01/23/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB10 | |
| HB20|| HB10 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 10 | ||
| *+ | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 23, 2007
8:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 10
"An Act prohibiting legislators and certain former legislators
from accepting or agreeing to accept compensation for certain
work; relating to disclosures under the Legislative Ethics Act;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to disclosure of campaign contributions;
prohibiting spouses and domestic partners of legislators and
legislative employees from receiving compensation for lobbying;
and prohibiting legislators and legislative employees from
entering into contracts to provide consulting services."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 10
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES/OUTSIDE INCOME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN, GARDNER, GATTO, GARA,
SEATON, HOLMES, LEDOUX, BUCH, WILSON, DOOGAN
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/23/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE/LOBBYING/CONSULTING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS, MEYER, HAWKER, CHENAULT,
SAMUELS, FAIRCLOUGH, NEUMAN, WILSON, LEDOUX, THOMAS, RAMRAS,
JOHNSON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/23/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 10 as sponsor.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
10.
IRIS MATTHEWS, Staff
to Representative Berta Gardner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on behalf
of Representative Gardner, sponsor of HB 10.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 10.
STEVE CLARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of AkPIRG in support of
HB 10.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 20.
TOM WRIGHT
House Majority Office
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comment during the hearing on HB
20.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:19:55 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
8:21:27 AM
CHAIR LYNN related that the gavel he uses had been his
grandmother's, given to her as an award for being "the most
improved student."
8:22:09 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that, thus far, 27 bills have been referred
to the House State Affairs Standing Committee, 10 of those bills
addressing legislation pertaining to ethics. He said the
legislature is listening to the public's demand for improved
ethics legislation. He stated that although no ethics
legislation can make an unethical person ethical, better ethics
legislation can help keep good people out of trouble by
clarifying what is and is not a conflict of interest. He opined
that raising the level of trust between constituents and their
government should improve upcoming negotiations for a gas
pipeline.
8:23:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN mentioned the day's agenda and stated that a
bipartisan approach to ethics legislation is critical, because
"ethics has no party label." He relayed that Governor Sarah
Palin has stated that she would like to see one ethics bill
enacted, rather than several bills that each address only one
aspect of the ethics situation while missing the big picture and
leading to unintended consequences. He encouraged the committee
to work in crafting a good bill in a timely manner and to
consider a bill from the administration. He suggested a
subcommittee may be formed. Chair Lynn stated his intent is not
to move bills out of committee today, in order to give due
consideration to the issues; however, he related his wish for
the committee to avoid "paralysis by analysis."
8:26:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN directed attention to a handout from the Alaska
Budget Report which offers a comparison between "the various
bills."
HB 10-LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES/OUTSIDE INCOME
8:27:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 10, "An Act prohibiting legislators and certain former
legislators from accepting or agreeing to accept compensation
for certain work; relating to disclosures under the Legislative
Ethics Act; and providing for an effective date."
8:29:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 10 as sponsor. She thanked Chair Lynn for his
leadership on the issue of ethics, his efforts to craft a solid
bill that will garner bi-partisan support, and the expediency
with which he scheduled the bill to be heard. She stated, "It's
unfortunate that scandal and allegation of impropriety against
just a few do taint the entire body." She relayed that HB 10 is
not aimed at any particular individual; it applies to all
legislators and is designed to promote disclosure and, through
that, increase public confidence. She said she and her staff
have worked closely with the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), legislative legal teams, and Joyce Anderson on the
issue, listening to the concerns expressed and trying to
incorporate them into the bill. Representative Gardner stated
that while she believes HB 10 is a good bill and there are
provisions in it to which she is absolutely committed, she
acknowledges that there is still room for improvement through
suggestions.
8:31:51 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
although she has worked closely with the offices of both
Representative Gardner and Chair Lynn in attempting to make the
language of HB 10 clear, she does not speak on behalf of the
committee that has not yet had a chance to review the bill. One
exception to that is Section 2, she stated, the language of
which she said the committee welcomed to the bill. She reviewed
that Section 2 cements the advisory opinion issued by the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics that legislators, legislative
employees, and public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics should be required to file ethics disclosures
for anything that occurred while in office, even though the
disclosure date may be after they have left office.
MS. ANDERSON expressed a favorable opinion of Section 1 of HB
10, because of the change in the language [in paragraph 1, page
1, lines 9-11], which read as follows:
(1) a former member of the legislature or to
a person formerly employed by the legislative branch
of government unless a [THE] provision of this chapter
specifically states that it applies;
MS. ANDERSON explained, "So, what it does is it opens it up a
little bit and makes it not just a particular section but ...
for the whole chapter." She said Section 4 of the bill,
although in the ethics section of statute, is administered by
APOC, thus she said she would refrain from testifying on that
particular section. She offered to answer any questions
regarding [subsection (c) of] Section 2, which read as follows:
(c) During the term for which elected or
appointed and for one year thereafter a legislator may
not, directly or by authorizing another to act on the
legislator's behalf, accept or agree to accept
compensation, except from the State of Alaska, for
work associated with legislative, administrative, or
political action.
8:34:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there are any other Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics' opinions that should be
considered for codification.
MS. ANDERSON answered yes. She stated her intent to provide a
list of such to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his appreciation of the work
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and said he looks
forward to receiving those suggested changes.
8:36:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, regarding Section 2, questioned whether
it may be difficult to determine whether a person is acting on
his/her own behalf or being directed by someone else.
MS. ANDERSON responded that that language is in another portion
of statute where the word "another", used in "authorizing
another to act", was meant to mean a staff person.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested there could be an interesting
discussion on the topic.
8:39:25 AM
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question from Chair Lynn, said
the phrase "one year thereafter" is "not specifically in the
code anywhere." She stated, "The only prohibition on
legislators at this point is that they cannot become a lobbyist
for one year after they leave office." She recalled that there
is another prohibition that has to do with not allowing
legislators to take a job with the state "if they have actually
voted on that particular position." In response to a follow-up
question from Chair Lynn, she stated her belief that
administering the rule about "one year thereafter" would be
difficult from the point of view of the committee.
8:40:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics' jurisdiction ends after the legislator
leaves office. He asked Ms. Anderson if she thinks the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics should be allowed to take action
on "something appropriate" after the legislator leaves office
or, if not, "how would they enforce this for one year
thereafter?"
8:41:35 AM
MS. ANDERSON responded that the "legislators are covered for one
year after they leave office, for the purpose of filing ethics
complaints." She said once a legislative employee has left
employment, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has no
jurisdiction over them. Furthermore, in the ethics code there
is a sanction section. She continued:
So, if a legislator were to leave office and violate
this new section of the code that we're ... looking at
today, if a complaint was filed, the [Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics] would have jurisdiction to look
at that particular complaint if they found that person
in violation. The sanction section of the code would
allow the committee to issue a fine of up to $5,000 if
they felt [that to be] appropriate. That is the only
penalty that I see in here at this point. So, in
looking at the new language, there would really not be
a penalty involved with a violation if it was for one
year thereafter, unless a complaint was filed against
a particular legislator.
8:42:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG drew attention to the word
"compensation" on page 3, line 2. He said that in the legal
sense, the word usually denotes income, and he said he could see
somebody arguing that he/she was not getting compensation but
was being given a gift. He suggested that a phrase such as
"anything of value" be used instead.
8:43:26 AM
IRIS MATTHEWS, Staff to Representative Berta Gardner, Alaska
State Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative
Gardner, sponsor, noted that "compensation" is defined in AS
24.60.990 [paragraph (4)], which read as follows:
(4) "compensation" means remuneration for
personal services rendered, including salary, fees,
commissions, bonuses, and similar payments, but does
not include reimbursement for actual expenses incurred
by a person;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Ms. Matthews just defined what is
income, but someone could maintain that what they were given was
a gift.
8:44:13 AM
MS. MATTHEWS responded that "anything of value" is also defined
in [part of AS 24.60.990(a)(2)], which read as follows:
(2) "anything of value," "benefit," or "thing of
value" includes all matters, whether tangible or
intangible, that could reasonably be considered to be
a material advantage, of material worth, use, or
service to the person to whom it is conferred; the
terms are intended to be interpreted broadly and
encompass all matters that the recipient might find
sufficiently desirable to do something in exchange
for;
MS. MATTHEWS noted that the statute goes on to list some
exceptions. She noted that that statute is available in the
committee packet.
8:45:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked, "The exception is some value
for state work associated with legislative, administrative,
political action." He asked Ms. Anderson, "What was your
thinking ... on the political action part, as far as being paid
by the state? That would be a policy action?"
8:45:33 AM
MS. ANDERSON replied:
When I met with both Representative Lynn and
Representative Gardner's office, I expressed to them
that all three of those terms have really not had any
particular discussion by the ethics committee, and
there are really not any advisory opinions that have
dealt with those particular definitions in any part of
the code. So, I guess I would have to look at your
question and ... do a little bit more research and get
back to you.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stressed the importance of clarifying
which actions are okay. If the state is going to prohibit
someone from political action that comes with some reward to it,
for a whole year after he/she is out of office, "we want to take
a good, hard look at that." He added, "If it's paid for by the
state, that might be just as big a problem as if it's paid for
by anybody else."
8:46:55 AM
MS. MATTHEWS began her review of HB 10. She said the bill would
do three things: prohibit legislators from taking certain types
of paid work outside of their legislative position; require
greater disclosure of some of the outside work done by
legislators; and require a disclosure requirement. She said
there is also some "clean-up language" in the bill, and the meat
of bill is in Sections 2, 3, and 4. Ms. Matthews reviewed
Section 2 of the bill [text provided previously]. She said the
intent is to ensure that legislators are only paid by the State
of Alaska for "legislative-type work." Section 3, she
explained, would require a legislator, legislative employee, or
public member of the committee leaving office to file a final
disclosure. She noted that the language in Section 3 supports
an advisory opinion filed by the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics in December 2006. Section 4 would ask that legislators
filling out forms provide more specific information regarding
the nature of the work they've done. Most people know what an
accountant or lawyer does, Ms. Matthews said, but there are some
jobs that are less known. Section 4 would give the public
additional tools with which to look at disclosures and determine
whether or not people are being compensated fairly.
8:50:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disclosed that he is a nonpracticing
member of the Alaska Bar. He drew attention to the word
"administrative" on page 2, line 4, and asked:
If I were to go back to practicing family law and took
child support cases - either people seeking to collect
child support or change child support, or defending
those case before the Child Support Enforcement
Division - would that now be prohibited?
MS. MATTHEWS answered yes. She continued:
Any sort of appearance under an administrative hearing
would have to be prohibited under this statute. And I
think there's been a lot of discussion about that as
we've talked about it. [The Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] issued an opinion ... a little
over a year ago about legislators working on behalf of
their constituents before administrative hearing
officers, and there was the feeling that ...
legislators should not be talking to the decision
makers in those cases on these constituents' issues.
We think it's reasonable to expect that ... a
legislator appearing before a hearing officer may be
treated differently than another attorney who doesn't
have that title.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned what evidence Ms. Matthews
has to support her statement. He clarified:
I'm talking about a situation such as the hypothetical
that I gave, where most family lawyers do take child
support cases, and many times they go before the Child
Support Enforcement Division. That's a very serious
allegation that ... you're making against a large
number of attorneys, ... frankly, and other attorneys
who practiced maybe before the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission, and all kind of agencies maybe
taking procurement cases under the procurement code,
or anything .... Very many lawyers in this state do
that. And are you aware of any circumstances where
that sort of thing -- because you're going to prohibit
a whole profession from practicing with your limits."
8:53:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER provided the response, stating that she
has no intention of maligning anybody's intention or behavior.
She explained that the bill is attempting to clarify what is
acceptable, honorable, and worthy of respect. She said she is
not fully committed to this particular provision; however, she
said she wants to ensure people don't have the perception of
"taking advantage of their office in employment, while they're
legislators or shortly thereafter - that they don't trade on
that title." She suggested that the period of one year may not
be the best timing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that he is not concerned about
the time. He said he is more concerned with the quasi-
adjudicative function than the rulemaking function. He said he
thinks attorneys, for example, should be able to appear in a
foreign agency in a quasi-adjudicative function.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER proffered that the point to consider is
whether a member of the public with a child support case who
wants to hire an attorney will think he/she stands a better
chance in hiring an attorney who is also a representative over
"Mr. Average attorney."
8:55:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "That would be like saying
you can't go before a judge because you're going to get better
treatment as an attorney before a superior court judge ...." He
noted that hearing officers are held to a quasi-judicial
standard of conduct.
8:56:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she understands
Representative Gruenberg's concern; however, she said the intent
is to convey that the legislators will be held to a higher
standard. As public citizens become public officials, she said,
they give up some opportunities, give up privacy, and disclose
details that as private citizens they never would. She
reiterated her willingness to consider amendments to the bill.
8:57:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed concern regarding the
retroactivity aspect of bill. He clarified that if the bill is
adopted, not only will legislators and employees not be allowed
to perform certain work for one year after leaving office, but
"we have another clause in here where we want to go back
retroactively and require a change in behavior of those that
have already left office." He asked, "If we're going to hold
ourselves to a certain standard, why would we then want to go
back and change the conditions under which other people have
already served?"
8:58:38 AM
MS. MATTHEWS indicated that the proposed legislation mirrors the
advisory opinion of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
which requires those leaving office to file disclosures.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like the committee to
take a legal look at the issue, because he said he does not
think retroactive measures would be required.
9:00:07 AM
MS. MATTHEWS said there are examples of reporting deadlines in
The Legislative Advisor, a publication generated by the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. Those examples include
legislators leaving office on January 16 and specify that those
legislators would be subject to the March 15 recording
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he would like a legal
opinion.
9:00:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he does not have a problem with
the proposed legislation, although it may need some tweaking.
He stated that when the prior set of legislators were sworn into
office, they had a set of regulations, guidelines, and ethics
that they were supposed to follow, and to go back now to clarify
situations under which they were sworn in and hold them to a
different standard from what they were expected to uphold in the
beginning gives him concern.
9:02:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER reiterated Ms. Matthews' previous remark
that the bill is clarifying the advisory opinion and making it
less ambiguous.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he appreciates what Representative
Gardner is saying; however, he anticipates offering amendments
on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested Ms. Anderson be included in the
discussion the next time the bill is heard.
9:03:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record his concern with
[subparagraph (B), on lines 1-2], page 3, which would require
the disclosure of the total number of hours spent on services.
He opined that there needs to be some language included to allow
APOC or some other entity to use a different standard when
hourly wages are not applicable. Taxi drivers, for example, are
paid by the mile, not by the hour, he said.
9:04:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL spoke of trading. He suggested using an
industry standard rather than figuring service by hours. He
stated his agreement with the concept that a person shouldn't be
receiving an inordinate amount of money just because he/she is a
legislator.
9:06:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said this issue is the heart of the bill.
Notwithstanding that, she said she is willing to speak to APOC
to find some other language to satisfy the concerns expressed by
the committee, while keeping the bill strong.
9:08:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he just wants what is fair.
9:08:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that a representative of APOC was
available to testify.
9:08:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON brought up another issue, which is
working for commissions. He said many people generate their
living in this manner and, looked at from an hourly perspective,
one hour may garner a disproportionately large income while
another will earn almost none. He mentioned real estate work.
9:09:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that realtors are licensed
professionals, thus they would not have to disclose in the same
detail. She said a realtor who sold one house and made a lot of
money also spent time designing and running the advertisement.
Because of the nature of the work, the time spent is an
estimate.
9:10:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN disclosed that he holds a real estate license.
9:10:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that real estate may not have
been the best example. He stated that there are a lot of
workers who earn commission but whose income is not "cut and dry
on a contract."
9:10:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that under current law, a person
can report $100,000 in services with no other information. She
added, "And while this proposal may be imperfect, it still, I
think, is better to say, '$100,000 for 10 hours [than] $100,000
- none of your business.'"
9:11:32 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), stated that that HB 10, for the first time in
Alaska law, codifies the fact that dividends from a limited
liability company are income and must be disclosed as such. She
said APOC appreciates the clarification, which she noted will
provide a useful tool in enforcing financial disclosure laws.
Additionally, HB 10 provides that when a person subject to
legislative ethics law, particularly a legislator, is providing
professional services for remuneration, those services must be
described in sufficient detail for the public knows what the
legislator actually did for his/her employer or client.
MS. MILES opined:
In that ... legislative ethics code ..., we have a
measure that prohibits legislators from being paid for
work that is not commensurate with the amount they're
paid. And so, should an allegation be made to the
committee that a legislator has violated this section
of law, having a standard that's disclosed on their
public disclosure statement would be a very useful
tool to the committee.
MS. MILES expressed appreciation for the clarity in the bill on
page 3, subparagraph (C), which instructs a legislator, already
required to disclose a source of income, to report the amount of
that income. She said the language is without the caveat that
that income have an interest in legislative, administrative, or
political action. She explained that that caveat is subjective
and has caused confusion and a lack of full reporting in the
past, "in an accidental way." The measure, she added, will not
have fiscal impact on the work of the commission.
9:15:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG told Ms. Miles that he supports the
elimination of language on page 3, lines 4-6; however, he noted
that the same language is not being eliminated from page 3,
lines 9-10. He asked if she thought it should be.
9:16:55 AM
MS. MILES agreed it would be easier to administer the law if
that language was removed from lines 9-10.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 24,
regarding dividends received from a limited liability company,
and he suggested that something like "anything else of value" be
added. He explained that it is easy to call something other
than a dividend. Furthermore, he suggested that the language
say "any kind of an entity" to include sole proprietorship,
limited liability partnership, or a corporation. He said that
would get rid of wiggle room in the language.
MS. MILES answered that APOC would find any clarification
language to be acceptable and welcome. She noted that limited
liability companies did not exist at the time the original
language in statute was created. She stated, "We would like to
make sure that we encompass all."
The committee took an at-ease from 9:19:37 to 9:20:10 AM.
9:20:33 AM
STEVE CLARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research
Group (AkPIRG), testified in favor of HB 10. He mentioned his
and many others' participation in forums [related to ethics]
held in Anchorage and Juneau. He said he is excited in
anticipating the result of the forums, the legislature's focus
on ethics, and the administration's input. He said the bill is
simple in its intent to ensure legislators don't use their
office incorrectly and that they disclose the work that they are
doing. He posited that critical to having citizen legislature
is letting the public know what the members are doing for money
earned outside of the legislature. He said the bill's
bipartisan sponsorship is a great effort, and he looks forward
to the legislature's putting together the best of the bills to
bring about what's best for Alaskans.
9:23:58 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 10 was heard and held.
HB 20-CAMPAIGN FINANCE/LOBBYING/CONSULTING
[Contains brief mention of HB 10]
9:24:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to disclosure of campaign
contributions; prohibiting spouses and domestic partners of
legislators and legislative employees from receiving
compensation for lobbying; and prohibiting legislators and
legislative employees from entering into contracts to provide
consulting services."
9:24:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, testifying
as sponsor of HB 20, noted that over the years, government has
been made more and more complicated, and he stated his position
that the legislature should make serving government "as
convenient and as easy for as many people in this state to
qualify to be a legislator." He said former Representative
Ethan Berkowitz commented that one of the biggest ethical issues
in the legislature is the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR).
Representative Harris said probably 95 percent of the people in
Alaska don't understand that it requires a three-quarter vote of
the legislature to take money from the CBR. He said vote
trading occurs frequently [relating to control of CBR votes].
Representative Harris said he thinks that is what the public
does not want, but nevertheless it happens. He asked, "So,
should we do away with the CBR? The public put it in, the
public has to take it away." He stated that everything
previously discussed related to HB 10 would "create a
difficulty." He suggested that the way to simplify things would
be to take away the ability of a legislature to work outside of
the legislature entirely. The only way that could be done, he
related, is to pay legislators enough money so they can afford
to serve. Representative Harris said he is not suggesting that
manner of simplification, but reiterated that that is what it
would take. He said he doesn't disagree with reporting income.
The focus, he suggested, must be, "How do we make it the very
best to get the most amount of people to qualify to be a
legislator?" He said he thinks that's the question the public
wants asked. Many people don't want their business dealings
disclosed and, thus, won't run for office.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said there are other options of which the
public should be aware. For example, many states have switched
to holding shorter legislative sessions, holding session every
two years, or having a biannual budget.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, in response to a question from Chair
Lynn, agreed that morality cannot be legislated. He said
guidelines can be set so that there is a penalty for unethical
behavior. He explained that what he was talking about
previously is the issue of compensation. He said he works for
salary and he did not work at all last summer because the
legislature is on call at the behest of the governor and the
governor had the legislature "under the threat of a call all
summer and all fall." He said he is not complaining, but wants
to point out that not many people in the public would endure
that.
9:33:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he asked the governor if she would
sponsor an ethics bill, and he told the committee that he would
be working closely to help move along such a bill.
9:34:48 AM
CHAIR LYNN said it may be better to work with the governor's
bill because "she certainly has more horsepower than the rest of
us." Notwithstanding that, he recommended hearing all the other
ethics bills that are put across the House Floor in order to
incorporate them into the governor's bill. He stated that there
are laws against burglary and theft, thus, he said the
government legislates morality all the time with civil law.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he is not arguing that guidelines are
bad; he is just pointing out that having laws does not make
people better and will not prevent people from choosing to break
the law.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS spoke of the effect one person's breaking
the law has on the rest of the group to which he/she belongs.
He said it is a very uncomfortable feeling to be associated
through the public eye with a member or members of the
legislature who may not be ethical. He stated that the
legislature sets the guidelines for ethical behavior.
9:39:07 AM
CHAIR LYNN talked about the complexity of the issue and said he
thinks most everyone is an honest, hard-working, ethical person,
doing the best he/she can. He said the legislature deals with
controversial issues and "nothing is simple."
9:40:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, in response to a comment from
Representative Gruenberg, said as of yesterday the governor's
bill will not be limited to administrative ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded by emphasizing the importance
of including the minority party in discussions related to all
ethics bills. He stated that to have real credibility, HB 20
should have the support of the Democrats, the Republicans, the
governor, and the press. If an ethics bill is seen to be
partisan or advancing a hidden agenda not in the public's
interest, then "the entire public servant profession will
receive the black eye ...."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS concurred with Representative Gruenberg
and said he thinks the governor, although a Republican, wants to
be inclusive of all parties. He said he would ask that the
governor make certain she include everyone in the discussion.
CHAIR LYNN said, "Really, the bill should be sponsored by our
constituents; it's what it's all about."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said the consultant hired to present an
ethics seminar last week to the legislators and staff mentioned
the fact that it is always the group in power that will get
nailed with the ethics complaints, because that group makes more
of the decisions. Trying to impose [blame] is a mistake, he
indicated. He gave Representative Gruenberg his word that "this
will not be a partisan issue ...."
9:45:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated that HB 20 is important to the
social and ethical climate of the legislature, and he expressed
his appreciation for the committee's hearing the bill early in
the session.
TOM WRIGHT, House Majority Office, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying on behalf of the House Majority Office, noted that HB
20 was written with broad language intentionally to allow for
the anticipated discussion of the issues addressed in the bill.
[HB 20 was heard and held.]
9:47:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that a subcommittee would be formed to
further study HB 10 and HB 20. He appointed the following
members to the subcommittee: Representatives Roses, Coghill,
and Gruenberg. He said any others would be welcome.
9:48:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the three people asked to be
on the subcommittee would provide a good start to studying the
ethics issues of both bills, as well as to get input from
sponsors of other ethics bills and consider the governor's
stance on the issues. He suggested considering Ms. Anderson's
aforementioned, promised report before doing any other work. In
response to Chair Lynn, he said he would be glad to be chair of
the subcommittee. He suggested the subcommittee be allowed 10
days for its work before coming back to the committee with its
findings.
9:51:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that an announcement be made
on the House Floor that anyone working on ethics bills share
his/her ideas with the subcommittee as soon as possible, so that
the subcommittee will have that information available to it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered to make an announcement on the
House Floor regarding the meeting time of the subcommittee.
CHAIR LYNN emphasized that the subcommittee meetings would be
open to the public.
9:52:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he wanted to ensure no one has a
problem with the fact that he was chosen to serve on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics and would also be serving on the
subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't think it is an issue.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:53:55 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|