think that
could be a completely accurate statement in itself.
MR. BROWN said there was probably a mix of sensationalism
and truth, but he could not say whether it was an ethics
violation.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she wanted his personal opinion
on whether everything he read in the paper could be true.
MR. BROWN conceded sports scores were true.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS quizzed Mr. Brown on his political
life before he moved to Alaska. He explained most of his
political tasks were door-to-door campaigning, but when he
was in graduate school at the University of Colorado, he
worked on economic projects dealing with school funding and
tax issues with then Representative Timothy Wirth. He
didn't characterize these as being strictly political.
Number 378
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND thought Mr. Brown's short residence
in Alaska might have a bearing on his ability to perform the
job on the committee.
MR. BROWN repeated that he thought ethics were universal,
and he explained more of his philosophy in this respect.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Brown why he would want to be
involved in the Ethics Committee.
MR. BROWN listed "being interesting" and "feeling good" as a
couple of reasons.
Number 415
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Brown, in reference to some
articles from M.I.T., what kind of an economist he was. He
described himself as a "cautious interventionist," and
explained his reasons.
SENATOR TAYLOR was not concerned over Mr. Browns's views,
and praised him for standing up for his convictions and
accountability.
SENATOR TAYLOR talked about the need for balance on the
committee and asked Mr. Brown about his testimony as to "...
certain standards that a public official needed to be
upheld." Senator Taylor asked his opinion on standards of
conduct for "a priest, a pauper, a butcher, a baker, a
candle stick maker, and a politician."
MR. BROWN explained there were some things the same for
everyone, and he listed some acts as unethical for everyone.
He then explained that "sexual harassment," when you grab a
person who doesn't want to be grabbed, is always wrong, and
he elaborated on this theme. He discussed the "appearance"
of the act as important, too.
Number 491
SENATOR TAYLOR said there was quite a significant difference
between ethical conduct and criminal conduct, and he
explained his perception that the difference is sometimes
"blurred." He gave a true example of another representative
to describe his meaning. Senator Taylor asked Mr. Brown if
he thought that would be unethical conduct.
MR. BROWN didn't think it would be an ethical issue unless
the drinking was effecting the behavior, and he said this
was becoming more of an issue. He listed some attributes
for ethical behavior, such as honesty and trust.
Number 545
SENATOR TAYLOR gave an example of former Representative
Wilbur Mills as a brilliant member of Congress, who chaired
one of the most influential committees in the House, where
he crafted the Internal Revenue Code. He was, also,
apparently a raging alcoholic, whose behavior culminated in
an embarrassing display in a water fountain. Senator Taylor
asked Mr. Brown if Representative Mill's alcohol problem was
unethical.
MR. BROWN said he didn't think alcohol-induced behavior was
unethical, but alcohol could cause a person to do something
that was unethical. He didn't think Representative Mill's
act was unethical, but if he had used his authority to
induce a sixteen year old girl to dance naked in the tidal
pool with him, that would be unethical. Mr. Brown thought
that behavior would need close scrutiny, and elaborated on
the disease of alcohol.
Number 606
SENATOR TAYLOR said the committee was really looking for
judges who would judge the legislators, and he said that was
a difficult standard to meet. He thanked Mr. Brown for his
candid answers.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested Mr. Brown should read
the ethics code, and Mr. Brown agreed it was a government of
laws not people, but he reiterated his view of ethical
behavior.
SENATOR TAYLOR praised Representative Finkelstein's question
as a culmination to the process and explained jurisdiction
as related to the statute of limitations. He excused Mr.
Brown.
Number 659
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced LEO LAND, from Haines, who wished
to testify.
MR. LAND asked how it was decided who would be appointed as
a candidate.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the initial selection was by Chief
Justice Daniel Moore, and he reviewed the appointment
process. He explained that Mr. Charlton and Mr. Brown had
come from a list of alternates. Senator Taylor also
explained that Justice Moore had been asked to send names of
those with Bush experience, and females - for gender
balance.
Number 684
MR. LAND shared some of his own political history, and said
he hoped the process would soon end.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the difficulty was a 2/3 vote in both
the House and Senate. He again referred to the high
standard required of Ethics Committee members to sit in
judgement on the legislators.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|