Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/29/1997 03:14 PM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 1997
3:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Bill Williams
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Continuation of January 27, 1997, meeting:
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Decision H-96-02
PREVIOUS ACTION
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4945
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-2, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Rules Standing Committee to
order at 3:14 p.m. All members were present.
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT: Before commencing, I want to thank everyone
for attending the first House Rules Committee meeting. It may be
the last, but we'll see how that works. The committee has been
charged with the responsibility of examining the decision and
recommendations made by the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
in the case H-96-02, otherwise known In Re Sanders. Thereafter,
depending upon the results of this hearing, the committee will make
full recommendations to the House. By way of background, on April
29, 1996, a complaint was filed with the Ethics Committee
concerning Representative Sanders. The committee, on September 23,
found probable cause to conclude that Representative Sanders, as a
result of a mailing, violated Alaska Statute 24.60.030(a)(2),
Alaska Statue 24.60.030(a)(5) and Alaska Statute 24.60.030(b).
Representative Sanders was served with a copy of the charges. He
also was served with a summons requiring him to answer the charges
within ten days. Representative Sanders elect not to file an
answer. A hearing master was chosen on November 14 and November 15
a hearing was held before the House Subcommittee on Legislative
Ethics. Representative Sanders, while represented by counsel,
elected to assert his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the
United State Constitution. On November 15, a written report was
issued by the House Subcommittee finding that Representative
Sanders violated the mentioned three provisions of the Ethics Act.
The written opinion also made several recommendations concerning
sanctions. This report was duly forwarded to the House where it
was considered on the House floor January 22, 1997. The full House
elected, without objection, to forward the matter to the House
Rules Committee. Consequently, the Ethics Committee findings and
recommendations are now before this committee for consideration.
At the conclusion of these proceedings, again, the Rules Committee
will submit a written report to the full House. It is my goal to
conclude all the hearings by Monday of next week and to submit that
report required by this committee subsequent to that date - more
than likely toward the middle or end of next week. Today, it's my
plan to illicit testimony from Representative Sanders concerning
what happened in the case. Representative Sanders elected not to
testify before the House Ethics Committee, as I mentioned. I plan
on giving him that opportunity at this particular time. I've also
requested that personnel from the Ethics Committee be present and
testify and that more than likely will occur tomorrow evening. In
addition to testimony, the Rules Committee has before it a copy of
the Ethics Committee's decision, the transcript of the proceedings
before the Ethics Committee and a copy of the exhibits admitted at
the Ethics Committee hearing, as well as copies of orders issued by
the hearing master. Although this Rules Committee hearing is open
to the public for testimony it is my intent to have that testimony
by invitation only. The core issue before the committee is, "Was
the Ethics Committee correct in its conclusions and are the
recommended sanctions appropriate?" Generalized policy questions
are not before the committee, except they might related to the
resolution of a specific case, and accordingly generalize public
input would be less than useful in this particular case. That,
coupled with my desire to expeditiously resolve this long-running
issue, influenced my decision to limit testimony by invitation
only. With that in mind, I would now like to invite Representative
Sanders up to the stand to give his version of what occurred.
Jerry, please join us at the table. Representative Elton.
Number 381
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON: I mean I was prepared to make a motion,
but we may not need to do that. I just have a question for the
Chair and then you can perhaps make up your mind. Because of the
testimony before the Ethics Committee was given under oath, was
there any consideration on any witnesses that you call before here
having our testimony given on (indisc.--coughing) also?
Number 409
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Yes, there is that consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Has a decision been made?
CHAIRMAN KOTT: And the decision has been made and we will proceed
under that assumption that Representative Sanders will be under
oath.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks Mr. Chairman.
Number 433
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Jerry, if you would please raise your right hand
and do you swear to affirm that you will tell the whole truth, the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Number 435
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS: I do.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you. Please proceed.
Number 463
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and
committee members. I know we have a reception at 6:00 p.m. so I'll
try to get through this stack of papers by 6:00 for you. First,
let me think you and the committee and the entire House for
allowing me to present my position and allow -- please allow me to
apologize for the time you have been forced to take out of your
busy schedules to address this decision of the Ethics Committee.
Already, the committee has spent over $24,000 investigating an
alleged misuse of $72. It seems a little out of proportion, still,
there is an important issue of law that I hope you will address and
I ask for your indulgence to consider this decision in two parts.
First, I will focus on the actual merits of the case, and explain
how the committee unfortunately misinterpreted the statute it was
trying to apply. Second, I will address the dubious procedures
which the committee used, through no fault of its own, but rather
through the fault of this statute. This discussion will also
include some additional facts which will enable you to assess who
cooperated and to what extent in the process. You may be
surprised. On the first point, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you
discard the chaff and take a close look at the kernel of the
situation. The issue is not my attitude towards certain members of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. The issue is not
disagreements I have had with the committee in the past. The issue
is very straightforward, Mr. Chairman: Did I violate the
Legislative Ethics Act when I authorized a particular letter to be
sent to some of my constituents? I have attached a copy of my
letter to your paperwork and I have more copies here is anyone
would like to see them. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to read this letter into the record.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Please proceed.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS:
March 4, 1996
Dear (first name),
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your
participation in the first presidential straw poll to be held
in Alaska. Not only have we broken new ground historically,
politically we have gained prestige on the national level.
It was exciting to learn that District 19's participation was
among the strongest areas to go out and cast a vote for on a
presidential candidate. With the inclement whether to deal
with, I really appreciate the interest shown by my fellow
Republicans.
Seeing a lot of you in the halls of the polling station within
my district was indeed a pleasure. If I didn't get a chance
to talk with you, please accept my apology.
I have always held in high regard those people who will go
that `extra mile' to do what is needed. Taking the time out
of your busy schedule to fulfill your civic duty is greatly
appreciated.
With warm regard, I remain Representative Jerry Sanders
Number 667
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Excuse me, do members of the committee have that?
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: If you don't have it...
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Letter?
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: We have it here to pass out. Can we pass
it out?
CHAIRMAN KOTT: It appears everyone has it.
Number 682
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: This, Mr. Chairman, is the $24,000 letter.
This is the letter that's branded me a criminal and held me up to
ridicule and shame for the past four months. The letter went to
about 240 people and cost about $72. I was not running for office,
I had not declared a candidacy. I had not even decided if I were
going to run again, or for what office if I did. The letter
doesn't urge anyone to contribute money, it doesn't urge anyone to
go vote, it doesn't urge anyone to vote for me, it doesn't urge
anyone to vote for any local, state or national candidate. My
letter simply thanks a few hundred people in my district who took
the time to do their civic duty and participate in the presidential
election process. People whom - within whom I took a great deal of
pride. I was not concerned for whom thy voted, but the fact they
had participated. I also felt that positive recognition and
acknowledgment from their legislator would perhaps encourage them
to further civic and community involvement. Mr. Chairman, this is
my crime - this letter. The Ethics Committee concluded that this
short letter violated AS 24.60.30. The problem is that the
committee narrowed its application to exclude the letter that I
wrote and that we, as legislators write, every day. The statute
states that we may not use public funds, facilities, and so forth
for a nongovernmental purpose or for the private benefit of a
legislator. The statute also has a nominal value exception, which
I will talk about in a moment. The key words here are
"nongovernmental purpose." That's what the statute says. If your
letter has a governmental purpose, it's okay. If it has a
nongovernmental purpose, it's not okay. Instead of using the broad
term "governmental purpose," the committee instead substituted a
much narrower definition, namely, "legislative purpose." In other
words, the committee believed that if the letter had a legislative
purpose which term is not found anywhere in the statute, it's okay.
If it has no legislative purpose, it's not okay. Let me read from
their decision in quotes:
"This letter does not have a legislative purpose. It concerns
a function of a political party on a national level, the
effort to influence the choice of the Republican nominee for
president. It was sent to active members of Representative
Sander's political party, in his district, in a year he was
running for election."
That's Decision II 96-02, page 4. I take two exceptions there. At
the time this letter was sent, I was not running for office. It's
true in that year I ran for office, but not when I sent this
letter. I was -- the election for president was over, the votes
were tallied and the decision had been announced. How could I have
been trying to influence this election? The Select Committee went
onto conclude that legislators may use public funds, facilities and
staff to communicate with constituents if that communication has a
connection to a legislative purpose. The letter has a political,
not legislative purpose. That's what the committee found. I
respectfully suggest to the House Rules Committee that the
conclusion of the Ethics Committee is simply an error. For
example, AS 24.60.030 says absolutely nothing about "political
purposes" nor does the statute refer to "legislative purpose."
Those are not the standards established by the law. At this time
I would like to show you another exhibit if we could pass it out,
Exhibit B, from the Legislative Ethics Manual.
Number 973
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Would you please give it to Mr. Dozier. Let the
record reflect that Exhibit B is taken from the Standards of
Conduct Handbook prepared by the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics and deals with Alaska Statute 24.60.030 (c).
Number 996
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS:
Number 996
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Okay, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I ask you if you were going to send out a mass mailing
and you had any question of whether or not it was ethical, where
would you go to find out? Would you not go to the Ethics Manual to
page 13 where it says "Mass Mailings?" And would you not read that
statute, and I don't have a copy of it to read it to you - to read
it into the record if I could. Thank you very much Representative
Elton. It says: "State money may not be used to print or
distribute a mass mailing from or about a legislator who is a
candidate for state office, during the period beginning 90 days
before the primary and ending the day after the general or special
election." I was not a candidate, this was more than six months
before the primary. I didn't see any problem. "However, a
legislator's personal office allowance may be used for this mass
mailings at any time." There is nothing there that made me think
I couldn't use my office account for this mass mailing. Why the
Select Committee chooses to contrast the narrow the concept of
"legislative purpose" with "political purpose" is a mystery to me.
AS 24.60.030(a)(2) refers only to the broader term of
"nongovernmental purpose," not some sort of tension between
"legislative" and "political" purposes. The Select Committee
failed to properly apply the clear language of the statute. The
issue is whether my March 4, 1996, letter served a governmental
purpose or not, and whether the letter was for the private benefit
of a legislator. Those are the standards the law requires. So the
statute allowed for a much broader range of letters that could be
written under the "governmental purpose" exception. The committee,
however, used a much narrower term of "legislative purpose," which
term never appears in the statute, and which would make an ethics
violation out of just about every letter that any of us have ever
written to a constituent. Mr. Chairman, if you are confident that
every letter you have ever written as a legislator could withstand
this sort of scrutiny, then you have no option, you must impose the
sanctions before you. If you're confident that we could go back to
each of our offices and pull out a letter at random, and it would
pass this new test that the Ethics Committee has imposed, then
there's not much more to discuss. The statute also forbids letters
for the "private benefit" of a legislator. I think it's clear that
the term "private benefit" refers to financial benefit as in fund
raising and not so-called "campaign goodwill" the Select Committee
seems to have adopted as their definition. If my letter is the new
standard for how we communicate with our constituents, then we have
a whole new set of problems. Let me list a few of em for ya. How
many legislators send congratulatory letters to seniors graduating
from high school? Do they fit under this? How many legislators
routinely use the convenient labels produced by the University of
Alaska to congratulate graduating Alaskans? Can we do this? How
many legislators would send a letter thanking students for
volunteering their time during high school civics class activities?
How many times, Mr. Chairman, has the body taken up resolutions in
memorium or praising the work or civic dedication in our community?
Is that a legislative purpose? How many times have we addressed
the president of the United States and Congress on issues of
concern to Alaskans? How many of us will attend the joint session
where our U.S. senators will address the legislature? How many
Democratic candidates now serving in the legislature flew back to
Washington, D.C., at state expense, to attend the inaugural of
President Bill Clinton? Was there a governmental purpose in flying
back to a Democratic Party celebration on the reelection of a
Democrat president and his inaugural? These are questions that I
hope you'll think about. In the future, can any legislator thank
volunteers for cleaning up Campbell Creek or for forming a
neighborhood watch? If the answer to this question is, "yes, they
can," then I have another question. What if the organizers of the
effort were the Young Republicans? Can you now? What if they were
the Bartlett Democratic Club? Can you now? On the first point,
governmental purpose, I suggest to the Rules Committee that sending
a letter to 240 people thanking them for participating in a
presidential election process clearly has several governmental
purposes. Not the least of which is encouraging people in their
civic duty to participate and to enhance Alaskan issues in the
minds of candidates for president of the United States. In
reaching this conclusion I ask the Rules Committee to consider only
this letter and the statute in reaching a conclusion that the
committee simply did not correctly apply the law with respect to
this letter. There was no violation of AS 24.60.030. So in terms
of the actual merits of the charges against me, and really against
any one of us who has a letter like this in their office, the kind
of letter we send out every day to our constituents, on the merits
of the case, I (indisc.) is clear no violation occurred. The
Ethics Committee misapplied or misinterpreted the law, and if you
follow its recommendation, you will chill the warm relationship we
are to have with our constituents. If we say we cannot thank this
particular group of people, then we can't thank anyone. We might
as well tie our hands behind us and walk on egg shells every time
we write a letter to anyone, for fear we could be violating the
ethics statute. Enough about the merits of the case. I'd like to
now turn to the second point, and that is the procedures used by
the committee. the procedures which have the potential for the
greatest mischief. At the outset, I want you all to know that I
have no agenda here, and no intention of attacking anyone. I'm not
here to put anyone on trial, or second guess anyone's motives,
although certain aspects of this case, for example, the timing,
seems suspicious. I also wish to bring to light, some very serious
flaws I see in the procedures under the statute. If this statute
is perfect, if it needs no fine tuning, then let's not worry about
what I am about to tell you. By the way, I think it would be the
first time in history that a legislature has ever produced a
perfect statute. But if we're like other legislatures, maybe the
statute wasn't perfect. Maybe it needs some work. This seems
especially true since not all states have an Ethics Committee, and
those that do haven't had them long. Ethics committees are fairly
new and very powerful animals because of the premium we as
legislators and our constituents place on ethics. No one,
especially a legislator, wants to be on the wrong end of an ethics
violation. To make this more forceful, I have one more exhibit I'd
like to pass out. This is -- and I won't read it because it takes
too much time, but this is an editorial from the Juneau Empire
which strikes at the very core of our dilemma and anyone who hasn't
read it I hope they will.
Number 1452
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Let the record reflect that what is being passed
out is in fact from the Juneau Empire. It's offered as Exhibit C,
dated January 23, 1997.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: This article, Mr. Chairman, points out
precisely why we must be so careful to make sure the process is
fair. This is why the standard of proof is so high, clear and
convincing evidence, higher than probably cause or preponderance of
the evidence. Because the accusation of ethics violation carries
with it so much public condemnation and outrage, we must be sure
that accusations are not made lightly, that accusers are held to
the strictest scrutiny and highest burden of proof, and that the
committee grounds its findings in the most reliable evidence.
Unfortunately, this was not the case here, nor is there any
guarantee that this won't happen again. I suggest that we approach
the statute the way a mechanic approaches a car that's running a
little rough. The roughest part of the statute that we need to fix
is the fact that the same person that accuses is also the jury and
the judge. In other words, the committee not only charges a
person, but then they also get to rule on the merits of their own
charges. At that point, it's a foregone conclusion. Why would
they charge me if I wasn't guilty? No where in our justice system
do we have a similar procedure. In fact, a jury of our peers,
separate from the judge, was important enough to our founding
fathers to put in the Bill of Rights. How can we trust any
procedure in which the same person who accuses also gets to have
the final say about whether they are right. Imagine the inherent
unfairness if one of two political parties had the power by statute
to win every political argument. Imagine if a certain segment of
our society had the final say in any lawsuit that it filed. The
other problem, Mr. Chairman, is timing. Even the Anchorage Daily
News has a moratorium of letters - moratorium on letters to the
editor submitted on the eve of elections. In this way, the news
attempts to avoid last minute smear campaigns which do no allow for
rebuttal. Similarly here, where the Ethics Committee received the
complaint in April, but took no action on it until the eve of the
election, we have a problem. Like a mechanic, we need to fix the
statute to make sure that neither party can take unfair political
advantage. Let me show you what I mean. Here, Mr. Chairman, I
have the actual papers that were shuffled back and forth between my
office and the Ethics Committee during the months that led up to
this and I have them sorted by the month. I want to show you.
This is in the month of April when it was filed. There was nothing
in May. There was no contact in June. This was the contact in the
month of July. This is the contact in the month of August. This
is the contact in the month of September. October, the month
before the election. Mr. Chairman, in the 30 days before this
election we had contacts every day. In the 30 days before this
election, I never knocked on one door. I spent all my time, every
day I was with my attorney or with these people or with -- going to
court. If I had not had friends that supported me financially so
that I could conduct a media campaign I would not be sitting here
before you today and this would be a mute point. There would be no
problem. This is what we did the 30 days before the election and
this is what we did when we had the hearings after the election.
Now as far as cooperation with the Select Committee, please allow
me to humbly request that the Rules Committee go into executive
session under Rule 22, subsection (b)(2) in the Uniform Rules.
Number 1689
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Take a brief at ease.
[The House Rules Committee took an at ease at 3:41 p.m. Chairman
Kott called the meeting back to order at 3:42 p.m.]
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Would you again repeat the rule.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Rule 22, subsection (b)-2.
Number 1705
CHAIRMAN KOTT: For the record, Rule 22 dealing with open executive
sessions - I'll just read it for the benefit of everyone here:
"All meetings of a legislative body are open to legislators,
whether or not they are members of the particular legislative body
that is meeting and to the general public except as provided in (b)
of this rule. A legislative body may call an executive session at
which members of the general public may be excluded for the
following reasons:".
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Sanders has cited subsection (2)
which goes on to say: "Discussion of subjects that tend to
prejudice the reputation and character of a person".
Number 1744
CHAIRMAN KOTT: We'll take a brief at ease until I get a reading on
this. So we'll take an at east for about five minutes.
[The House Rules Committee took an at ease at 3:43 p.m. Chairman
Kott called the meeting back to order at 3:55 p.m.]
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Tam, please come up to the table and state your
name and affiliation for the record and I'll tell you exactly what
the request is.
Number 1763
TAMARA COOK, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICE,
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm
Tamara Cook and I work for the Legislative Affairs Agency, Legal
Services Division.
Number 1765
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you. We are addressing the ethics complaint
against Representative Sanders and in accordance with Rule 22(b)(2)
he has requested that we go into executive session. Can you
provide some commentary on our authority and the requirement of the
executive session?
Number 1784
MS. COOK: Yeah, the Uniform Rules do give the committee to go into
executive session, but only for the three purposes that are stated
in the rule. Now the open meetings law has a little bit different
requirements for executive session, but the Open Meetings Act, if
I can remind members of the committee, through the Chair, does not
apply to the legislature. So all you have basically is the rule
before you. When the legislative - legislative committee does go
into executive session, it cannot keep other members of the
legislature out, but other than that it can request that any
nonessential person or staff person, member of the public leave the
room. If we are on teleconference, obviously you need to direct
that the - the person in charge of the teleconference secure the
other locations while you are in executive session. You can go
into executive session for the purposes for discussing either of
the three items that are listed in the rule, but there is no
ability to take action in executive session. Generally what occurs
is that a committee who goes into executive session will direct
that the tape be turned off at that point and will request that the
room be vacated except for the people that the committee
specifically requests attend the executive session, and they can
include necessary staff people. Is there anything else? Does that
clarify the matter?
Number 1855
CHAIRMAN KOTT: You bet. Are there any requirements to retain or
keep notes during the executive session?
Number 1862
MS. COOK: I have never heard of notes being kept during an
executive session. As a matter of fact there is one court case out
there. It does not involve a situation involving a legislature, it
involved a hearing on a disciplinary action by I believe the
University of Alaska. But one of the Executive Branch agencies in
which the court pointed out that while going into a executive
session in this case was probably proper, any notes generated
during the executive session were still public records. And so I
think -- or any other materials presented at, you know, on paper at
an executive session might be public records. So far as I know,
the legislature does not generally take any notes or create minutes
or - or written history of what occurs during an executive session.
Number 1901
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Can you comment briefly on the rules of
confidentiality?
Number 1908
MS. COOK: Anyone who is invited to participate in an executive
session is supposed to maintain the confidentiality of what occurs
during that session just as members of the legislature are. That
would apply to the staff members.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Okay, thank you. Representative Porter.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER: No I don't have a question. If --
when -- anytime you're ready for a motion...
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Elton
Number 1920
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, Tam
I'm assuming that this rule applies also to the Legislative Ethics
Committee - that they have the same latitudes that the Rules
Committee has.
Number 1930
MS. COOK: Oh, that's a very large assumption. Through the Chair,
I can't possible speak for the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics. What we do know about that is that there is a provision in
24.60, the Ethics Act, which says that the legislature is obligated
to abide by open meetings principles. And that duty is contained
within the Ethics Act and so I presume a violation of the open
meetings principles could be bought to the attention of the Ethics
Committee and we can't, for the life of us, know how they would
treat any factual situation. As you're well aware, there are no
open meetings guidelines in effect. The Ethics Committee doesn't
have any in effect. I presume they still have jurisdiction over an
open meetings question. I cannot say that they would chose to
presume that something that complies with the Uniform Rules meets
the open meetings principles.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: If I could follow up.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Elton.
Number 1971
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: I might be a little bit confused, but I
guess I assumed that since the Legislative Ethics Committee is a
committee of the legislature that the same rules would apply. I'm
hearing you say they don't.
MS. COOK: I think that's a fairly large assumption. The Ethics
Committee is charged with - with - with considering complaints that
may be filed regarding whether or not the legislature has violated
something that is very vaguely called open meetings principles and
we have no opinions that have been released about their
interpretation about what those principles might consist of. The
only thing that we do have that I know of are the proposed
guidelines - the first proposed guidelines that they issued and
their revisions. In looking at those in general, I can say that
their guidelines did not necessarily comply with what the Uniform
Rules set out.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Porter.
Number 2007
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: I may not -- I may be misinterpreting your
question, but are you asking, "Can the Ethics Committee, during
their procedures, go in to executive session?"
Number 2014
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Yeah. I guess what I was trying to
establish is if the avenue available to the Rules Committee would
have also have been available to the member when he appli -- when
he sat before the Ethics Committee.
Number 2025
MS. COOK: That's a different question. They have their own
statute and they don't -- the rules do not apply to them at all.
They have their own statute that is quite specific about the
process that they undergo - what part of that process is to be done
in a confidential basis and at what point the hearing becomes
public hearing. They have to abide by their statute. It's
entirely different. I'm sorry I misunderstood.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Porter.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Perhaps be helpful to the point. During my
time on the Ethics Committee, the Ethics Committee considered
guidelines for open meetings and within that consideration, they
recognized a provision for the standard reasons for executive
session.
Number 2059
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Clarify. Further questions for Ms. Cook? Thank
you, Tam, for your assistance. We need a motion. Representative
Porter.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: If I could have the book.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (RALPH): Excuse me sir, are you going to --
I've made that request. Are you going to read that in to the
record at all? (Indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Excuse me.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: I think I have the floor.
Number 2000
CHAIRMAN KOTT: There was a request to, if we enter into executive
session, to take...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (RALPH): The initial request was to delay
while we try to contact a lawyer.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: There has been two requests. One is to delay
entering into an executive session and two, if we enter into
executive session to take comprehensive notes. Those have been
identified and we have addressed em. Representative Porter.
2099
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: To the two request, one, I think it's
extremely clear that we have the authority to go into executive
session. Two, as I think Ms. Cook just provided, if we were to
take comprehensive notes they probably -- they may be public
documents then and would violate the whole idea of going into a
executive session. So I would recommend, one, we go into
executive session immediately. Everybody is interested in getting
this thing continue - continued through and disposed of. Two, that
we not take notes for the obvious reason that we don't want that
information to be public unless we deem that it was improperly done
under the order. With that in mind then, I would move that the
Rules Committee go into executive session pursuant to Rule 22(a)(2)
to discuss subjects that might tend to prejudice the reputation or
character of a person.
Number 2141
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Okay, there is a motion to enter into executive
session. Is there objection?
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY: Object.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: There is objection. Do you want to speak to your
objection Representative Vezey?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY: As I understand the rule we're (indisc.) we
have the option of going in. I don't think it's mandatory. I
don't interpret the rule that way and I think that the - the
individual who reputation is being impugned who is the only person
who would really have the right to demand it my opinion and it's a
very humble opinion cause it's subject to a lot interpretation. I
think (indisc.) we have the option of going into executive session,
there is no question about that. I don't believe it's mandatory.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Elton.
Number 2173
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Mr. Chair, I mean I tend to agree with the
previous speaker. I guess -- I just say I'm somewhat uncomfortable
that we're not delaying a decision it it -- on whether to go in
subject to other interest parties having access to their attorneys
in the same way we have. So I'm uncomfortable. I don't think that
(indisc.) objections are going to prevail here.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Are there further objections? Committee Secretary,
please call the roll.
Number 2200
CATHY WOOD, COMMITTEE SECRETARY, HOUSE RECORDS, ALASKA STATE
LEGISLATURE: Representative Vezey.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY: No.
MS. WOOD: Representative Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS: Yes.
MS. WOOD: Representative Porter.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Yes.
MS. WOOD: Representative Williams.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. WOOD: Representative Elton.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: No.
MS. WOOD: Representative Nicholia.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA: No.
MS. WOOD: Chairman Kott.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Yes. The motion passes. We will enter into
executive session in order to determine whether Rule 22(b)(2)
applies. If it does apply, we will continue into executive
session. If it does not apply once we are in executive session
make that determination and discussion that have taken place will
be made public and we will continue to proceed on the record in an
open manner. At this time I would ask that all cameras be turned
off and everyone except for members of the legislature and staff,
Mr. Dozier remain.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Sanders.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: May I ask that my attorney be allowed to
remain in the room?
CHAIRMAN KOTT: No.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Not -- it's okay.
[The House Rules Committee went into executive session at 4:07 p.m.
Chairman Kott called the meeting back to order at 4:52 p.m.]
TAPE 97-2, SIDE B
Number 001
CHAIRMAN KOTT: We are back out of executive session. During the
lengthy discussion when we were in executive session. It was
determined that Rule 22(b)(2) did not apply in the sense that there
would be no additional information that was not already public. So
in this light, we will proceed in an open fashion. Representative
Sanders.
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I -- before I go
on with my testimony, I would like to say that the reason I called
for executive session is because the things that I am going to
discuss, while they may be facts, they may not necessarily add up
to what I believe they add up to and I did not want to put these
people on trial in the newspaper the way I've been put on trial in
the newspaper. I wanted to discuss these things and if they were
nothing then nobody knew what was discussed.
Number 113
CHAIRMAN KOTT: And I appreciate, as I think the rest of committee
does, your motives.
Number 127
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: I -- leading in, I want to point out that
these set of facts made an impression upon me that caused me not to
cooperate with the Ethics Committee. Just as a great number of
people in the 30s saw a set of facts coming up on them when the
Nazis took over Germany and they chose not to cooperate and not to
walk into the ovens and a lot of people didn't see those facts and
a lot of people walked right on in. I felt that I saw facts that
I had to turn and run, that I could not deal with this, that it was
overwhelming and I will begin to line them out. To begin with, the
Ethics Committee refused to provide us with discovery over and over
and over. This may show you that it wasn't me who failed to
cooperate. The committee absolutely wouldn't answer any discovery
requests. My accusers wouldn't answer discovery requests. In
addition, they had the burden of proof. I was not inclined to
cooperate unless they were cooperating with me. I was not inclined
to participate in a process where my accuser was guaranteed to win.
It's like being asked by a lynch mob to cooperate by putting a
noose around my neck. The Ethics Committee did not even call the
complainant Mike Miller to the meeting. The chair of the Select
Committee Ms. Margie MacNeille is married to another -- she is an
attorney and is married to another attorney, Julian Mason. Mr.
Mason and his firm have - had received under $300 from the state of
Alaska in the three years before his wife became chair of the
Select Committee. Since her appointment, the Department of Law of
the state of Alaska has sent $685,212 to Mr. Mason's firm. Most of
-- not all of this huge amount was by limited competition contract.
Mr. Chairman, on a five day week, this is over $1,000 a day. If
you're wife were receiving $1,000 from the Administration and I was
on the opposite side of politics, do you think you could stand up
under this and let me off of anything? Please let me hand out the
checks so that everybody sees them. I'm not saying there is a
crime here. I'm saying this scared me. I did not want to deal
with someone who had this kind of obligation to the Administration.
That's all I'm saying. Just using this in my defense. Under the
direction of Ms. MacNeille, the Select Committee which received the
complaint in April of 96 didn't get around to vigorously and
publicly pursuing the allegation until September of 96. Now what
sort of impression is that timing supposed to make on me as a
candidate for election to the State House of Representatives? When
we tried to take this to the judiciary to get some kind of relief,
Superior Court Judge Sig Murphy indicated he suspected the
motivations of the Select Committee in response to my motion to
delay investigation until after the election. Ms. MacNeille asked
for another judge. Recent Knowles appointee, Eric Sanders, the ink
still wet on his appointment papers and from all the checks he had
sent over the years to the Democrats bags off. He says they have
no authority in this matter. I am sitting there -- say if I were
up against the IRS he would have authority, if I were fighting the
CIA he would have authority, but over the Ethics Committee he has
no authority. My question is who on the face of the earth can help
me fight this? I am overwhelmed.
Number 504
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Excuse me Representative Sanders. For the record,
would the committee members label this last handout that's titled
"State Warrants" as Exhibit D.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Please proceed.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: When it became apparent that me and my
attorney and the committee and their attorney were having problems
agreeing on discovery and agreeing on times and things, Margie
MacNeille took it upon herself to appoint a special master without
our input. She appointed Mr. Michael White, who in the two or
three weeks prior to his day of appointment and prior to the date
he received a $10,000 contract paid for by Alaskan taxpayers, had
contributed $4,000 to democratic candidates. Am I supposed to
believe that this man is going to rule fairly in my situation?
Everyone knows the I'm a conservative Republican. Everyone knows
that this is politics. You can see it. I could see it. I beg
your pardon. I'm not telling you what you can see. In 93, I led
the opposition to Ms. MacNeille's appointment to the Legislative
Ethics Committee. She has been after me ever since. Her
incredible conflict of interest with her husband receiving
contracts for over a half a million dollars from Bruce Botelho and
now Tony Knowles does not give me much confidence in this committee
or in my getting a fair hearing. Ms. MacNeille should be asked to
resign from the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and
reprimanded for not resigning three years ago. If this system is
going to work the members of the Select Committee must common
sense, avoid such obvious conflicts and attempt to deal with
complaints in such a manner that the 90 days before an election we
don't become their special target of the year. Even if the Select
Committee actually believed my March 4th letter violated AS
24.60.030, it is obvious that very little harm was done to the law.
The committee's investigation and recommendations go way beyond
anything called by a letter to 240 people sent from my office
account at a cost of $72 for postage. I would not cooperate with
the Select Committee because I believe the Select Committee's
actions are corrupted by the conflict of interest and perennial
revenge interests of its chair Margie MacNeille. I regret that you
members of the Rules Committee must spend your time on this issue,
but I am left with no recourse to appeal to your judgement and ask
that you direct some action to eliminate the conflict of interest
that exists within the Ethics Committee. Finally, since there is
no violation on AS 24.60.030, none of the sanctions suggested by
the Select Committee are appropriate. The bottom line, Mr.
Chairman, is that we have an alleged violation filed by a former
political opponent of mine, an unfair process and a biased
committee who has made a crime out of our political differences.
I must ask all of you to keep in mind that if this Ethics Committee
can spend $24,000 to do this to me over a $72 technical violation,
they can spend any amount of money to do anything they wish to any
one of you when they choose to attack. Thank you very much for
your time. I'll be happy to answer questions. That concludes my
testimony. Anyone who would like a copy, they're welcome to it.
Number 793
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you Representative Sanders. You made a
remark during the last portion of your testimony regarding Margie
MacNeille and went something to the effect that you thought or that
she was after you. Is this something that is a perception of yours
or has there been some communication between you and her that have
affirmed that statement?
Number 830
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, I have never met Margie
MacNeille. I don't believe I'd know her if she were here in the
room. In the beginning when we -- when the Ethics Committee was
formed, there were five names -- well (indisc.) 270 people applied
to be on the Ethics Committee. It was determined that they would
put five people on it, five public members, two Republicans, two
Democrats and something else. Didn't what it just wasn't a
Democrat and wasn't a Republican. Of those 270 people, a judge
picked out five names and sent those names to the Governor who
referred them to the legislature for us to vote on. At that time,
I had a -- I'd been here a long time. I had a large concern that
new people were coming into the state and taking over things -
taking over the government. People who didn't know what Alaska
was, what it was about. So I went to the Division of Elections to
get their voting records to see how long they'd been in Alaska. As
I remember it, my questions were satisfied. Most of these people
had been here, some 30 years, everybody more than 10. But I
noticed something on their voting applications. What I noticed was
that the two Democrats, on their history record, had been Democrats
since college days or since they'd first signed up to vote. The
two Republicans and the I believe it might have been a U, I can't
remember for sure, had all changed parties in August before they
were appointed in January - at the end of August. So I got their
records and they had all three been Democrats and had changed
parties for some unknown reason within a week in August. When this
information was brought up in the Judiciary Committee, four of
these people were dropped on the floor and Ms. MacNeille, being one
of the life-long Democrats, they felt comfortable with and it was
discussed in caucus and I said that I could not vote for her
because she was part of a group that I felt was there to attack us
as conservative Republicans. We went on the floor and it was 39
votes to 1. I voted against Margie MacNeille. I was told not by
Margie MacNeille, but I was told by people that I won't mention
that I would be sorry for that vote. I have said this on
television before and I'll say it again, I am not sorry and if she
drives me out of the political process, I still will not be sorry
that I voted against her. This is the basis, then we come with the
other problems I've had. The first one which I didn't address
because it was laughable. There were four -- do we want to get
into old ethics things or -- I don't mind.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: If you feel that it would substantiate your
position.
Number 1041
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: There were four ethics violations brought
against me. Three of them were dismissed. One of them was worked
on to tune of over $12,000. They interviewed 37 people and no one
said that I had done anything like that. They found one individual
who was a fried of my aid who said he thought maybe he'd talked to
my aid about some business cards. He thought maybe he'd talked to
my aid about em. So they found me guilty of having my aid sell him
business cards. I talked to him later. I said, "Maybe you did
talk to him." I don't know. I said, "Was I there?" He said, "No,
you weren't there." But I think I remember talking to Ed one time
about it. On that evidence, Mr. Chairman, every individual at this
table has pads in his office from two or three print shops here in
town with their name at the bottom of that pad. If you have one of
mine, that's an ethics violation. I'd had mine in here for ten
years before they did this, but now it's against the law for me to
have my pads here. These are the background things that lead me to
suspect Margie MacNeille without having any numbers or figures or
anything like that.
Number 1142
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you for answering the question. Then if I
can summarize then, she has not officially, in person, indicated
that she was out to get you, but certainly from at least your
perception the actions that have occurred over the past several
months or couple of years would lead you to believe that there is
something between ya.
Number 1162
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Yes sir, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you. Representative Porter.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jerry, I've got
a question. One that I think goes to the allegation itself or the
complaint violation itself of what led to your motivation for not
cooperating. To the - to the violation, am I correct that -- I
assume I'm correct that Democrats couldn't vote in that straw poll,
but could Us and Ns vote in that straw poll or just Republicans?
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Well, I don't think they could. I -- you
know I can't - I can't answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Perhaps Representative Vezey can.
Number 1198
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY: Mr. Chairman, the straw poll that
Representative Sanders is referring to was put on by the Republican
Party and a requirement to vote was that you had to registered as
a Republican and they would register you at the polls if you so
desired.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: That's the way I remember it.
Number 1217
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: The previous primary that was a closed
Republican primary Us and Ns were allowed to vote in the primary -
state primary election, but in this case it was not okay. So then
if you wanted to thank people for going to that particular election
process, the only people you could have written to would be
republicans.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Yes sir. I did not pick and choose. I
sent that letter to everyone that I was aware of who attended and
I said Republican because in my impression is that there was no one
there but Republicans.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Same question if I may. As you're aware
that the subcommittee on -- the House subcommittee of the
Legislative Ethics that looks at violations is made up of five
public members and two members of the House. Are you aware that
they have to have a majority vote before a violation is determined?
Number 1273
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: No sir because this was all done in
executive session. I don't know how anybody voted or if anybody
vote or.... I tried to find that out.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Well that probably explains that, alright
thank you very much.
Number 1290
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Just as a comment, I guess, regarding your first
question, "Who is eligible to vote in that straw poll," is in fact
true that you must be a registered Republican. However, it is also
true that you could have been an N, a U, or a D or a I or a Green
two minutes before you cast your vote. So you, in essence, really
wouldn't know what their political persuasion might be other than
the fact that they had to have an R next to their name as a
republican to participate. But you could switch you -- if I
understand it correct and I think Representative Vezey is the - is
the resident expert on polls and primaries. But I think that's
correct is that not - at least for this particular function
Number 1335
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY: The straw poll, Mr. Chairman, the straw poll
that was conducted in February of 96, you could register here and
then step over one seat and vote. If you were not currently
registered Republican, you could register right there. The
requirement was that to participate in the vote you had to be a
registered Republican, but there was not length of time you had to
be registered as a Republican (indisc.).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nor did you have to stay.
Number 1360
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was...
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Sanders.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: ...when they voted, they were Republicans.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Elton.
Number 1369
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks Mr. Chair. I - I - I appreciate how
difficult this must be for you. I mean it's difficult whether you
do it in this forum or before the whole House or (indisc.) the
Legislative Ethics Committee hearing. I mean I think one of the
questions that we should ask is the one -- one of them was asked at
the Legislative Ethics Committee hearing in that -- because that
kind of gets to the first question that I think this committee
needs, you know, and that is whether or not you did cause that
letter to be written. I mean that was probably the threshold
question that was asked at the Ethics Committee and so did you
cause the letter to be written?
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Representative Elton, yes I did cause that
letter to be written. I composed it. I have never told a citizen
on the face of the earth that I didn't write that letter.
Number 1413
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Mr. Chairman, I guess one of the things that
I want to make clear because - and I may have misunderstood. When
you were talking about the process of selecting the public members
in the past, and I think it was before I was a member of this body,
you talked about one of the concerns that you had that some of the
people who were Rs had previously, several months previously, had
been registered Ds. And I guess the question in my mind still
remains. Were any of those short term Republicans named to the
committee or or did other - were other Republicans subsequently
named the the committee.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: No Representative. None of those were at
that time. Others were put before us at later dates and were
confirmed. One of those to -- leading me into something good. One
of those who was also a D in August who was put up later is on the
committee today.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Mr. Chair, I think another question that
came up in my mind and it came about when you were talking about
the process and you were concerned about the timing, and I'm not
talking about the amount of time that you had to respond, but the
timing of the allegation, the notice of (indisc.) and the hearing.
And this -- in several of the documents that you supplied earlier,
you were concerned about the timing and I guess I've always felt
that the - the worst, you know, timing that would have been worse
for you would have been timing at which there had been a
determination by the committee prior to the election. I guess in
my mind, I've always thought that as far as timing goes, perhaps
you were -- if there had been a political purpose to this that that
political purpose would have been best served if the final
determination had been made previous to the election.
Number 1524
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Let me address that. The timing actually
starts at the time there is a determination by the committee that
there is reason to pursue this. Then they can begin to hand out,
daily, items to the media about it. They can release these things
one after another and up until Judge Sig Murphy made his -- gave
his restraining order, the intent was to have the meeting before
the election. At that point the committee threw up their hands and
says, "Oh, well just have it after the election," and named a date.
Before that we had to get this done so that we could get get our
timing so that we could have this hearing immediately. It was
important. In the interest of the state of Alaska, this hearing
had to be held immediately if not sooner.
Number 1574
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: One last question for -- Mr. Chairman I
appreciate your allowing me to ask several -- Representative
Sanders, where did you get the list of people who had participated?
I mean how did that come into you possession?
Number 1586
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Either from the Republican Party or from
my district. I'm not sure which, but they - they both had it and
we contacted em and one of em got it to me.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks Mr. Chair.
Number 1600
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Sanders, on the - on the date that
the letter was mailed, had you done anything that would suggest
that you had started campaigning for office.
Number 1615
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Not to my knowledge. I know distinctly
that I hadn't made up my mind at that time. I was still talking to
my wife. It was probably not a month later, but it was two or
three weeks later before I filed for office.
Number 1634
CHAIRMAN KOTT: As a result of that letter being sent, did you
receive any political or person gain?
Number 1647
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Again, not to my knowledge. I - I had a
warm fuzzy feeling toward those people for going out and
participating and I would assume that being as I didn't insult them
in the letter, they probably felt good toward me, but I don't know
that that's true. Obviously one man didn't.
Number 1666
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Well I would suggest that you did get some gain out
of it. At least the personal satisfaction that...
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Absolutely, I'll agree with that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: ...communicated with constituents and patted them
on the back I suspect. Further questions from committee?
Number 1683
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS: Yes, maybe I don't know why this feeling
that you received, Representative Sanders, on the reason that you
felt that the chairman of the committee was politically doing
things in a political manner because of election you mention.
Could you expand a little bit more on that - the $685,212.
Number 1716
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: I don't know if I can expand more. I can
repeat it. I mean my feeling is that this lady, who is my accuser,
my jury and my judge, is a registered Democrat. She is an
attorney. Her husband is attorney and her husband is receiving,
since the Administration changed, he is receiving over $1,000 a day
from an Administration that, how can I say, I am the loyal
opposition to. I am in opposition to them. It is not in their
best interest for me to be sitting here today or for me to be
sitting on that floor in the Chamber. And I just -- I believe that
$1,000 a day will buy a lot of loyalty. And that's the things that
I wanted to have executive session about because I'm not saying
that these things are true. I am saying that was my feeling and
still is, but that doesn't make them true.
Number 1777
CHAIRMAN KOTT: One of the areas that -- sections of the law that
have been addressed as far an alleged violation is regarding the
mass mailings. How would you define "mass mailing?" What is your
definition? One, two, five, fifty or district?
Number 1794
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: I guess I would define a mass mailing the
way the post office does. I believe it's 200 letters. I believe
anything over 200 is subject to the lower rate because it's a mass
mailing. Anything below that you can't get the rate. I -- maybe
I'd have to hang my hat there. I don't know that I have a logical
reason for -- or a logical division point on a mass mailing other
than that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you. Representative Elton.
Number 1817
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks Mr. Chair. You may not know the
answer to this Representative Sanders, and if not I think the
committee might when (indisc.) representatives are here, but you
had mentioned that - that the person who filed the complaint did
not - was not a witness at the hearing. I mean I -- in my mind I
guess I assumed that you had - that you could request that that
person be there and testify at the hearing and so it was a decision
that was not just a unilateral decision, but you also had the
decision of whether or not to compel that person to participate in
the hearing.
Number 1848
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Personally, all I can say is, again, it's
my personal opinion, it would never cross my mind that you could
take anyone into court and have their accuser not be there. I mean
is that - is that done in court? I don't -- maybe it is. I don't
do much of this and I'm not a lawyer, but it never crossed my mind
that he wouldn't be here. I mean I -- in my mind I knew he was
going to be there. Never thought about it.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Kind of a similar questions, Mr. Chair. And
again I don't know the answer to this, but I'm assuming that if you
ask for discovery (indisc.) this person that you could compel
discovery that if a person says, "I don't want to do it," that's
not enough, but that you have (indisc.--coughing) to compel that
person to participate in the process.
Number 1886
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: I can't answer that question. I'm sure my
attorney could. I'm not sure we want to hear from him, but I can't
answer the question. I know he can.
Number 1899
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative
Sanders, I do have one follow up question on the person that was
your accuser and didn't bother to come and make the accusation at
the public hearing. And I want to have this very clear for the
record because I think this is one area of the law that we really
need to focus on. Your accuser was an opponent of you in a
previous election or in that election. Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: In the election of 1994 - my opponent.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Alright, I want that very clear on the
record that this was brought by - by a political opponent. I want
to restate I think this is one area of the law that we as the
writers of this policy need to address.
Number 1933
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Sanders.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: I would point out that none of the Ethics
Committee's accusations that have ever been brought against me were
by anyone who hadn't been a previous opponent.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Porter.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Jerry, this question probably relevant only
to me, but if you want to know why I asked it I'll tell you later.
You've been Alaska a long time. How long have you been here?
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Oh 25 26 years.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: And from where did you come?
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: When I came here or originally? Or I mean
you ask me where I was born or where was I when I came to Alaska?
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Where did you spend most of your adult life
outside of Alaska?
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Well...
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: If it's a couple of places (indisc.)
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: No I -- the longest time I ever spent
anywhere in my life, I was raised in East Saint Louis, Illinois.
I lived there seven years from the time I was 8 until I was 15.
Other than that, I've never been anywhere more than a couple of
years until I came to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Okay.
Number 1995
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Does that conclude your questioning?
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Yes sir.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: I'm curious too.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Me too.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Sanders, one of the areas that is of
concern is dealing with public funds and I know that there has been
a lot of discussion among many members in the legislature regarding
office allowance accounts and whether or not you are taking that
office allowance account in a lump sum which I suppose could be
construed then as personal income, but it's still state money that
has come to you, or through the mechanism that the Legislative
Affairs Agency has set up in the form of the accounting process and
keeping those monies accountable in their records. Can you
enlighten us as to which method you were using at the time?
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: At the time the letter was sent, I was
taking the accountable method. Now I guarantee you I am not. I
still sit here before you not understanding the distinction and I
would remind you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee that this is some
kind of a technical violation that, like I say, I still don't
understand and maybe I'm guilty of that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Representative Phillips.
Number 2061
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, maybe for the public record
you could explain and lay on the table the differences between the
two accounting methods, the issue of taxation on the one accounting
method, and the comment from the Ethics Committee that said if you
had done it one way it was right and if you had done it the other
way, it's wrong. And I would like a clarification on the record on
that please.
Number 2080
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Would you like me to explain it or...
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: uh-huh, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you, having taken it both ways, certainly we
are authorized as legislators a $6,000 office allowance account and
that $6,000 can be held by Legislative Affairs Agency at which
point you purchase something and submit the receipt to LAA, at
which point then they render payment and then they subtract that.
On a monthly basis, you get a receipt or at least an account of
what you've expended from your $6,000. There is no taxes paid on
it so -- and the benefit of using that method is that you have the
entire $6,000 and it goes a little further than if you take it the
other way which is, again, you still get the $6,000 initially, but
before you actually get your hands on it. It amounts to about
$4,300 or $4,400 depending on your individual tax bracket. It
comes in one lump sum which you only get -- during the first week
or two of the legislative session. You can do with that money I
suspect about anything you want to do with it even though the
intent, I believe, is to provide a mechanism for you to purchase
things for your office and to perhaps purchase postage and
brochures for mailings. So that basically is the difference.
You're paying taxes on one, it's a lot less, there is no account,
nobody ask you what you spent it on, it's none of their business.
It's like any other personal income. That's my understanding of
the money and Representative Sanders.
Number 2160
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to ask
questions here?
CHAIRMAN KOTT: You can ask, but I'm not sure of (indisc.) answer.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Under these conditions that you're talking
about, if I choose to pay the taxes, take the money. If I spend
the money on my office account, can I turn that in on my income tax
and get the money back.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Don't answer that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: For fear of incriminating or getting myself in deep
water with the IRS.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: That is (indisc.) IRS question.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Yah, that would be an individual IRS question, 1-
800-911IRS, plural. Further questions for Representative Sanders?
Representative Elton.
Number 2195
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Mr. Chair, thanks. I have a feeling that we
may not (indisc.). I understand, I think, the argument that your
making - the impulse that you had on not cooperating with the
Ethics Committee and - and I think you've laid out the reasons that
you didn't want to cooperate with the Ethics Committee. I guess
the question I have for you is - is that - is it's really difficult
to say what I would have done if I had that mind set, but maybe you
could explain to us why you didn't just say, "Given that, I'm gonna
make the best case that I can." I'm going to say essentially what
you said to this group about the purpose of the letter and why you
thought the letter had a legislative purpose or a governmental
purpose as you framed it. Why wouldn't you do that? I'm assuming
tho -- they'll make the right decision knowing you had this avenue
later, especially since there are other members of the Ethics
Committee, other than the chair, that you had some doubts about.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Suppose you'd have to call it the rabbit
syndrome. All I could do was hunker down and hope that these
people don't eat me alive. And, like I say for the same reason
that the people in Germany didn't cooperate because I knew -- in my
mind I knew that there was nothing that I could do that these
people were going to convict me and they were - they were - they
had tried to do it before the election. Beings they couldn't do it
for the election, they were mad at me because they couldn't do it
before the election and they were going to be even more vindictive
toward me after the election.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON: Thanks Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Further questions for the witness?
Number 2287
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS: We will be able -- if we do have another
question, we will be able to get Representative Sanders back here?
Number 2297
CHAIRMAN KOTT: He will be available if another issue or another
question comes up at a later time. I'm sure he'll make himself
available and provide a timely response to the question. I just
have one last question regarding the process. We set up this
Ethics Committee a few years back and I think, for the most part
with few exceptions, they've done an exceptional job and there is
probably some ambiguities in the law that needs to be clarified. I
think that's one of the issues that this committee may address at
some point in time. One of the things we did was to establish that
there would be two members of the legislature to perhaps provide a
mechanism or a forum so that the public members would understand
the issues that have come before that committee. In your
understanding do know if both of the legislative members were in
fact in attendance and provided that forum and provided the
dialogue that would have occurred.
Number 2333
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: I did not attend the meet -- I attended
the meeting teleconfer - by teleconference. It's my understanding
that one of the legislators had never participated in - in anything
having to do with my case. I don't know that. I can't state that
as fact, but that's my understanding.
Number 2363
CHAIRMAN KOTT: Thank you. Further questions? Hearing none, then
we will go into recess until tomorrow evening at 6:00 p.m. at which
point we will hear from the members from the Ethics Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you
committee members.
[The House Rules Committee meeting was recessed at 5:36 p.m.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|