Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/24/1993 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 HOUSE AND SENATE
JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES
February 24, 1993
3:30 p.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter
Rep. Jeannette James
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Jim Nordlund
Rep. Cliff Davidson
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Sen. Robin Taylor, Chairman
Sen. Rick Halford
Sen. George Jacko
Sen. Suzanne Little
Sen. Dave Donley
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Sen. Georgianna Lincoln
Sen. Loren Leman
Rep. Eileen MacLean
Rep. Bill Williams
Rep. Jerry Mackie
Rep. David Finkelstein
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearings - Public Members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNIE LAURIE HOWARD
3220 Amber Bay Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Phone: 344-9289
Position Statement: Answered committee questions
EDITH VORDERSTRASSE
P.O. Box 214
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Phone: 852-2010
Position Statement: Answered committee questions
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-21, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the Joint House and Senate Judiciary
Committee meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. He noted members of
both committees who were present. He announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to review four appointees to the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. He asked Mrs. Annie
Laurie Howard to address the committee first.
Number 045
MRS. ANNIE LAURIE HOWARD said that she thought many of the
committee members knew her from her service on the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) and her participation in
COGEL, the Congress on Governmental Ethics Laws. She said
that she had applied for a seat on the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics because she had worked closely with Rep.
David Finkelstein and former Sen. Virginia Collins in
drafting the ethics law that passed the year before.
MRS. HOWARD stated that she was aware that the Joint
Judiciary Committee had already interviewed a number of
outstanding nominees, and she had assumed that her
application to serve on the ethics committee was not going
to amount to anything. She said that one day earlier she
had been informed that she was a nominee.
MRS. HOWARD stated that she served on the steering committee
of COGEL, an organization made up of all 50 states and some
foreign countries. She said the organization was concerned
with campaign finance and ethics. She added that she felt
very strongly that the legislature needed a very strong,
non-partisan, apolitical ethics committee.
Number 107
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard to outline the process that
she had gone through in applying to be on the ethics
committee.
Number 120
MRS. HOWARD responded that after the ethics law passed, a
notice went out asking that members of the public interested
in serving on the ethics committee submit resumes to Chief
Justice Moore. She said she sent a resume to the Chief
Justice, and received a telephone call from him some time in
November. He indicated that 84 people had applied to serve
on the committee, and that those people who were to be
nominees would be notified by a certain date. When that
date had come and gone, she said, she assumed that she had
not been selected as a nominee.
MRS. HOWARD noted that some of the earlier nominees had been
rejected, but she had not given her application any more
thought. She said that since she had not been on the
original list of nominees, and because she had been out of
town for a while and involved in other projects, she had not
been thinking about her application. The day before, she
added, she was going about her business when she received
word that she needed to go to Juneau the next day for a
confirmation hearing.
Number 163
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard if she had had time to read
the new ethics law.
MRS. HOWARD replied that she had read the law, and in fact
had helped to write it.
REP. DAVIDSON thanked Mrs. Howard for being willing to serve
on the ethics committee.
MRS. HOWARD noted that there used to be only two public
members on the ethics committee. She said that public input
was what gave APOC strength, in her opinion; therefore, she
felt very strongly about the relatively large number of
public members on the ethics committee.
Number 196
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard about her comments that she
probably knew a great deal more about ethics than some
legislators did. He commented that ethics was a growth
industry. He asked Mrs. Howard if she had ever been
involved in a political campaign.
Number 209
MRS. HOWARD explained that one year she had worked on Jan
Faiks' campaign. Shortly after that, she added, she began
her service on APOC. During that service, she said, she was
completely apolitical, not so much as contributing to any
political campaigns. She said that there was a great deal
of comfort in being totally absent from the tribulations of
political parties.
Number 225
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that it made any
difference that there were partisan labels on the public
members of the ethics committee.
Number 232
MRS. HOWARD responded that she did not feel that it made any
difference. She added that, in her opinion, the only reason
there were partisan nominees was so that the public would
feel that the nominees had been selected impartially.
However, she noted that she felt that the ethics committee
should be totally apolitical and nonpartisan. She noted
similarities between the ethics committee and APOC. She
stated that she had seen no partisanship on APOC. She
expressed her opinion that ethics committee members should
be precluded from any political activity whatsoever.
Number 273
REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mrs. Howard believed that the
selection process to date had been nonpolitical. He also
asked Mrs. Howard why she felt qualified to judge
legislators.
Number 277
MRS. HOWARD replied that she did not feel qualified to judge
legislators or anyone else. She expressed her opinion that
ethics could not be legislated, but the only thing that
could be done was to evaluate the ethicalness of an act.
She stated that a person either had ethics or did not have
ethics. Mrs. Howard said that what might be ethical for one
person would not necessarily be ethical to another person.
REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mrs. Howard meant that ethics were
comparative.
Number 288
MRS. HOWARD replied that she did not think that ethics were
comparative. She asserted her belief that it was important
that no determinations be made until all of the facts were
known. She stated that ethics was a nebulous thing. She
mentioned an instance in her past when, after an APOC
hearing, a legislator who appreciated the way she had voted
sent her roses. She felt that it was unethical for her to
accept the flowers, so she called the legislator and told
him that she would be donating them to the Pioneer's Home.
She concluded by saying that it was hard to define ethics,
but she knew them when she saw them.
Number 330
REP. DAVIDSON thanked Mrs. Howard for her responses. He
withdrew his question about her opinion of the selection
process.
MRS. HOWARD stated that she did not think that she had any
greater handle on ethics than anyone else did. But, she
said, she had the advantage of learning about ethics
committees in the other 50 states through her work with
COGEL.
Number 340
REP. GREEN noted that there had been a change in acceptable
behavior over the years and wondered how Mrs. Howard would
view actions that were acceptable by today's standards, but
unacceptable when she was younger.
Number 375
MRS. HOWARD said that as the mother of two sons, and as
someone who had been associated with young people over the
years, she had to learn to change some of her views. She
said that she had to recognize that her sons danced to a
different drummer than did she. She noted that she had a
degree in special education and she had learned that
although the Lord might have made people equal in some
respects, He had not done so in other respects. She
commented that people had to accept other people as they
were.
Number 409
REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Howard if she would evaluate an
identical act, performed by three different legislators of
different ages, equally.
Number 429
MRS. HOWARD said that her evaluation would depend entirely
on the circumstances surrounding the situation. She stated
that she believed that judgments should not be made relative
to a person's age. She remarked that a person's age might
be a qualifying factor that would come into play.
MRS. HOWARD said that all of the facts needed to be
considered before decisions could be made about a person's
behavior. She noted that each ethics committee member would
carry her or his own mores into the committee with them, but
would need to be totally impartial. She likened the
committee to a jury, in that jurors could not enter jury
service with their own prejudices. Jurors have to listen to
the facts and make a determination based on those facts.
She added that a juror could not be biased by a defendant's
status, but needed to be completely impartial.
MRS. HOWARD stated that nothing was either totally black or
totally white. She added that one's circumstances needed to
be taken into consideration when a situation was being
evaluated.
REP. GREEN sought to encapsulize Mrs. Howard's response.
Number 490
MRS. HOWARD said there might be circumstances where the age
of an individual was relevant, as the individual might be
senile.
Number 500
REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Howard if she had any close economic
associations or personal relationships with anyone who was
involved with state government.
Number 507
MRS. HOWARD noted that she had many friends, acquaintances,
and associates who were involved in state government.
However, she had no familial or business relationships with
any of those people.
Number 522
REP. KOTT mentioned that Mrs. Howard had put down a
legislator as a personal reference on her application. He
asked her to comment on her relationship with that
legislator, and whether or not that relationship would
affect her impartiality.
Number 529
MRS. HOWARD replied that Senator Kerttula had taken an
interest in her a number of years ago when she was ill.
But, she said, she did not share a close personal friendship
with him. She said that regardless of who the ethics
committee was evaluating, she would give her or him the
benefit of the doubt and listen to all of the facts
surrounding an allegation.
Number 560
REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Howard to comment on what ethics
problems she believed to exist currently.
MRS. HOWARD commented that the state of Louisiana had
decided to abolish its ethics law. She added that some
other states were combining ethics and campaign finance
laws, which she thought was a good idea. She noted that
South Carolina did not have an ethics watchdog group.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that he did not want anyone to feel
limited in time or scope of discussion.
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Howard if she could impartially
investigate an allegation against him, in light of their
past association with the Neighborhood Watch program.
Number 617
MRS. HOWARD cited an example from her past, in which she had
impartially evaluated an acquaintance.
Number 626
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Howard if she had formed any opinions
about recent allegations against legislators.
Number 633
MRS. HOWARD replied that because she knew that there was an
outside chance that she might be nominated to serve on the
ethics committee, she had refused to pay any attention to
accounts of the allegations. She commented that during her
tenure with APOC, the members would be sent information in
advance of meetings. She commented that it was difficult,
in those circumstances, not to form a subconscious opinion
before arriving at the meeting.
Number 663
REP. PHILLIPS commented on Mrs. Howard's work with Rep.
Finkelstein and former Sen. Collins on drafting the ethics
law, and also on her work with COGEL. She asked Mrs. Howard
if she were encouraged by any legislator to apply to serve
on the ethics committee.
Number 684
MRS. HOWARD said that no legislator had encouraged her to
apply.
Number 686
REP. PHILLIPS noted that the ethics law required the
legislature to select public members based on party
affiliation. She asked Mrs. Howard about her earlier
statement that an ethics committee member needed to be
totally nonpolitical. She asked if Mrs. Howard thought that
it was possible for a person to be totally nonpolitical on a
committee like the ethics committee.
Number 694
MRS. HOWARD said she thought it was indeed possible, as she
was totally nonpolitical during her APOC service. She said
that committee members would not be denied the opportunity
to register and vote, but would not participate in or
contribute to campaigns. She said members would go into the
committee "washed clean" of any political philosophy.
Number 719
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Howard if she would have difficulty
spending long periods of time in Juneau working on committee
business.
Number 724
MRS. HOWARD responded that she would have no problem
spending time in Juneau on committee business. She noted
that she and her husband traveled frequently, and that on a
couple of occasions urgent APOC business had come up, but
she was able to be reached by telephone.
Number 734
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Howard to explain why she felt that
it was important to have an ethics law and an ethics
committee.
Number 738
MRS. HOWARD commented that ethics could not be legislated,
but perceived breaches in ethics could be penalized. She
said it was important to deal with perceived breaches of
ethics in an arena apart from the rest of the legislature.
She added that in order to resolve situations involving
ethics, it was important that people not closely allied with
the subject of the investigation were involved.
Number 757
SEN. LITTLE thanked Mrs. Howard for applying to serve on the
ethics committee. She asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that
unethical behavior among legislators could be changed.
Number 764
MRS. HOWARD replied that an attempt should be made to change
unethical behavior. She added that she did not see the
ethics committee as a "missionary committee," but a
committee that evaluated specific incidents or allegations.
She said it was her hope that no business would come before
the committee, because that would mean that no unethical
behavior had occurred.
MRS. HOWARD commented that she did not see the committee's
role as setting out to change the behavior of legislators.
She added her belief that people were either ethical or
unethical. She referred to the ethics committee as a
"watchdog" organization that might serve as a partial
deterrent. She said she did not think that it was up to the
committee to tell an individual how to live.
TAPE 93-21, SIDE B
Number 000
SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Howard if she had dealt with pressure
from the media in the past, and whether she perceived that
it would be a problem if she served on the ethics committee.
Number 006
MRS. HOWARD replied that she had experienced constant media
pressure during her APOC service. She explained that she
had learned to dodge the press as well as to answer
questions from the media.
Number 017
SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Howard if she had made any comments
to her friends about the recent allegations raised against
legislators.
MRS. HOWARD said that she had avoided making comments about
the allegations because she had applied to serve on the
ethics committee.
(Sen. Donley arrived.)
Number 041
REP. JAMES congratulated Mrs. Howard for being selected as a
nominee. She also told Mrs. Howard that she appreciated her
candor. She asked Mrs. Howard if her personal philosophy
would come into play during her deliberations as a member of
the ethics committee.
Number 069
MRS. HOWARD said that people were who they were because of
conviction. She stated that her service on APOC had been an
education and a tremendous growth experience for her. She
said that when sitting on the ethics committee, one would
have to disqualify one's personal convictions and look at
the facts.
Number 109
REP. JAMES commented that there was a public perception of
unethical behavior among legislators. She asked Mrs. Howard
if she agreed that the ethics law and the ethics committee
might set the public's mind at ease to some extent.
Number 125
MRS. HOWARD said that she did not necessarily feel that
legislators were unethical. She said that legislators, like
all human beings, made mistakes. She noted that external
data might give a person a certain perception, but setting
aside one's own judgmental factors and looking at the facts
would lead one to a conclusion.
Number 164
REP. GREEN noted that perceptions were often formed rapidly.
He asked Mrs. Howard how she separated fact from fiction.
Number 206
MRS. HOWARD replied that one had to take things at face
value, up to a point. She added that she liked to believe
that she had sufficient intelligence to make evaluations.
She said she asked questions and used her judgment.
Number 248
REP. DAVIDSON commented that anyone could accuse anyone else
of anything at any time. He asked how she would deal with
false accusations.
Number 260
MRS. HOWARD replied that she would become incensed with a
person who made a false accusation. She thought that false
accusers should be penalized.
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard if she hastily judged the
press.
MRS. HOWARD replied that she did not hastily judge the
press, but she did challenge erroneous statements made by
the media. She cited an example in which a statement had
been falsely attributed to her by the press. She had
insisted on a retraction.
Number 310
REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that there ought to
be different standards applied to public officials than
those applied to people in other occupations.
Number 321
MRS. HOWARD said that she did feel that way, to a certain
extent. She commented that the people entrusted legislators
with running the state, and because of this, they should be
circumspect. She stated that she did not believe that
legislators as a group were unethical. She added that
candidates for office should be scrutinized. Mrs. Howard
noted that public officials should not be expected to be
perfect, as all people made mistakes and regretted past
actions. She stated that each person needed to do the best
that she or he could.
Number 370
REP. KOTT asked how she would respond to a statement that
there was no difference between unethical behavior and
violating a law.
Number 375
MRS. HOWARD replied that Rep. Kott had mentioned two
different things. She said violating a law was not an
ethical thing to do, but it depended on the circumstances
and on the law. She said it was her understanding that the
ethics committee would not deal with criminal acts and civil
violations, but with ethics. She stated that an ethical
violation was not necessarily a violation of the law.
MRS. HOWARD noted that one could not place ethics in a box
and say "this is ethics." One could only penalize unethical
behavior.
Number 407
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Howard if she had in mind a set
grouping of concepts, laws, moralities, or ideals that she
considered to be "ethical."
Number 419
MRS. HOWARD replied that the chairman's question was
difficult to answer. She noted that ethics was a nebulous
quantity.
Number 432
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Howard if she thought that John
F. Kennedy's womanizing was unethical.
Number 438
MRS. HOWARD replied that she felt that it was not unethical,
unless it had adversely impacted the administration of his
presidential duties. She said she felt that it was a matter
between a man and his conscience. She noted that she would
not personally engage in abortion, but she felt it was a
matter between a woman and her conscience.
Number 462
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Howard if Gary Hart's conduct had
been unethical.
Number 466
MRS. HOWARD said that the Gary Hart situation was a moral
matter, not an ethical one. She said that she viewed ethics
in relation to his duties as a public official. She
mentioned Senator Bob Packwood and said that the ethicalness
or unethicalness of his behavior would depend on how it all
reflected on his job as a public servant.
Number 485
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR mentioned Wilbur Mills, the father of the
Internal Revenue Code, who was an alcoholic. He asked Mrs.
Howard if Mills' alcoholism was unethical.
Number 497
MRS. HOWARD commented that it would depend on whether or not
his alcoholism affected his job as a public servant.
Number 506
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that he was trying to make a point
that there was a difference between morality, criminality,
and ethics.
Number 508
MRS. HOWARD related an incident from her APOC tenure in
which a legislator had castigated her for the way she had
voted. She said she found that legislator's behavior to be
extremely unethical.
Number 544
REP. NORDLUND commented that Mrs. Howard's history of
political activity troubled some legislators. He noted that
the legislature had rejected another nominee, Dr. Rodman
Wilson, because of his political activity. Rep. Nordlund
asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that she should be
disqualified for the same reason.
Number 560
MRS. HOWARD responded that she had not been politically
active for the past six and one-half years, since she became
a member of APOC.
Number 577
REP. DAVIDSON commented that Chairman Taylor could probably
come up with less-partisan examples of unethical behavior if
he tried.
Number 588
REP. FINKELSTEIN asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that Dr.
Wilson's political involvement had interfered with his
ability to be objective while serving on APOC.
Number 592
MRS. HOWARD replied that Dr. Wilson's past political
activity had not interfered with his work on APOC.
Number 595
REP. FINKELSTEIN commented that the ethics law required that
the ethics committee apply employment discrimination
statutes, including sexual harassment statutes to
legislators. He said that those statutes did not require
that sexual harassment activities affected the "harasser's"
work.
Number 610
MRS. HOWARD replied that harassment would definitely affect
a public official's work.
Number 617
REP. PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that Dr. Wilson's
rejection had nothing to do with his political activities,
but rather his comments to the press about recent
allegations against legislators.
Number 635
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mrs. Howard for appearing before the
committee. He announced that there would be a five minute
break before the committee heard from Mrs. Edith
Vorderstrasse. He noted that due to a Senate majority
caucus at 6:30 p.m., the hearings would spill over to the
next day.
TAPE 93-22, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR reconvened the meeting at 5:13 p.m. He
asked EDITH VORDERSTRASSE to come forward and address the
committee. He notified VIRGINIA JOHNSON and SHIRLEY MCCOY
that they would appear before the committee the following
afternoon. He asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she would like to
offer an opening statement.
Number 027
MRS. EDITH VORDERSTRASSE said that she had applied to serve
on the ethics committee because she felt that each
individual should be responsible for her or his actions.
She said that she felt that she was qualified to serve on
the ethics committee because of her involvement with several
boards. She noted that the North Slope Borough personnel
board was similar to the ethics committee in that members
heard all sides of an issue and then made a decision.
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE stated that her family supported her
decision to apply to serve on the ethics committee. She
mentioned that she had heard on the radio that interested
members of the public were being asked to apply for seats on
the ethics committee. She applied and was notified in late
December that she was not one of the top ten applicants.
She said that Chief Justice Moore contacted her two weeks
earlier to ask if she were still interested in being on the
committee. She replied that she was still interested, and
about four days later, Chief Justice Moore called again to
say that her name would be forwarded to the legislature.
Number 082
REP. PORTER mentioned that Mrs. Vorderstrasse had worked for
Rep. Eileen MacLean. He asked if she could be impartial
when hearing allegations against Rep. MacLean.
Number 099
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she felt that she could be
impartial. She added that she knew several legislators.
She said she did not make decisions based on media accounts,
but rather on what was brought before her during a hearing.
Number 119
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she thought that the
public would perceive a problem, recognizing her past
relationships with legislators, with her serving on the
ethics committee.
Number 128
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that someone would always
perceive a conflict of interest in a given situation.
Number 144
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had formed any
opinions about recent allegations made against legislators.
Number 148
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that she had not, because she
had applied to serve on the ethics committee. She added
that she could not make a decision based on accounts in the
press.
Number 165
REP. PHILLIPS questioned Mrs. Vorderstrasse on a statement
in her cover letter which said, "we must quit excusing
unethical behavior of our leaders." She asked Mrs.
Vorderstrasse to explain what she perceived to be unethical
behavior.
Number 171
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that what might be ethical to her
might not be ethical to someone else. Regarding John F.
Kennedy, she said that she did not know whether or not the
allegations against him were true, and therefore could not
comment on whether his behavior was ethical or not. She
said that individuals needed to be responsible for their
actions. She noted that elected officials were there to
represent their constituents and the state of Alaska. She
said public officials had been entrusted to act for their
constituents' and the state's best interests.
Number 205
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she perceived that
the legislature was taking unethical actions that she was
uncomfortable about, or that she would hesitate to make a
decision about, if she were appointed to the ethics
committee.
Number 215
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she did not think so. She
added that no evidence had been brought before her, and what
she was told by the press was not necessarily true.
Number 227
SEN. LITTLE thanked Mrs. Vorderstrasse for applying to serve
on the ethics committee. She asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if
she would have any difficulty spending time in Juneau on
ethics committee business.
Number 241
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she saw no problem with
spending time in Juneau.
Number 258
SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had experience
dealing with the press, and whether or not she perceived the
media pressure that the ethics committee members would
likely endure as a problem.
Number 266
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that she had no problems in
dealing with the press in the past, as a school board member
and a Native corporation board member.
Number 282
SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had formed any
opinions about recent allegations against legislators.
Number 288
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she had drawn no
conclusions, although the newspapers were full of articles
about the allegations.
Number 297
SEN. JACKO thanked Mrs. Vorderstrasse for applying to serve
on the ethics committee. He asked her if she had been
referring to the public's perception that the legislature
engaged in unethical behavior when she wrote the
aforementioned statement in her cover letter.
Number 309
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that the public perceived
public officials as unethical. She noted that assumptions
got people into trouble.
SEN. JACKO asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she attributed her
perception that legislators engaged in unethical behavior to
the media or to her prior work as a legislative staffer.
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she did not attribute it to
either the media or her tenure as a legislative aide. She
said that each individual had her or his own set of morals
and ethics.
Number 351
REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had any close
economic associations or personal relationships with anyone
involved in state government.
Number 363
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she did not.
Number 367
REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse to tell him about the
business that she owned, Border Ventures.
Number 370
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that she and her husband owned
Border Ventures, a general contracting business.
Number 379
REP. KOTT asked if Border Ventures had been a successful
business.
Number 381
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that the business had its ups and
downs, like any other business.
Number 388
REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had read the
ethics law.
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that she had read it.
REP. PORTER commented that as a member of the ethics
committee, Mrs. Vorderstrasse would be applying the ethics
law to a given situation and not her own personal code of
ethics. He asked what she would do in the event that a
provision of the ethics law did not mesh with her personal
code of ethics.
Number 399
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she would apply the ethics
law to the situation, because it was the guideline used by
the committee.
Number 403
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she felt that
legislators ought to be held to a higher ethical standard
than other individuals.
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said she did feel that they should be
held to a higher ethical standard, because constituents
entrusted them with the authority to act in their best
interests and in the best interest of the state.
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse why she felt it was
important that the legislature have an ethics committee and
an ethics law.
Number 417
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said it was important because everyone
was entitled to due process.
Number 425
REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she would view
individuals of different ages or genders as being held to
different standards of ethical behavior.
Number 453
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that all individuals should be held
equally accountable for their behavior.
Number 470
REP. GREEN commented on geographical differences in how
behavior was perceived. He asked if Mrs. Vorderstrasse
would take into account a person's background and age when
evaluating a complaint brought before the ethics committee.
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that age should have no bearing
on the decisions made by the ethics committee.
Number 511
REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she, as a young
person, would be more or less tolerant than an older person.
Number 521
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that the ethics committee had
to follow certain guidelines, and age was irrelevant. She
added that her standards were not the same as every other
person her age.
Number 534
REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she were an
influential person, or one who was easily influenced.
Number 543
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE reiterated that she made decisions on
what she heard. She noted that she would have to live with
the decisions that she made.
Number 556
REP. KOTT requested that Mrs. Vorderstrasse comment on tax
problems that Border Ventures had.
Number 562
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she had filed her payroll taxes
late on several occasions, but the situation had been
resolved.
Number 589
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse about her ability to
spend time in Juneau for extended periods of time on ethics
committee business.
Number 597
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE mentioned that she had a seven-year-old
daughter, but her husband was supportive of her application
to serve on the ethics committee. She reiterated her belief
that spending time in Juneau would not be a problem.
Number 609
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had seen or
perceived unethical behavior in the legislature while she
was working for Rep. MacLean.
Number 617
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that public officials had to be
responsible. As a school board member, she felt a strong
responsibility to be ethical. She noted that public
officials were constantly in the spotlight.
Number 632
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR repeated his question about whether or not
Mrs. Vorderstrasse had seen or perceived unethical behavior
among legislators, while she was working for Rep. MacLean.
Number 634
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she had not seen unethical
behavior in the legislature, nor did she believe it to
exist.
Number 639
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that Mrs. Vorderstrasse had spent most
of her life in Barrow. He asked if she had been working in
Barrow at the time of the "North Slope scandal."
Number 649
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she was not involved with
the borough at all at the time of the scandal. She added
that her business had had contracts with the North Slope
Borough, but not at the time of the scandal. She said that
at the time it had been very difficult for her business to
get work because borough officials gave contracts to other
contractors.
Number 668
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mrs. Vorderstrasse had been
referring to North Slope Borough officials in her cover
letter when she said that some leaders had not acted
properly.
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that Chairman Taylor was
correct. She said that, in her cover letter, she was not
referring to what she had seen in the legislative arena, but
rather in the North Slope Borough.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the behavior of North Slope Borough
officials was a disappointment to her.
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that it was a disappointment. She
noted that the borough's debt service had skyrocketed as a
result, and that the citizens of the borough were still
paying for the scandal.
Number 680
REP. FINKELSTEIN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if, as a member of
the school board, she filed conflict of interest forms with
APOC.
Number 686
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she did.
Number 687
REP. FINKELSTEIN stated that the chairman might want to look
into that issue, due to Mrs. Vorderstrasse's related
response on a questionnaire.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if it would be true that if Mrs.
Vorderstrasse were confirmed, she might merely need to
resign from the school board.
Number 687
REP. FINKELSTEIN said that the chairman was correct, but he
wanted to bring the matter up in the event that Mrs.
Vorderstrasse did not want to resign from the school board.
Number 699
MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she was aware of the need to
resign from the school board in the event that she was
confirmed.
Number 703
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mrs. Vorderstrasse for appearing
before the committee and said that he appreciated her
candor. He said the committee would reconvene at 4:00 p.m.
the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|