Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/24/2003 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 2003
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
Representative John Coghill
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
All members present
SENATE JUDICIARY
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Dennis E. "Skip" Cook - Fairbanks
Herman G. Walker, Jr. - Anchorage
Shirley A. McCoy - Juneau
- CONFIRMATIONS HEARD AND HELD [Confirmations of Mr. Cook
and Mr. Walker addressed again on 3/5/03]
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
TED POPELY, Majority Counsel
Majority Legal Office
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during the confirmation
hearings regarding the "Ron Irwin case."
DENNIS E. "SKIP" COOK, Appointee
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and responded to questions
regarding the "Ron Irwin case."
HERMAN G. WALKER, JR., Appointee
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and responded to questions
regarding the "Ron Irwin case."
SHIRLEY A. McCOY, Appointee
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and responded to questions
regarding the "Ron Irwin case."
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-12, SIDE A [House JUD tape]
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 1:05 p.m.
Present at the call to order from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee were Representatives McGuire, Anderson, Holm, and
Samuels; Representatives Coghill, Gara, and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Present at the call to order from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee were Senators Seekins,
Therriault, Ellis, and French; Senator Ogan arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Chair McGuire then turned the gavel
over to Chair Seekins.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Number 0092
CHAIR SEEKINS said:
The purpose of our meeting today is joint confirmation
hearings ... and ... we have several people on line,
and so I know that Herman Walker is going to be on
line, but ... is not yet with us. So I thought we'd
start out by just giving him some time. And I think
Ted Popely, majority counsel -- are you on line with
us, right now, Ted?
Number 0100
TED POPELY, Majority Counsel, Majority Legal Office, Alaska
State Legislature, indicated that he was on line.
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "Ted, ... if you would introduce yourself
and provide what testimony you have for us this morning, we'd
appreciate it.
MR. POPELY said:
Mr. Chairman, my name's Ted Popely; I'm majority
counsel for the House and the Senate. I guess I'm
here primarily to answer any questions that I can
about my recent interaction with the [Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics] more than I am to testify. I
was asked to be available for questions in that I was
party to the ... [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics's] recent deliberations regarding the "Ron
Irwin case." He was the Senate press secretary who
was recently convicted of an ethics violation after a
full public hearing up here in Anchorage. And I was
originally asked by the majority to represent Ron as
counsel in his hearing. I did so for a period of
time, and then, for a variety of reasons, withdrew my
representation of him, and participated just as an
observer in his public hearing.
I think it was a two-day hearing, after which he was
convicted, found probable cause - I'm not sure what
... terminology ... the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] uses - but he was found to have
violated the statutes on certain ethical procedures
relating to his job, and had an opportunity to
participate in the process to some limited extent.
And I understand that the several members of that
committee are up for confirmation, and there may be
some areas that come up that if I can assist in any
way [by] relaying some of my observations as an
attorney who assisted in the process, I'd be happy to
do that.
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "Okay; well, ... we'll hold you on line,
then, through the procedures." He indicated that they would
next hear from Dennis E. "Skip" Cook, but noted that because
Herman G. Walker, Jr., has a time constraint, the committees may
interrupt Mr. Cook for the purpose of hearing from Mr. Walker
when he becomes available via teleconference. He then asked Mr.
Cook to tell the committees why he is "considering doing this
job again."
Number 0341
DENNIS E. "SKIP" COOK, Appointee, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, said:
I've been a member of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics since 1998. So I've served two
terms and was asked to serve again, and am willing to
because I enjoy the work and the challenge of serving
on the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]. The
[committees], I think, [have] our biographical data.
I ... could review that briefly if the [committees]
wanted to, or you could simply ask ...
CHAIR SEEKINS interjected to ask whether any members wished to
have that [biographical information] reviewed. Hearing no
response, he suggested that Mr. Cook could skip through that
[information].
MR. COOK continued, then, with his testimony:
I'm from Fairbanks; I was born and raised in
Fairbanks, and have lived there except for a few years
when I lived here in Juneau, and being out to school.
I come from a large family in Fairbanks, and I have a
large family, myself; I have 7 children and 18
grandchildren. I attended school at [Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT)] and then got a master's
[degree] at Northwestern [University] and went to law
school at Willamette [University]. And I've been
practicing with the same firm since I graduated in
1970. Although the firm has changed, it's been the
same; it's now called Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose,
Inc., and it was called a lot of things before that,
but we have a firm with 10 attorneys in Fairbanks.
I've been involved in a lot of activities in the
community over the years: very active in the Boy
Scouts [of America]; and in my church; and other
community endeavors - Rotary Club [of Fairbanks] and
so on. The work of the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics], I think, is important. It's
established by the legislature, in a sense to keep a
check on the legislature itself. ... There's a lot of
detailed questions to be reviewed, and it's
challenging work, but I've enjoyed it and am willing
to continue if I'm confirmed again. I came down in
person this time because there has been a bit of
controversy lately about some things that have
happened on the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics], and I wanted to be here to answer, in person,
if there are any questions that surrounded what some
of the members here have heard and some have not.
Number 0512
CHAIR McGUIRE said:
Thank you, Mr. Cook, for coming here today in person -
I appreciate that. I'd like to preface the questions
that I intend to ask you today by saying that I
appreciate your hard work - that you've done on the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] - and I
appreciate the hard work of the others that are up
here today for confirmation. I think it's a
tremendous sacrifice on the part of a person who is a
member of the public, to give up their other
livelihood to serve on the ... [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics], so I'd like to preface my
comments by saying that.
My concerns center mainly around the process itself.
I believe the legislature ought to be held to highest
ethical standards, and its staff as well. So, for me,
it's not a partisan issue at all, and it makes it more
delicate to bring up the questions I do, because it
happened to be my [political] party involved in Mr.
Irwin's ethical proceedings. So I want to be very
careful to make sure that the record is clear, that I
don't have any reservation regarding the verdict that
came out or any complaints about partisan politics.
My complaints go directly to the process itself.
So, with that, Mr. Cook, I'd like to ask you ..., [as]
someone who has a law degree who's looked through the
process, looked through the minutes, what you see as
any flaws in the proceedings themselves - and what I
mean is from complaint filed, all the way through
selection of hearings officer, all the way through
proceedings, and then ultimate results - if there are
any flaws that you see in the process that we have
currently in statute.
Number 0623
MR. COOK responded:
I don't see a flaw, necessarily, as long as the
procedures are followed well. I know there's been a
real challenge to the idea that counsel to the [Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics] itself, who we look
to for advice throughout the year in general terms,
could then be counsel in an actual hearing. And ...
that procedure has been questioned in the past, clear
back in the "Jacko proceedings" ... a number of years
ago. And it was held that that was alright ... - to
use the same attorney - as long as that attorney, once
we went into a specific hearing, was no longer the
advisor to the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] but simply acted as the presenter of the
evidence ..., and then [that] he did not have any
participation, whatsoever, in the deliberation process
of the committee from that point on. He was simply
like an attorney in court, presenting evidence, but he
didn't have any part in the deliberations.
We follow that rather carefully and, in this past
"Irwin hearing," that was followed. I believe there
was a statement, in the previous hearing before
[Legislative Affairs Agency ("LAA")] down here, that
said that - or that assumed that - he had been with us
when we were deliberating. And that's simply not the
case; there was no part, whatsoever, in the
deliberation process. Now, if -- and there are other
areas in the state, I believe, where that processes is
used, where there's that same separation of
responsibilities of an attorney to step aside from
being a part of the advisory process and just simply
being a presenter of evidence. And we've tried to
follow that ... division very carefully in this past
hearing. So I don't see that as a problem as long as
that division of responsibility is followed.
Now, there was another kind of a challenge to the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics's] work in ...
the Irwin case. What we considered to be the
violation was actually corrected by advice from the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] before [the
complaint] ever happened. And, yet, the technical
violation of the statute had already happened, and we
got a complaint after the correction was made and the
meeting was not held on state premises. Then we got a
complaint that it should have never been scheduled
there, and so on, and that resources should never have
been used.
Number 0787
MR. COOK continued:
We don't have a choice about dealing with that
complaint. We don't have the luxury of just saying,
"Sorry, ... that event didn't happen there, so there
was no violation." We had to go through the process,
and we did. We said ..., "It was corrected - there's
no sanctions necessary; end of story." On the other
hand, the subject of the complaint wished to take it
to formal hearing, in spite of the fact that there
were no sanctions, and then we had to go through the
formal hearing process. So, the degree -- I mean that
could be considered a flaw, you know, that the degree
of the violation might set into motion a rather long
and involved process, a rather careful process.
We went through the same process in the sense that was
gone through in the Jacko hearing, except it wasn't as
long a hearing by any means. But we still had to go
through a public hearing process because we had a
complaint and the person who was the subject of the
complaint insisted that it go to a public hearing.
But ... that can be a protection for the accused - or
... the subject of the complaint - as well as for the
committee.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "Are you aware of any point in time where
your counsel to the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
Brent Cole,] signed pleadings for the complainant?"
MR. COOK queried, "Signed pleadings for the complainant?"
CHAIR McGUIRE said, "It's brought to my attention, and I just
wanted to find out ..."
MR. COOK replied:
I'm not aware that he signed pleadings for the
complainant; I'd have to see what specific document's
being referred to, but I'm not aware. There was --
oh, I'm sorry, wait a minute, I may be aware of what
you're talking about. There was a pleading that was
filed, and this was clarified at the public hearing,
where it did say something about he said that -- it
had that phrase in there, "counsel for the
complainant." And it was apparently inadvertent; he
apologized for that at the hearing and made it very
clear that he'd never represented the complainant.
Number 0925
CHAIR McGUIRE said:
And I guess my concern - thank you for answering that
- and I guess my concern, you being a lawyer, it just
seems to me like at that point in time, I don't know
how you go back from that, I guess is my question.
And I wonder if you had any solutions or if you felt
like, as chairman of the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] itself -- there are several places
along the process where I felt like it fell apart, and
I'm wondering whether you felt like you had the tools
to handle it. This is one of the places where I feel
like it fell apart: ... Mr. Cole holding himself out,
at least on paper, as counsel to the complainant.
MR. COOK replied:
Well, I think everybody on the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] ... and everybody actually
involved with the whole process understood that he
was, by no means, counsel for the complainant. ...
That was clearly, as far as I'm concerned, inadvertent
error in his office. But I don't think that the
complainant ever thought that she was represented by
him; ... he certainly didn't, the committee didn't
think that, and I don't think that the subject of the
complaint ever thought that [Mr. Cole] was
representing the complainant.
In fact, the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]
... came down very, very hard on the complainant
because the complainant had signed her ethics
complaint on television, on a complaint form that said
confidential. And so our initial decision in the case
was probably harder on the complainant than it was on
the subject of the complaint almost. We were very
unhappy.
Number 1015
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the committee is in the process of
drafting a bill that will look at a new method of approaching
ethics [violation] hearings. She elaborated:
It's my belief that they're quasi-criminal and rise to
a higher level ... of standards and due process, then,
than the other administrative hearings that are out
there. And, so, as I work through that bill and my
committee works through that bill, we'd be interested
in any more suggestions that you have about the
process. But just one final [concern] that I have,
while you're here, is with regard to the
confidentiality. ... One of the things ... we want to
be very careful about in these ethics committee
hearings, in my opinion, is that they are not used as
political arenas.
I think that's very important because of the impact,
not just in the short term but in the long term, for a
person who is convicted of an ethical violation. As I
said at the outset, I think your job is very
important; we have to be held to the highest ethical
standards, but we want to make sure that someone isn't
allowed to simply [make an allegation] and bring us
into an arena and mar our record.
My concern is, at the moment at which, that evening,
... the complainant went on Channel 2 News, and then
to National Public Radio, and it was made clear to the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]. Did you
feel that you had any power, as a chairman of that
committee, to take action? In some courts of law,
it's a mistrial, or other types of punitive measures
take place [when] the complainant has compromised the
integrity of the committee process and the integrity
of the complaint. And I just wondered whether you
felt like you had any power or discretion at your
hands.
Number 1126
MR. COOK said:
No, we felt like we didn't, to do more than we did
with regard to the complainant. We don't have
jurisdiction over the complainant. She was not a
legislator or a legislative employee. She didn't fall
under the jurisdiction of the Act, with regard to us.
All we could do, with regard to her directly, was to
put ... [a] statement in our decision that said this
was highly improper to ... breach the confidentiality
by signing [the complaint form] on television.
On the other hand, our procedures and the charge that
we've been given by the legislature says that if we
have a complaint that, if valid on its face, would
constitute a violation, then we have to act on that.
Some people had said, "Well, gee, since she signed
that in public, why didn't you just throw the
complaint out?" We don't have the luxury to do that.
If we have a complaint before us that, if true, would
constitute a violation, then we have to deal with it
as a committee. And so we had to go through the
process on the complaint.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Cook whether there is anything the
legislature could do, via legislation, that would help the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] deal with a compromised
complaint such as in the aforementioned situation.
MR. COOK indicated that only by extending the jurisdiction of
the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics's] authority would
it be able to deal with a complainant who is neither a
legislator nor a legislative employee.
CHAIR McGUIRE used the analogy of search-and-seizure procedures:
if evidence is obtained in violation of those procedures, it is
not allowed to be used. With regard to the ethics-complaint
process, even if a complaint is true, compromising the integrity
of the process ought to render the complaint invalid, she
opined.
MR. COOK said the legislature has to choose whether to let
ethics violators go unpunished in instances when the complainant
violates the process. Currently, that is not an option for the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]. He commented that it
would be helpful if the legislature could provide a better
definition for some of the terms used in the statute governing
the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics], for example,
"partisan political activity."
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that Mr. Walker was on line, and asked Mr.
Cook to stand by. He asked Mr. Walker to tell the committees a
little bit about his background and why he is willing to accept
an appointment to the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics].
Number 1353
HERMAN G. WALKER, JR., Appointee, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, informed the committee that he is an
attorney, had moved to Alaska in 1992/1993, has worked for the
Office of Public Advocacy and various law firms, and owns a
retail business selling bath and body products. He said that
his interest in serving on the committee stems from a desire to
serve the state of Alaska.
SENATOR FRENCH remarked that he and Mr. Walker have appeared in
court together when Mr. Walker was a public defender. Senator
French complimented Mr. Walker on his work at that time: "I
thought that you were always well prepared, that you were fair
to both sides, and, unlike some folks on the other side, you
never attacked the government needlessly." Senator French said
he supports Mr. Walker's appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG also complimented Mr. Walker for the
work he did as co-counsel in cases involving Representative
Gruenberg's law firm. "I know you have been very fair and very
ethical, and I appreciate your willingness to serve," he added.
SENATOR THERRIAULT opined that an earlier question posed to Mr.
Cook centered around the fact that the way the system works
currently, the person who would be acting in the prosecutor's
role in an ethics violation is the same person who would have
advised the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] up to the
start of that proceeding. He said that there is some concern
regarding whether that is appropriate. Senator Therriault asked
Mr. Walker to provide his thoughts on whether the prosecutor's
role should be completely separate.
SENATOR THERRIAULT also asked Mr. Walker:
How you would compare it to, if you were to go into
court right now defending a client and you knew that
the person that's prosecuting the case works very
closely with the judge on a daily basis, and perhaps
they're no longer conferring or they've separated
themselves on this particular case, but you know that
there's ... years of interaction between the
prosecutor and the judge and his or her staff, and
whether it would be your suggestion that we should
take some formalized steps in the statutes to make
more of a separation there.
Number 1593
MR. WALKER replied:
It's an interesting question because, coming from a
criminal-defense background, you always have some
concerns about ... the nature of what you're just
stating. But we work so closely with the prosecutors
and the judges, and in such a small community, there's
going to be some overlap. Now, my concern, of course,
is the inherent nature of the conflict, which is just
as you stated, that you have someone who's
investigating the case, possibly bringing the case
forward, and yet they're also working hand in hand
with the judge in a sense.
... I was involved in that process. I was on board
"pro tem" throughout Mr. Irwin's hearings, and I felt
that we were stuck [with] no other means to do the
situation, based on the resources and the way the law
is written. I believe if the legislature is going to
look at this, within the framework that [you have]
stated it, I think we might, in fact, want to look at
possibly having a separate individual, which, of
course, would also raise the cost of these hearings on
one hand. I think that under the circumstances that
we were faced with, I think Mr. Cole did an excellent
job in separating the two and doing his job as [he]
saw the need to.
But I think this is something the legislature might
want to look at, because there is an inherent
conflict, on some level, because he is involved in the
[prosecutorial] process and then involved in the
hearing at the same level. I don't have any exact
suggestions at this time, but I think it is something
that the legislature might want to look at for the
future.
Number 1684
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked:
The other issue that was brought up was the lack of a
good, solid definition for "partisan political
activity." And I'm just wondering if you have any
recommendations or thoughts on how that can be fleshed
out, because, as Mr. Cook indicated, ... the [Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics] works with the
statutes as they currently read. And it's been
suggested that that's an area that needs further
definition.
MR. WALKER said:
I would agree with Mr. Cook - we are stuck with what
we're dealt with. As an attorney, of course, and I
would assume as a politician, where you have a two-
house system, you're going to get interpretations on
all sides. I'm going to leave that defining moment up
to you to decide, because, at this time, I would not
know how to go about trying to clearly define what is
"partisan political activity." I think on some level
the framework would need to be done within what the
job is - what the nature of the job is. One of the
questions that did come up was ..., clearly, "What was
the role of the lieutenant governor as the lieutenant
governor versus her role as a gubernatorial
candidate?"
You may find some guidance by looking down that line
of reasoning when you try to define what "partisan
political activity" is. Then that could be overly
burdensome, on the other hand, because then you have
to look at everyone's role within the whole process of
the legislature, and it could just get ... --
(indisc.) they could out of hand and crazy. So, I
think we were stuck with what we had, I think it
(indisc.) clearly needs to be redefined, and I don't
know where to begin with that process because it's a
big question and you're going to have opinions on both
sides.
Number 1757
SENATOR THERRIAULT said:
I'm just trying to remember back to when a lot of
these statutes were hammered out here in the
legislature, and it seems to me, although I've not
gone back and reviewed extensively the committee
records, that the "partisan political activity" was to
refer to ... running campaign activities out of your
office or using your staff to field campaign phone
calls, and to make it clear that we were supposed to
separate that kind of activity.
The difficulty comes in the fact that we live in a
political system, and the ... particular activity that
was in place -- I know that Senator [John] Torgerson
tried to bring an explanation to the [Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics] on just ... what it was that we
do on a daily basis, and I'm wondering how you
separate ... the purely campaign-type activity -- and
right now the majority versus the minority is the way
we spar on a sort of a daily basis.
That's the way that the system is made up. But the
majority is comprised of Republicans and Democrats -
at times, due to coalitions - so it doesn't break
right along a Republican and Democratic line. So, I
guess I'm just wondering -- you can let me know what
was on your mind as far where you were going to draw
that line.
MR. WALKER replied:
Being new to the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics], I pretty much took my calling from other
members - and being new to the process. ... I had my
own interpretations of it. A couple of things that
came into my mind, without getting into any of our
exact deliberations, was clearly the lieutenant
governor had job duties that she had to meet. This
was a gubernatorial candidacy, and one of the issues
that came before us was, ... was it part of the
legislative response to react the way they did to a
gubernatorial candidate's speech. In other words,
calling out, using the e-mail to establish a press
conference to respond to a gubernatorial candidate.
Number 1877
And not fully understanding the process of what this
legislature [does], that was one of the questions I
had in my mind: was this an appropriate response some
of them made under the given circumstances? It was
not a response to [then-Lieutenant Governor] Fran
Ulmer's budget, it was a response to [a] gubernatorial
candidate's proposed budget or proposed fiscal plan.
So, for me, ... I needed to understand the process of
what a natural legislative response would be. And
once I -- during some of the hearings ... Senator
[Dave Donley] and different people tried to give me
the necessary information for that process to be
understood. And that's pretty much where I came down.
I need to understand the process - I need understand
what you did, when you did it, and was this something
that you would normally do - in order for me to help
make my decision.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Walker whether his review of other
issues that have come before the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] have brought any other area of the statutes
to his attention as needing further clarification or structural
change.
MR. WALKER indicated that currently, since he has not yet had a
chance to thoroughly review the remainder of the pertinent
statutes, he did not have any particular suggestions. He
surmised, however, that there are probably quite a few areas
that need more definition and clarity in order for the [Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics] to do its job.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Walker, "Do you believe that the
defendant, if you will, the person who's been claimed against,
ought to have counsel?"
MR. WALKER said: "I believe they have a right to be represented
at this hearing, yes, I do. Whether the state should pay that,
I don't have a comment on."
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "Were you aware that Ted Popely, who's the
majority counsel, was acting as counsel to Mr. Irwin during the
proceedings?"
MR. WALKER said yes.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "At what point did you become aware that
Mr. Popely was asked not to be counsel to the judiciary or face
ethical charges."
MR. WALKER replied, "Not 'til the actual hearing began."
CHAIR McGUIRE said, "Can you tell me a little bit more about
that, how you became aware of it?"
Number 1998
MR. WALKER replied:
At some point, I think it was [as] the actual hearing
began or some point not too far before that, it just
was brought up. Ted came before us and wanted to
speak about a letter that was sent to him, and I'm not
sure [who] the letter was from, from the [Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics] regarding -- and if I
understand the nature of the letter, the letter didn't
actually state that he could face ethical charges. I
think the nature of the letter was, it'd been brought
to the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics's]
attention that there could potentially be a violation.
But I found that out just ... shortly before the
hearing or at the time of the hearing.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked:
Just having practiced as an attorney and all the
things we're talking about, about making this process
better, do you feel - after I think [it] was roughly
three months of having represented Mr. Irwin through
the ins and outs of the proceedings - that it was
appropriate for the committee to send him a letter
advising him - of course, now his "bar card" is on the
line - that if he proceeded to represent Mr. Irwin, he
may be subject to an ethical violation? Do you think
that would have a chilling effect on Mr. Irwin's
representation?
MR. WALKER replied:
Well, it obviously had some effect, because Mr. Popely
decided not to represent him any further. And I don't
have -- if that's what your question is. If your
question is, do I think if that situation rises again
that it's going to have any chilling effect on whoever
represents someone in that similar situation, well, I
think it possibly could, when you start throwing
around ethics violations. But I'm not sure that
that's what the nature of the letter was intended.
And I don't have enough information to comment on it.
Number 2188
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Popely to briefly describe the letter he
received and at what point in the process he received it.
MR. POPELY said:
I, ... in the beginning, was asked to represent Ron
Irwin as his attorney. He wanted to go to a full
public hearing relating to his violations, and I
agreed to do that. I cleared that with my employers.
[It] appeared to be appropriate, being that the
violations occurred within the scope and course of
Ron's normal day-to-day duties as press secretary.
And shortly before his hearing, I got a letter from, I
think it was signed by Joyce Anderson, the [Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics's] staff, on behalf of
Chairman Cook, suggesting that there were, I believe
the exact phrase in the letter was, "potential ethical
ramifications" of my continued representation of Mr.
Irwin. That's all I got.
It definitely had a chilling effect in that I did
ultimately make the decision to withdraw my
representation, for several reasons: one, to protect
myself, and, two, to keep the focus away from me and
on the merits of Mr. Irwin's case. ... You raise the
question, and I think there is an issue there for
discussion; I mean, what's done is done, it's over
with, Ron hired an attorney. Ultimately, part of
those expenditures were paid by the state. Part of
the problem with the order that it occurred, I suppose
-- the troublesome part for Mr. Irwin having to retain
private counsel at the eleventh hour was that the
letter came without any support, came without any
legal basis, came without any research suggesting that
there was a reason for it.
Number 2027
MR. POPELY continued:
And, as has been suggested, it came from outside the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] somewhere; I
don't exactly [know] how that would happen. Again,
these [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics's]
processes are supposed to be highly confidential, I
don't know who besides the committee members knew that
I was representing Mr. Irwin at that point. I also
don't know who the anonymous person who may have
raised this issue was.
I asked Legislative Legal [and Research] Services over
the Christmas holiday, which was shortly before the
formal hearing began, to prepare an opinion for me
based on whether or not I did have an ethical problem
representing Mr. Irwin, and the answer came back that
I did not, that it was appropriate for me as a state-
paid employee to provide legal representation under
those circumstances. So, despite that, I withdrew my
representation. Ron was able to find a private
attorney at his own expense, and we went forward, and
it is what it is.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "What changes would you make with respect
to representation?"
MR. POPELY said:
Based on the memorandum that was prepared by
Legislative Legal [and Research Services], there are
circumstances where it's appropriate for a legislator
or an employee to receive paid representation. I
think there are circumstances where it would be
inappropriate. For example, if Ron Irwin was accused
of something that benefited him personally, with no
respect to his official duties, the answer is probably
no, ... it would be inappropriate for the state to
provide representation for him.
But if a legislator or a legislative employee had been
accused of an ethics violation within the normal
course and scope of his employment, I think it is
appropriate for somebody to represent that person. ...
Mr. Cook made much of the fact that Ron requested a
full formal hearing. I don't think that that's
unusual at all. It's only unusual in that it doesn't
happen very often. Whether the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] recommended sanctions against him
or not, the man still has an ethics violation on his
permanent record.
Number 2251
MR. POPELY concluded.
And whether his future intentions included pursuit of
different professional activities or civic
organizations, maybe even public office, it's a
significant impairment on his permanent record, and I
think somebody would be foolish to proceed with a
formal hearing without proper representation.
CHAIR SEEKINS, addressing Mr. Walker, said:
You said you have a problem defining "partisan
political activity." But let me ask you this: based
on the findings of this last inquiry, do you believe
that a majority response prepared by a majority press
aide to an allegation against an action taken by a
legislative committee is a "partisan political
activity?"
MR. WALKER sought clarification: "Are you asking me to give you
an answer regarding what went on in deliberations?"
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "No, just asking you if, in your opinion,
that constitutes a "partisan political activity."
MR. WALKER said:
It was a tough question for me. I believe that, based
on my understanding, that ... you have a right to
respond to whenever the other side gives a policy
statement of some sort. The question for me under
this scenario was, ... was it a natural thing that the
state legislature's majority would have done under
(indisc.) circumstance. If it's something that they
would normally have done in their course of business,
then I wouldn't have any problems with it being a ...
nonpartisan political activity, it's just a part of
you doing your job. And that's [where] I would
probably leave the question. If it's part of what you
do, then no, I don't have a problem with it. I would
see that [as] being not "partisan political activity,"
but just a response, as a legislature majority body,
... [in] your normal course of doing business.
Number 2325
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "So any public allegation attacking a
decision made within a legislative committee could, then, in
your opinion, justify a response from a majority press aide,
without it being an ethical violation."
MR. WALKER said, "Yes, I would think so."
CHAIR SEEKINS said:
I just wanted to take a look at one other thing. ...
As a public defender, in your past history, would you
feel comfortable going to court knowing that an
advisor to the jury, a trusted advisor to the jury was
the ultimate selector of the judge and then became the
prosecutor, would you feel comfortable for your client
under those circumstances?
MR. WALKER replied: "Let me make sure I understand your facts
scenario. If a trusted advisor to the jury?
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "Right."
CHAIR McGUIRE added, "Counsel."
CHAIR SEEKINS then remarked:
As counsel. Let's say that that -- we know that the
jury doesn't hire legal counsel, but let's just say
that they had someone here instructing them and that
that was counsel to the jury, and that that same
counsel basically selected the judge and then became
the prosecutor, would you feel comfortable for your
client under those circumstances, as a public
defender?
MR. WALKER replied: "As a public defender, my answer would be
no. There would be no way I'd feel comfortable under the
scenario that you presented, because it has its inherent biases.
That's just the appearance of biasness and conflict of interest.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked, "Wouldn't that same basic bias carry over
into the scenario that was ... compelled upon the hearing ... in
this [case]?"
TAPE 03-12, SIDE B [House JUD tape]
Number 2387
CHAIR SEEKINS continued: "I'm not accusing anyone. I'm saying
it appears that the process may ... need to be ... changed here.
But wouldn't that same inherent -- would you feel comfortable if
you were Mr. Popely, now, and you were ... taking that spot for
your client under this circumstance?"
MR. WALKER responded:
Under the circumstance that was presented to us, Mr.
Cole was an advisor as to whether or not a violation
had been -- and ... I'm thinking out loud just trying
to clarify your question factually in my mind. Mr.
Cole was advisor to the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] as to whether or not a violation
had been committed. Then he prosecuted - in your
terms, using your language. The way this system is
set up, and it's my understanding -- like I said, once
again, I followed the people [who'd] been on the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] further, I
didn't really question whether Mr. Cole had an
inherent conflict or not. I can understand where Mr.
Popely might have some hesitation based on the factual
scenario that you've presented, if you're trying to
equate it to the public defender scenario. But I
can't comment as to whether ... that affected Mr.
Irwin's case or not, at this time.
CHAIR SEEKINS said:
I'm not trying to cast aspersions on the ability for
anybody to come up with ... a proper decision, or to
accuse the people that were involved. It just seems
to me that ..., where I grew up, that [we would have]
... called that a kangaroo court. ... Without casting
any aspersions on the people, I'm just saying it would
have made me nervous if I was the defendant. ... And
we're not trying to attack that; ... I guess we're
looking at the process. And part of our
responsibility as a legislature, it appears to me, is
to make that process as lily white as we can make it,
and make it seek out absolute justice in the final
decision.
Number 2309
And, to me, there's a color to this process that just
doesn't seem to be lily white - ... not interjecting
anything for the judgment or the credibility of the
people that were involved. It's a process [that] just
doesn't seem to ... engender a lot of good feelings,
in ... the back of [my] mind, about this. So, I was
just wondering if you felt that that process could be
improved some to eliminate that perception.
MR. WALKER replied:
Well, yeah, I definitely think the process could be
fine-tuned. I've only been on the [Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics a] very short term, but ... the
way it could be fine-tuned was ... you allocate funds
so that a neutral third party - like you said,
independent prosecutor, which they've done in other
scenarios - gets retained to prosecute the case and
the advisory counsel still remains as advisory
counsel. ... It's a simple fix, and I definitely agree
with you that the process could always be fine-tuned.
The statutes could be fine-tuned to make our job more
clearly defined.
(Indisc.) ethics is a murky business. ... And this
scenario is much different than me as a practicing
attorney; ... we have ethics laws that we have to
abide by. But it seems like this ethics in this
scenario is a little bit ... murkier than what I'm
used to dealing with as an attorney, mainly because of
the language that's in the rules itself, and the
process. So, I totally agree with you, it can
definitely be refined to make [it] clear, easier, and
- to use your words - lily white.
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "My intent is that the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] act in a totally ethical manner in
investigating ethics complaints; ... that's my intent here."
Number 2229
MR. WALKER said, "And I agree with you, but I would also have to
say that I don't think any of the processes that were done in
this scenario was done with any malfeasance or unethical intent
- at least from my perspective.
CHAIR SEEKINS countered: "Probably because you were involved
and knew the players, but if you didn't know the players, you
might have a different viewpoint." He then asked Mr. Popely
whether he'd adequately described the perceptions that Mr.
Popely had, coming into the hearing.
MR. POPELY replied:
Mr. Chairman, yes. ... The issue's been raised by
several people to me and by myself during the
proceeding, and you've articulated it perfectly. The
appearance of conflict is evident, very evident. And
let me preface it by saying this is the way
administrative hearings are conducted in Alaska and in
other states. It's not -- this isn't the first
administrative process where the counsel to the
administrative trier of fact is also the hearing
investigator/prosecutor, depending on what the
tribunal is. However, in this case, ... you as
chairman of the Senate Judiciary [Standing] Committee,
you have raised a very good issue for people to
consider.
... If people are going to go forward with ethical
hearings and full public processes, is it appropriate?
... Senator Therriault raised a good analogy. In a
criminal case, certainly, the defendant in a case [is]
not going to be comfortable with, to use an analogy,
the law clerk to a judge - the person the judge or the
jury, in Senator Seekins's example, turns to for
advice, for counsel, for interpretations of law, for
interpretations of procedure throughout the process -
[who] on the day of the trial shows up and changes
hats and says, "I'm no longer advising the judge;
starting from this moment forward, I'm exclusively
acting as prosecutor."
Number 2149
MR. POPELY continued:
Nobody's said that [the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] did anything wrong in this
procedure. Nobody could ever know that except those
people. The point is, you're trying to avoid any
appearance of impropriety, and it's from a defendant
and from the public's perspective that we have to make
that judgment. Does the scene look fair and
reasonable to the person who has to stand there and
defend himself? And I think you answered the question
yourself; the answer is clearly no.
I, personally, would not want to be prosecuted by the
person who had been providing legal advice and counsel
for weeks and even months to the people who are going
to hopefully make the decision about my violation. ...
It's easy to see the conflict, very easy to see the
conflict. And it's a money question. Of course it
costs more, and that's a question the legislature has
to make as policy makers: What's the price of this
... ethics process to look as impartial and as proper
as possible?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said: "Mr. Popely, I wasn't a member
of the legislature when this occurred, I'm not too familiar with
the situation, so pardon my ignorance if I ask you some basic
questions. At the time, were you a legislative employee?"
MR. POPELY replied, "Yes, and I still am."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "And what was your position?"
MR. POPELY said, "I'm legal counsel for the Senate and House
majority."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Was it within your job
description to be defending this person?"
MR. POPELY replied, "My job description evolves daily, and I was
instructed by the majority leadership to pursue a defense on
behalf of Mr. Irwin; so, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Do you think it was appropriate
for the state to be paying for the legal defense of this
individual?"
Number 2074
CHAIR SEEKINS interjected to say: "Basically, the state decided
they were going to do that, [Representative] Gruenberg, already,
so, you know, I don't know whether it's appropriate or not, but
I believe the state has already made that commitment in earlier
committee hearings. Am I correct?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I'm just wondering if Mr. Popely
would answer my question."
CHAIR SEEKINS told him to go ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG repeated, "Mr. Popely, do you think it
was appropriate?"
MR. POPELY replied:
Yes. Specifically, in order to answer that question
as objectively as possible, I asked Legislative Legal
[and Research Services] to provide me an objective
legal opinion. As you know, they are a nonpartisan
legal organization designed to answer questions of
that nature. And their answer to me was unequivocal:
"Yes, it's appropriate." When Mr. Irwin, as press
secretary, was acting within the scope/course of his
employment, and was accused of an ethical violation
based on that, it's appropriate for the state to
provide a defense. Should his violation have taken a
different form, for example, had he done something
that benefited him personally and exclusively and had
nothing to do with his job, say he was trying to
promote his business on his own state computer, or
something of that nature, the answer would be no. So,
in my opinion, yes, I agree with Legislative Legal
[and Research] Services' opinion that it was
appropriate ... at the time.
CHAIR SEEKINS again interjected to say, "And the Legislative
Council has already agreed with that as well, and authorized the
payment of that fee."
Number 2029
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I appreciate your comment Mr.
Chairman; I would also appreciate being allowed to finish my
questions."
CHAIR SEEKINS replied, "No problem; please finish this question
and we'll move on."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said:
Thank you very much. And, again, I certainly wasn't
here, and I'm just trying to improve the process too.
Do you think that there should be some standards set
up as to how these services -- or whether the state
should continue to pay that? My question is, do you
think that that is appropriate?
MR. POPELY replied, "I do think that's appropriate."
CHAIR SEEKINS, after acknowledging that Mr. Walker had another
engagement to attend to, thanked him for participating.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:07 p.m. to 2:14 p.m.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Cook to comment on the letter sent to
Mr. Popely. "There was a question about who raised the concern
regarding Mr. Popely's representation, ... and Mr. Walker also
made mention of it, that he wasn't sure where that complaint
came from," she added.
MR. COOK responded:
Okay. Let me, perhaps, try to put it in perspective -
what happened. There are a couple of things that were
important about this hearing. One was that we wanted
to complete the hearing before the turnover in ...
[the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] and
before the legislative session ... started - when our
terms ran out. So, we had a fairly short timeframe,
particularly because of the holidays; ... this thing
was shaping up over the holidays, and we needed to
keep our - I think it was - January 8 hearing date or
we were going to lose it and have a complete turnover
in the committee.
Number 1912
Mr. Popely had been representing Mr. Irwin, and that
was fine with the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics]. However, the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics's] staff did get several inquiries
and questions at to whether it was appropriate for him
to be represented by counsel. We certainly didn't
want that issue to be raised for the first time when
the hearing convened, and to throw the hearing
completely off track, and cause us not to be able to
finish our work.
So, we were debating what to do to make certain that
that didn't happen. We contacted [Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), Legislative Legal and Research
Services], and although we couldn't discuss the case
specifically with them, we described the general
situation [and asked], "What do you do in this
situation, when [we're] getting inquiries that may
result in complaints and we're headed for a hearing
and we don't want it to happen?" And there was some
discussion. And a letter was written, and actually
with the participation of LAA [Legislative Legal and
Research Services] as to the wording of it.
And what it said was -- I don't have a copy of the
letter, I'm sorry I don't, because it's been talked
about a lot, but nobody's ever given you a copy; ...
the people that went to ... the past hearing talked
about the letter but didn't ever give a copy of the
letter. The letter simply said, "We've received a
couple of inquiries as to whether this is appropriate;
this should be checked out before the hearing." That
was what that letter said. Indeed, ironically, as Mr.
Popely said, they went to LAA [Legislative Legal and
Research Services], got an opinion from the very same
person who helped draft the [first] letter, [who then]
said it's perfectly fine.
Number 1862
MR. COOK continued:
We [couldn't] have cared less. ... We just didn't want
the issue to come up at the hearing and derail our
hearing. We were not trying to pick counsel for
anybody; we were trying to make sure an issue didn't
come up. And I don't know why, when they got an
opinion from LAA [Legislative Legal and Research
Services] that said it was perfectly fine for him to
represent him, that he stepped back. That was
certainly not our intent; we simply said, "Check it
out so you don't face future ethical complaints from
somebody." And I'm not at liberty to say who those
came from; I don't know who they came from. They came
into our staff, and there were several. So, it was a
concern to people who were in a position to make
future complaint. That was one area.
There's one other area ..., perhaps, that came up in
the interim that I could just comment on. And that
was the administrative versus criminal or quasi-
criminal nature of the proceedings. In the past,
during my time on the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] - and I think even before, clear back to the
beginning of the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics], when we had some major cases like the Jacko
case and the Sanders case - they've been treated as
administrative procedures.
MR. COOK concluded:
And that's what the question is now ...: should we
continue to treat them as administrative procedures,
where it's appropriate - ... in that setting, an
advisor to the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] oftentimes does also act as a presenter of
evidence at a hearing - or are we going to treat it
more as a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding. And
that's ... certainly appropriate to be looked at. In
the past, we haven't thrown around words like
"defendant" and "prosecutorial" and so on. It's been
an administrative proceeding, not cast in criminal
terms. But if the legislature wants to consider this
a criminal proceeding or a quasi-criminal proceeding,
then it would be appropriate to separate those
functions out.
Number 1763
CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Mr. Cook for his testimony, and said:
That's why it's my intent to just tackle the [Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics] versus the entire
Administrative [Procedure] Act as I know [Senate]
President Therriault is. I believe that it is
different, and I believe it is a quasi-criminal
proceeding because the consequences are so severe,
professionally and so on. ... I recognize you were
dealing with very limited precedents in this area of
having gone to a full trial and so on. But it's clear
to me that we're not doing the complainant justice,
and we're not doing the person who's being complained
against justice in the process, and the public.
SENATOR FRENCH said, "I just had a question about the letter
that was sent from Legislative Legal [and Research Services]
authorizing Mr. Popely to represent."
MR. COOK remarked, "I've never seen it; it was never presented
to the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]; we've never
..."
CHAIR SEEKINS interjected to say, "(Indisc.) a copy here."
MR. COOK replied, "Well, I've asked for it before and it would
not be released to the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]
by the ..."
CHAIR SEEKINS again interjected to say, "I just got a copy here,
Senator French."
CHAIR McGUIRE informed Mr. Cook that committee staff would make
a copy of the aforementioned letter and distribute it to him.
SENATOR FRENCH said, "And really my only question had to do with
timing." He confirmed that he was referring to the letter from
Barbara Craver to Senator Halford, attention Ted Popely, and
that this letter is in response to Mr. Popely's request ...
CHAIR SEEKINS interjected to say: "The letter that Mr. Popely
received and then he requested that the [Legislative Legal and
Research Services] give him an opinion. Is that correct, Mr.
Popely?"
MR. POPELY replied, "More or less, that's correct."
Number 1683
SENATOR FRENCH queried: "And this is December 23, 2002? And
this was subsequent to the hearing/trial of Mr. Irwin?"
MR. COOK said, "No, no, it was before."
SENATOR FRENCH asked, "And how much before?"
MR. COOK replied:
Well, I think the hearing was on the 8th of January, I
believe. And I think the letter that Ms. Craver
helped us draft to Mr. Popely was just a few days
before this. So they rather promptly got an opinion
that it was fine, and yet he stepped back for some
reason and they got other counsel.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Cook and Mr. Popely if either of them
knew when it was that Mr. Irwin secured Mr. Jacobus to represent
him.
MR. POPELY said:
I don't know the answer to that. But in response to
the first question - why did Popely withdraw - the
[Legislative Legal and Research Services'] opinion is
not binding on the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] in any respect. So the reason I withdrew was
because I have no idea what the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] is going to determine is or is not
an ethics violation. All I have is guidance from
[Legislative Legal and Research Services].
And the fact that the same attorney who drafted that
opinion is the same one who helped with the letter, I
think suggests even more strongly that the letter was
a little too terse and bordering on irresponsible to
say -- what the letter said - I don't have a copy in
front of me, either, but I remember verbatim - it says
that there are potential ethical ramifications that
have been raised.
Number 1599
So, yes, I withdrew my representation, even though I
had an opinion from the same person, apparently - I'm
learning that, as I'm listening right now. If the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] received the
same advice that I received, that it was appropriate,
I'm still left wondering why I got a letter saying
there are potential ethical ramifications.
And I don't know who outside of [Mr. Cole], advisor to
the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics], knew
that I was representing Mr. Irwin. And I got the
distinct impression that the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] would have preferred, and Mr. Cole
would have preferred, if Mr. Irwin attended his
hearing unrepresented. If you want me to come right
out and say it, that's the problem I have with the
whole "letter" scenario.
SENATOR FRENCH noted, "We don't have a copy of the letter that
you received, which scared you off, so to speak."
MR. POPELY replied, "I'm sure it's there, floating around
somewhere, and I can make arrangements to get a copy to you, if
you'd like; I'm sure Mr. Irwin has it in his file, he's got a
complete file (indisc.)"
MR. COOK said the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] could
certainly provide a copy to members. In response to comments
made by Mr. Popely, Mr. Cook said:
I believe the letter suggested that he should check to
see if there were any ethical violations. The letter
certainly didn't say that the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] had found that there were any
ethical violations. It said, "We've got these
complaints - you might want to check this out to see
if there's any ethical ramifications to this
representation." And that's all the letter said.
Number 1545
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said:
Let me ask the Chairman's permission. When I came
here, this hearing was noticed as a confirmation
hearing. I didn't realize that we were going to spend
so much time looking into the Ron Irwin case. But now
I have questions about the Ron Irwin case so I can
understand everybody's concerns about that case. So,
... I have a few questions that I'd like to direct at
Mr. Popely.
CHAIR SEEKINS said:
Well, why don't we finish with Mr. Cook, here. I
mean, the reason that we are bringing ... this case
in, I believe, has to do with the -- we are
considering the confirmations and the actions,
probably, of some the folks that are in front of us
for confirmation [in regard] to this particular case.
And while it's a little broader than maybe it was
noticed, I think it's -- rather than getting too much
more into this line with Mr. Popely, I'd like to
address the folks who've traveled here today for
confirmation and any particular concerns we may have
with that process, if we could. And we can reserve
some time toward the end, if you'd like, for Mr.
Popely.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said:
That would be fine. Then I do have some questions for
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Cook. And I didn't study
the Ron Irwin decision on my way coming in here, so
with so many questions focusing on the findings
against Mr. Irwin, I guess if I could ask you to
summarize the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics's] conclusions and the legal basis for them,
that would help me understanding whether or not there
are valid concerns about those findings.
MR. COOK noted that since the [case] had already been through a
public hearing, there was no longer the need for confidentiality
that there would have been otherwise; therefore, he remarked, he
could talk about most of what happened, though perhaps not so
much about [the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics's]
deliberations. He said:
The case arose when Fran Ulmer made a speech out in
Eagle River presenting her fiscal plan, to be
implemented if she were elected governor. In response
to that, Ron Irwin was contacted by Representative
Mulder - and he was the Senate-side press secretary,
but he was contacted by Representative Mulder - who
said, "We have a response to that planned for the
Republican Party headquarters." And he was asking Ron
to set that up. Well, Ron Irwin -- there was
considerable discussion about who was going to
participate in it, and ... Ron Irwin decided that it
was a legislative response to [then-Lieutenant
Governor] Ulmer's [speech], so it was okay for that to
be held in the Legislative Information Office [LIO].
Number 1391
Quite frankly, what happened was that we began getting
calls about that - the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] - as to whether this was
appropriate to be holding this in the LIO. Staff and
I took a look at it, decided that Fran Ulmer's speech
was clearly a political campaign speech, this was
clearly a political response - wasn't appropriate to
hold it in the LIO - and a letter was sent saying this
is probably something that should not be held there.
And it wasn't; it was changed.
Then we got a complaint, afterwards, that ... state
resources should never have been use to set it up or
to plan it there in the first place. That was the
complaint we dealt with, and all the way through.
And, ultimately, the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] decided that minimal though they had been in
the sense of using the state e-mail to schedule this
thing and so on, that there had been a technical
violation. But it had been corrected. No sanctions.
And that was our initial finding. Then Ron Irwin
wanted that to be the subject of [a] public hearing;
we went through a public hearing and, essentially,
upheld that decision.
MR. COOK continued:
There was considerable evidence taken as to a lot of
things, some of which was what were Fran Ulmer's
duties ..., as lieutenant governor, with regard to
presenting fiscal plans. And there was some evidence
that that wasn't part of her job duties, ... and
[that] it was clearly a campaign speech out there. It
was talking about what would happen, ... not what
would happen within the administration she was
currently working with, but what would happen under a
future administration if she won. So, in essence, the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] drew a line
and said even though "partisan political activity" may
be a little hard to define, holding a press conference
using state facilities in response to a clearly
campaign speech is crossing the line.
Number 1287
MR. COOK went on to say:
Now, Senator Torgerson, who some of you heard from
before at the LAA hearing, wrote a dissenting opinion
to our opinion, and he raised a question a number of
times. And I think he raised it in that LAA hearing.
He said, "Does that mean that a legislature can't
answer questions to constituents about campaign
matters if the constituent calls them at their
legislative office?" For example, if somebody had
called a legislator ... to ask questions about the
speech given by Fran Ulmer out in Eagle River, would
it be inappropriate for the legislator to answer that
question.
And we said four or five times in that hearing,
"That's not what the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] is addressing." That's not a problem. A
legislator can always answer constituent questions, no
matter what the subject matter, if a constituent is
calling them in their legislative office. There are
certain campaign things they can't do. But that's
considerably different from calling a press conference
in response, and so that was where we broke with the
difficulty of "partisan political activity." A press
conference was felt to have been definitely a partisan
political response to a campaign activity. But we
certainly didn't try to place any limits on the
ability of a legislator to respond to constituents
about any subject matter.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said:
Thank you, Mr. Cook; that explains the first question
I had. So, in essence, we have Lieutenant Governor
Ulmer running for governor; she gives a campaign
speech; we have certain members of the Republican
Party who want to respond to her campaign speech; and
the ruling, in essence, was that they were not allowed
to use state resources to essentially throw back a
campaign salvo against what was a campaign speech.
And ... so, ... the legal lynchpin, the rule that
would have been violated by that had they used state
office space to do that, that's this rule governing
"partisan political activity?"
Number 1186
MR. COOK replied:
Right. Can't use state resources for "partisan
political activity." Now, there are some real ironic
aspects to that law. For example, in our hearings, it
became clear to us [in the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] that both the legislative majority
and the minority have press secretaries. And the
press secretaries' responsibility is to make ... the
legislative members of particular parties look good.
And the question was raised, "Isn't that 'partisan
political activity' in and of itself?" And it
probably is. [It's a] tough question. So, ... that's
where there are some things the legislature might want
to look at. You've prohibited partisan political
activities and yet you employ people who are
specifically paid by state resources to perform those.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said:
I think that is why ... Senator Torgerson dissented.
And I think that's why there's been concern, here in
the legislature, on the structure of the statutes, the
definitions of the statutes, and ..., from this
particular case, what we might do to clarify and draw
the lines in a brighter manner. Mr. Chairman, I know
that generally, we have names that are proposed for
different commissions and we look at the resume and we
look at a person's work history, and hopefully ...
whoever's suggested the name has looked to see if
there's DWI [driving while intoxicated] violations or
... criminal history.
But when we have instances like this, where we've got
members whose names are proposed and we can look at
the history - similar to the Board of Fish nominations
that we've gotten, there's very controversial decision
made recently - that I think that when the overview is
done, there are going to be questions on that
particular meeting and the decision - the thought
process - and so I don't think that asking questions
of a particular case, here, is out of line for this
hearing today.
Number 1098
SENATOR THERRIAULT continued:
I think what I've discerned from the discussion so far
is, Mr. Cook, ... he says, "We've got the statutes,
... there might be some structural problems with the
statutes, but that's what ... we felt that we were
bound to and we try to stick to those statutes." And
I applaud him for that. The issue, though - I just
want to go back - weren't there also some ...
campaigning-activity charges that were leveled in this
case, too? And the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] committee decided to dismiss them, didn't
they? Weren't there a number of allegations, and the
campaigning stuff was dismissed.
MR. COOK replied:
That's one area of the statute that could probably
stand to be cleaned up a little bit; ... there's a
section that ... mentions "partisan political
activity" and then mentions "campaign" down below.
And the committee ended up proceeding under the
"partisan political activity" as opposed to the
"campaign". We weren't in the campaign period, and
the person running for office -- the campaigning part
of it seemed to apply to candidates running for
office. Ron Irwin wasn't a candidate running for
office, so the campaigning part was not proceeded
with. It was under the "partisan political
[activity]".
SENATOR THERRIAULT said, "That's one of the things that was
confusing to me ...: if this was a an activity to influence ...
then-Lieutenant Governor Ulmer's campaign, if the campaign stuff
was all dismissed ..."
MR. COOK said, "I think the committee looked at the campaign
portion of the statute as applying to people who are campaigning
for office themselves ..., and that's why that dropped out."
Number 0971
SENATOR THERRIAULT said:
Then the other thing just deals with the vagueness of
the term "partisan political activity". In my earlier
comments, I said that from the way I remembered the
discussion when the law was passed, ... if you were
sending out campaign brochures or having your staff
answer ... campaign calls in your office, it was
clearly out of line. A part of the problem here is
that we, as sitting legislators, when we get to an
election year, we wear multiple hats. And so, at any
given time, am I ... Senator Therriault or am I
candidate Therriault?
And it becomes difficult where to draw the line on
those two things. So, was there any discussion [by
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] just
saying basically, "This issue has been brought to us,
but with the definition that we have in statute - the
lack of definition in statute - we can't render a
decision?" And it wouldn't be unusual for the courts,
at times, to render a section of statute inoperable on
a particular set of circumstances in a case brought to
it, I think, due to their vagueness.
MR. COOK replied:
I think the majority of the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] equated this more closely to what
you said before: You cannot use your office, you
cannot use your equipment - state-provided equipment -
for campaigning. And we felt that - I believe,
speaking for the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] - that this fell clearly enough into that,
that it was clearly enough a campaign response, that
you couldn't use ... state facilities or the state
communication system ....
Representative Mulder was probably right in the first
place when he called Ron Irwin and said ..., "We're
going to do this response at Republican Party
headquarters." That's where the committee felt it
should have been done. But with Ron Irwin's help, it
got steered into the ... Legislative Information
Office, which was, in a sense, akin to a legislator
using his private office to do actual campaign
activity. So I don't think it was that -- ... I think
we were able to draw that line, here, but we can
certainly see a lot of other ... arenas in which the
"partisan political activity" could be tightened up.
Number 0847
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked that Mr. Cook's explanation
clarified things for him, since he'd been under the impression
that the campaign charges had simply been dismissed.
MR. COOK reiterated that because Ron Irwin was not a candidate,
the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] did not consider
the offense to be a campaign activity.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that Mr. Irwin, as press secretary, is
simply a technician. He elaborated: "I say, 'Set up a press
conference,' and he makes the calls to make it happen. The
content of the press ... release, the content of what I say when
I step to the microphone is my call. All he does is set up the
workings."
MR. COOK responded:
It was very difficult for us to figure out the lines
of authority under which Mr. Irwin was working,
because he was employed by the Senate, contacted by
the House and other people, and it was very murky as
to how this got changed from Republican Party
headquarters to the LIO, but, clearly, Mr. Irwin was a
player in making that change - a little more than a
technician.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that, ultimately, the venue
chosen by Mr. Irwin would have had to have been approved by a
legislator. He noted that Mr. Popely's letter was dated just
before Christmas, a time of flux for legislative leadership; he
surmised that the timing of the letter probably added to the
confusion of the issues.
MR. COOK remarked that all parties were under a lot of time
pressure.
CHAIR SEEKINS thanked Mr. Cook, and indicated that they would
next hear from Shirley McCoy. He asked Ms. McCoy to identify
herself and give the committees an opening statement.
Number 0718
SHIRLEY A. McCOY, Appointee, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, introduced herself. She said:
I'm Shirley McCoy, I live here in Juneau, I've been a
resident of Juneau for approximately 13 years, [and I]
moved over here after having lived about 26 years [in]
Sitka, Alaska. [I] was involved pretty extensively in
city politics while I was in the Sitka area, and was
appointed to the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics], as it was newly formed, shortly after coming
to Juneau.
MS. McCOY went on to say:
So, I ... guess I'm the only surviving - [chuckling]
and I use that term loosely - member of the originally
re-established [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] that you have that was adopted to have a
majority of public members versus legislative members
on it. As to why I'd even be interested in serving
another term is a really good question right about now
[chuckling]. One of the things that comes to mind is,
you need somebody with common sense, and if I'm not on
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics], you've got
[an] overrun of attorneys [chuckling].
[Some members of the committees laughed and offered additional
joking comments.]
MS. McCOY continued:
I was basically asked to consider having my name
resubmitted for the fact that I have more history than
a lot of our members. We've had a substantial
turnover in the last few years, and that in itself is
one reason. You know yourself, if you've been in your
position, how difficult it is sometimes when you have
a turnover of staff or committee members, you end up
almost reinventing the wheel each time. So there is
something to be said about the historical experience,
I guess. That's pretty much it.
SENATOR OGAN said, "I can't resist this one ...: Are you saying
that having attorneys on an ethics committee is an oxymoron?"
[Some members of the committees laughed.]
MS. McCOY answered, "I usually say, 'Actually, having a
legislative ethics committee is an oxymoron,'" and laughed too.
[Some members of the committees laughed and made additional
joking comments.]
Number 0552
CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Ms. McCoy for coming and for her years of
public service. She went on to say:
I'll say the same thing I said to Mr. Cook, and I
don't say it lightly. I think it's a big deal, the
commitment that members of the public make to serve on
these boards without compensation - and a whole lot of
grief. So, thank you. I remained concerned about the
process. Ron Irwin's case happens to be the one that
came up; as Representative Gara pointed out, we are
spending a lot of time talking about it. I think that
happens a lot, when you've got a committee set up to
do a job and there isn't a lot of precedence out
there. When it does do its job, people start taking
notice of how it's doing it, and what procedures are
in place, and those kinds of things. So, I hope you
don't feel that we're attacking you; I really want to
understand [what happened].
One of my concerns -- there are two different things
in the public transcript that concern me, and I just
want to understand, having sat on the [Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics], what you believe
your role to be in terms of the procedures. There are
two different portions of the proceedings that took
place. One was a probable cause hearing. And I want
to know, or understand from you, what you believe to
be a probable cause hearing versus the actual public
hearing itself, as it's been explained to you, either
via the committee guidelines that you have or the
Administrative [Procedure] Act.
MS. McCOY replied:
If I understood you correctly, the ethics code has
very strict guidelines that we have to adhere to, and
when we have a complaint that's filed, the first thing
that we have to look at is, was it filed appropriately
- is it notarized, is it signed. The public person,
who is normally the one that's filing an ethics
complaint, is not expected to have the level of
expertise that you would have. In other words, they
don't have to list a code that they feel is being
violated.
Number 0402
When the legislators set up the ethics code, they
pretty much left it open for public members to have
that freedom to come and present a complaint without
feeling that they were going to be chastised or
questioned or ridiculed. ... They pretty much gave
them an open book. They can -- a person can actually
read a newspaper article, and say, "I think there's
been an ethics violation," and file a complaint with
that newspaper article attached.
So, you have given the public pretty much free rein to
file an ethics complaint. There's been some
considerable discussion as to ... should that process
be changed. That in itself is debatable because the
one thing you don't want to do is cut off the public.
You don't want to make them feel it is difficult to
file a complaint; you want them to feel that they have
access and they have a hearing.
CHAIR McGUIRE posited that she was unclear in her question. She
said she agrees with what Ms. McCoy is saying and does not want
to change that [aspect of the process]. She elaborated:
I think that is the beauty of it. We should be held
to the highest ethical standards and so should our
employees. You ought to be able to bring the
complaint based on what want. But, then, what I'm now
asking is -- your job, as a committee member, is to
determine probable cause before you go on the next
step. And I'm asking you what your understanding of
that is.
MS. McCOY, in response, continued with her explanation of the
process:
Then you investigate the allegations. You see what
their complaint is, based on what the statutes say.
You try to line up a statute that would address that.
And, ultimately, you start an investigation. You talk
with people that are involved. You send a letter to
the person that the complaint's filed against, first
of all. Normally they contact you post-haste. So you
start a process of inquiring - getting information -
talking to anyone that has an involvement in it, and
you try to do this, as much as possible, holding the
confidentiality of the person that the complaint's
filed against.
Number 0242
CHAIR McGUIRE asked: "How do you compare the probable cause
portion of the hearing to the actual hearing itself - the actual
portion of the trial, if you will, [or] quasi-criminal trial,
however you want to call it ...? How do you compare those two?"
MS. McCOY replied:
It's pretty much as most of you have indicated; you
wear different caps. ... You put a different cap on
[and] you're in a different ball game at this point.
The probable cause situation is now behind you. You
appoint a hearing officer. Each party has counsel.
The [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] has their
counsel. The person that's before us, if they desire,
have their own counsel. The hearing officer is there
to make sure that the process runs smoothly and to
establish the guidelines, but, ultimately, it's the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] that is the
determining ...
CHAIR McGUIRE interjected to say, "You become the jury."
MS. McCOY said, "Exactly; it's pretty much the same as a grand
jury type of hearing."
CHAIR McGUIRE said:
My concern, Ms. McCoy -- you've answered it exactly as
I would have hoped, because I believe that those are
two very distinct parts of the hearing process itself.
Again, not to compare it to criminal, but it's much
like making that ... initial indictment or that
[initial] charge - however you want to call that prior
decision - but distinct from the process that a jury
or a committee would go through in eliciting facts and
looking at evidence, through the [hearing] officer, to
then ultimately make a decision.
Number 0122
My concern, in reading over some of the public
testimony - transcript, pardon me - is there is a
point in the actual hearing where ... Mr. Irwin's
attorney offered into evidence - through the hearings
officer, who is the decision maker over what is
admitted or not - made a motion to enter into evidence
a series of press releases. Press releases that would
show a comparison of the types of activities that were
normally conducted by himself during similar points in
time.
And the statement that you made after the motion
failed -- you were the only person to vote against the
motion, which isn't up for question right now - at
all. Please understand that. It's what you said that
disturbed me, and I'd just like to hear some comment
about it. You said, "Apparently, the motion will
fail, but this is my thinking: we heard his argument
prior to making our probable cause findings, so I
don't know that he would present anything new or
different than we've already heard before." That
concerns me and I ... really want to hear ...
MS. McCOY interjected with the following:
Well, we were talking about the specifics of the
newspaper clippings that he wanted to bring in. We
already had a copy of those in front of us, so I'd
already read through them. I think my thinking at the
time was that they really ... had no bearing on the
case, at any portion, because we weren't dealing with
what had happened in another situation. We were
dealing with an ethics violation that was before us
right now, on one situation. Historical evidence
[didn't change the code]. [The preceding bracketed
portion was not on tape, but taken from the Gavel to
Gavel recording on the Internet.]
TAPE 03-13, SIDE A [House JUD tape]
Number 0001
MS. McCOY continued:
It didn't give us freedom to say, "Oh, well, this has
been done in the past, so that's the way we'll do it
now. So the newspaper articles - or the clippings -
that he wanted to bring into evidence were obsolete as
far as I was concerned.
CHAIR McGUIRE said:
It's an interesting job that we're tasked with right
here. And those of us who will be pushing the button
on the floor, in a way, we're asking whether you're
qualified to be a member of the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics]; in a way, we're asking whether
you're qualified to be a judge; in a way, we're asking
you whether you're qualified to be a member of a jury
- passing judgment on your peers.
And it's a real interesting question, and I only bring
it out because I think this ... gets right back to ...
why I think this process is so flawed. But as a
member of a jury, it did concern me to read that your
thinking was that you had already addressed a subject
during a probable cause hearing and, therefore, any
new facts or any new evidence that were being offered,
in your mind, should be dismissed. Because I would
...
MS. McCOY interjected to say: "No, I think you're stretching my
thinking and the terminology when you say, 'any new evidence,'
because it was not new evidence; it was evidence that we already
had before us that I didn't feel was pertinent to what we were
dealing with at the time."
Number 0131
CHAIR McGUIRE said:
And then I just have one final question, and that is,
again, just looking at conduct/character of things
that are said. I say things I don't mean, a lot; you
could write a whole chapter on it. There was a point
in your testimony where you looked at Mr. Erwin prior
to the probable cause hearing and you said - oh, you
pointed to a hook in the ceiling - you said, "Do you
see that hook? That's the hook that we're going to
hang you from." And I just wanted your response to
that particular statement.
MS. McCOY replied, "I have no idea." She asked of Mr. Cook,
"Did I make a statement like that?" Turning back to Chair
McGuire, she said, "I have no idea what you're referring to and
-- what time was this supposed to have taken place?"
CHAIR McGUIRE said, "Prior to the probable cause hearing." She
then asked Mr. Popely whether he could testify to that
statement.
MR. POPELY said: "It sounds vaguely familiar, but I really -- I
can't. I think Ron mentioned that was in the transcripts being
reviewed, at one point; he'd probably be a better person to
testify as to what's in them."
MS. McCOY said:
I -- sorry, I have ... no recollection of making a
comment like that. And, quite frankly, Mr. Irwin and
I joked back and forth on a couple of situations.
There may have been -- unfortunately, in a transcript,
you don't get the tone of a person's voice or their
comment.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked, "Again, I believe these hearings are
very serious and quasi-criminal in nature, and I was just
concerned."
MS. McCOY replied, "I am quite positive that that didn't take
place in a hearing. It might have taken place in ... another
meeting with Mr. Irwin, but not in a public hearing."
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised, "So, if it took place, you didn't mean
it and it was just a joke."
Number 0306
MS. McCOY said:
I don't remember making the comment at all. And it
falls outside of my total thinking, over the whole
process anyway. The only thing that I found was -
that I personally had a problem with - was the fact
that Mr. Irwin felt that it even needed to come to a
public hearing. The [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics] had filed no sanctions. If we had any way of
getting out of even going through with the probable
cause [hearing], we probably would.
And [Senator] Therriault's earlier comments about the
one portion that was dropped, [it] was basically done
after a substantial amount of discussion, where we
felt we found a loophole, that we could get out from
under that one. And I'm sure you can all appreciate
loopholes, but none of us appreciated the way this
complaint was filed, the manner in which it was filed,
and the timeframe in which it was filed. But we still
have a responsibility under the code that we have been
authorized to deal with, and we moved forward as best
we could, given the tools that we had to work with.
CHAIR McGUIRE said, "Now I have a different concern; I'm
concerned about your statement regarding his choice of having a
public hearing."
MS. McCOY replied:
Well, your statements in the committee meeting have
bordered this on a criminal action. This was a minor
infraction and, basically, didn't take place at all.
But the [Select Committee on Legislative Ethics]
established guidelines from the very first year, that
an attempt to violate an ethics code was the same as
violating it. We've acted under that premise since
[the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] has been
formed. And the reason for that is to try to limit
ethics complaints. So, when a person attempts to
violate a ... [code], it's handled pretty much the
same way, although there's no sanctions because it
didn't take place.
Number 0420
CHAIR McGUIRE said, "I know you didn't mean to say that Mr.
Irwin wouldn't be entitled to a full public hearing, should he
choose to clear his name."
MS. McCOY replied, "Obviously, he was entitled to it; I just
felt that it was minimal in the original charge, anyway."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said:
I think Senator Torgerson, though, tried to impress
upon the committees, even though minor infraction no
sanctions, what the potential chilling effect would
... be on the workings in this building. A staff
person performing his job at the direction of a
legislator -- where do we draw the line, then? And
then, the next time I ask my staff to do something,
the whole aspect of whether we provide them with legal
representation: "Oh, yeah, boss? What if somebody
brings me up on charges? You going to be there to
pick up the legal tab for that? Or am I left out
hanging to dry?" On the activity that I think most of
us can agree, that part of the political process that
we live in, is the bantering back and responding to
the things that come up on a daily basis. So, it may
have seemed to be a very minor infraction that tipped
this whole thing off, but the consequences of the
decision could be large.
MS. McCOY replied:
I'm sorry, not in my opinion. With maybe one
exception, there is no person that's come before the
[Select Committee on Legislative Ethics] that's been
found even guilty of a violation that hasn't ran for
reelection and been voted back in their office. A
person coming up on ethics charges [does] not [have] a
black mark on their political career.
Number 0572
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied: "That not what I'm alleging. It's
that - whether it causes a problem for somebody, politically, in
the future - but just the problems that it causes in the
process.
MS. McCOY replied:
And that's the whole point in going with the attempt,
is to keep that from happening in the future. In the
first place, Mr. Irwin was not instructed to call the
conference and use the LIO. That was his choice.
That was not -- had he done what his boss had asked
him to do, we would have never been here, or been
there. It would have just never happened. He made
the choice, and the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics], given the code that we have to work with,
determined that there was probable cause and that
there was an attempt to violate the ethics code by the
actions that he took. We did it in a manner that was
minimal to him, but set out a clear message to future
possibilities that this was not acceptable under the
current ethics code.
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked:
If he had done what he was originally instructed, that
would have been to call a press conference at the
Republican Party headquarters, I would think that that
would be a huge violation: using state time and
energies to call something at a political
headquarters.
MS. McCOY replied it would have been at the Republican Party
headquarters and not in state facilities.
SENATOR THERRIAULT argued that the legislature would still have
used his time and his e-mail account to send out the notice.
Number 0687
MS. McCOY pointed out that she did not know the particulars of
Mr. Irwin's job description. "As Mr. Cook said, this was the
first time that we'd been made aware that there's press
secretaries on both sides that are paid to do just exactly what
they have to do for their individual parties," she added. She
posited, "Maybe you're going to have to isolate them from this
"partisan political activity" statute; ... that's your decision.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked her to offer her definition of
"partisan political activity".
MS. McCOY suggested that "partisan political activity" might
include anything involving a campaign situation and/or having
nothing to do with a person's legislative responsibilities.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that the committees were running out of
time. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Cook for traveling to
the hearing and to Mr. Popely for attending via teleconference.
After remarking that Ms. McCoy's hearing was strategically
planned to be last - since she was local - he asked her to
return for further questioning at another time.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Chair Seekins if he wanted a motion to
forward the names of the appointees.
CHAIR SEEKINS said, "No, I think we're going to carry [the
hearing] forward; there are issues still remaining here and some
people that have some questions and haven't had an opportunity
to present them ...."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said:
Mr. Chair, there was some information that came up
during this hearing that I was wondering whether or
not you might request so that we could see it. There
was an allegation about a comment that [Ms. McCoy]
made about hanging on a hook, and I suppose if we're
going to charge her with making that comment ... - I
suppose if we're going to wonder out loud whether or
not she made the comment - I'd like to see ..."
CHAIR SEEKINS interjected to say, "We'll do that and we'll look
at a couple of other things that (indisc.) bring up for the next
time around."
[The House Judiciary Standing Committee considered the
appointments of Dennis "Skip" Cook and Herman G. Walker, Jr.,
again on 3/5/03; the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
considered the appointments of Dennis "Skip" Cook and Herman G.
Walker, Jr., again on 3/5/03, and the appointment of Shirley A.
McCoy again on 4/16/03.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0788
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting between the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|