03/03/2007 10:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2007
10:04 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. 109
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 109(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD
01/30/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/30/07 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/20/07 (H) <Postponed Pending Subcommittee Report>
02/22/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested an amendment to HB 109.
IRIS MATTHEWS, Staff
to Representative Berta Gardner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the language in Amendment 14
during the hearing on HB 109.
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Agency & Offices
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed changes made to Revised Amendment
22, during the hearing on HB 109.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 10:03:51 AM. Representatives Roses,
Coghill, Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were
present at the call to order.
HB 109-DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
10:04:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to the requirement for
candidates, groups, legislators, public officials, and other
persons to submit reports electronically to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; relating to disclosures by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
legislative directors, public officials, and certain candidates
for public office concerning services performed for compensation
and concerning certain income, gifts, and other financial
matters; requiring legislators, public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public
officials, and municipal officers to make certain financial
disclosures when they leave office; relating to insignificant
ownership interest in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to
certain restrictions on employment after leaving state service
for purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 109, Version 25-GH1059\K, Wayne, 2/21/07.]
[Due to technical difficulties the recording is interrupted and
doesn't resume until 10:07:54 AM. The intervening testimony was
compiled from the committee secretary's log notes.]
CHAIR LYNN recalled that at its last meeting, the committee had
been discussing Amendment 20. [Although no motion had been made
to adopt Amendment 20], Chair Lynn announced that Amendment 20
was tabled.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, clarified that Amendment 20 dealt with
the issue of disclosure of blind trusts.
CHAIR LYNN announced that the committee would address [New]
Amendment 11, an amendment presented to the committee by
Representative Berta Gardner. [Representative Gardner's
original Amendment 11 had been moved for adoption by
Representative Gruenberg during the 2/27/07 hearing on HB 109,
with objections by Representatives Johnson and Coghill, but was
tabled on that date.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt [New] Amendment 11,
which read as follows, with some handwritten changes:
Page 2, line 9, after the word "Sec.2."
Insert:
AS 24.60.085 is amended by adding a new subsection to
read:
(c) During the term for which elected or
appointed, 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 action or administrative action, as those
terms are defined in AS 24.45.171, or political action
as defined in AS 24.60.990.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
[REPRESENTATIVE ROSES] objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that [New Amendment 11 is
the same as the original Amendment 11, except that] the phrase
"and for one year thereafter" has been deleted [by means of the
handwritten change].
[The recording begins below at 10:07:54 AM. ]
10:07:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, said the
principle of [both the original Amendment 11 and New Amendment
11] is that legislators are paid by the state, and "when we do
legislative work, we should do it as a legislator, and not as an
employee or under contract for somebody else."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER added, "And I think that we have seen the
potential for problems doing this." She stated that it creates
divided loyalties among legislators to have "two masters." She
said this is a problem that can easily be resolved by Amendment
11.
10:08:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Chair Lynn, clarified
the phrase that he had deleted.
10:09:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "... We might be off on that,
because it seemed to me like Representative Johnson objected to
deleting that language."
10:09:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON replied, "I objected to the amendment."
10:09:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the language in the original
Amendment 11, "and for one year thereafter", was a sticking
point, and he said he agrees with Representative Gruenberg that
it should not be part of the amendment.
10:10:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said although she can live with [New
Amendment 11], she personally thinks the time frame should be
for longer, because "legislators could conceivably set something
up for their personal benefit once they leave office."
10:11:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked that [New Amendment 11] looks
similar to a previous amendment that was withdrawn by the
committee, labeled 125-GH1059\K.17, Cook/Wayne, 2/21/07.
CHAIR LYNN said that was Amendment 14.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES continued: "Which means this would have
been brought forward by Joyce Anderson on behalf of the [Select]
Committee [on Legislative Ethics], as part of the changes that
they recommended, I do believe."
10:12:04 AM
IRIS MATTHEWS, Staff to Representative Berta Gardner, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that the language in Amendment 14
speaks to the definition of administrative action in [AS]
24.45.171. She said, "It excludes representation before quasi-
judicial agencies. So, this is really taking care of what that
... definition of administrative action excludes." She added
that the administrative action definition is more concerned with
the writing or promulgation of regulations.
10:13:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection [to New Amendment
11].
10:13:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that [there being no further objection],
[New] Amendment 11 was adopted. [Representative Roses'
objection was treated as withdrawn.]
10:13:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the committee would address Amendment
13.
10:14:06 AM
DAVID JONES, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, referred to [Amendment 3] to Amendment 13, which was
adopted by the committee at its last hearing on HB 109 [on March
1, 2007]. He said the amendment added language back to the bill
that Governor Sarah Palin had recommended deleting [from
paragraph (2) of Section 22, AS 24.60.200]. Mr. Jones explained
that through language adopted in Amendment 13, legislators and
legislative directors must disclose "the amount of the income,
the number of hours of services performed to earn that income,
and a statement describing in detail the nature of the services
performed", for "income in excess of $1,000 received as
compensation for personal services". He highlighted the
language that the governor wanted deleted, but which remained in
statute as a result of the committee's amendment, and that
language read:
[IF THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS KNOWN OR REASONABLY SHOULD
BE KNOWN TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN
LEGISLATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR POLITICAL ACTION AND
THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME IS A LEGISLATOR OR A
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME RECEIVED
FROM THE SOURCE SHALL BE DISCLOSED;]
MR. JONES stated:
What that does is create some ambiguity about when and
who has to report the amount of the income, because
this provision applies not only to legislators and
legislative directors, but also to the public members
of the select committee. So, it's not clear, exactly,
what the effect is of this amendment, with the amended
language that is restored by virtue of the committee's
amendment to the governor's proposal.
So, there are at least two possible interpretations of
that. One is that public members of the select
committee would have to report the amounts of the
income received for anything over $1,000, regardless
... from whom it's received. But legislators and
legislative directors have to report the amounts only
when they're from sources that have substantial
interest in these legislative administrative or
political matters.
Another possible interpretation is that legislators
and legislative directors have to report the amount of
income received from any source if the amount exceeds
$1,000. But, if that source is someone with a
substantial interest in those various matters, they
only have to report the amount if it's over $1,000.
So, it creates some confusion by including amounts of
income to be reported in both sections. Now, clearly
the governor's position in making the proposed
amendment was that the amounts of income and the
number of hours worked should be reported in all
instances in which the income exceeds $1,000.
But if the committee has made the policy choice that
the amount of income should be reported only when the
source of the income is someone with a substantial
interest in legislative, administrative, or political
matters, then there's a way to amend that provision to
make that intent clear.
10:18:15 AM
MR. JONES noted that Representative Gruenberg's staff prepared
an amendment to that effect. He stated:
The effect of this amended version of ... Amendment 13
would be to require reporting of the amount of income
and the approximate number of hours or services
performed, only when the income is received by a
legislator or a legislative director from a source
that has a substantial interest in a legislative,
administrative, or political matter.
MR. JONES said he hopes his explanation was clear regarding "the
ambiguity that was created." He said the committee has a
decision to make as to whether to use the governor's original
language, which would "delete the limitation on when the amount
has to be reported," or to choose the upcoming amendment
prepared by Representative Gruenberg's staff.
10:19:16 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Legislative Agency & Offices, said she concurs with Mr.
Jones that it is a policy call of the legislators to decide what
to do in this situation - whether to set the amount at $1,000
for all income or just for income with substantial interest.
10:20:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to rescind the committee's prior
action in adopting Amendment 13, [as amended]. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt New Amendment 13, which
read as follows, [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 24.60.200. Financial disclosure by legislators,
public members of the committee, and legislative
directors.
A legislator, a public member of the committee, and a
legislative director shall file a disclosure
statement, under oath and on penalty of perjury, with
the Alaska Public Offices Commission giving the
following information about the income received by the
discloser, the discloser's spouse or domestic partner,
the discloser's dependent children, and the
discloser's nondependent children who are living with
the discloser:
(1) the information that a public official is
required to report under AS 39.50.030, other than
income received as compensation for personal services,
loans or loan guarantees, and information about gifts;
(2) as to income in excess of $1,000 received as
compensation for personal services, the name and
address of the source of the income, and a statement
describing in detail the nature of the services
performed; if the source of income is known or
reasonably should be known to have a substantial
interest in legislative, administrative, or political
action and the recipient of the income is a legislator
or legislative director, the amount of the income and
the approximate number of hours of services performed
to earn that income, [THE AMOUNT OF INCOME RECEIVED
FROM THE SOURCE] shall be disclosed, and a statement
explaining how the income was earned may be included;
(3) as to each loan or loan guarantee over $1,000
from a source with a substantial interest in
legislative, administrative, or political action, the
name and address of the person making the loan or
guarantee, the amount of the loan, the terms and
conditions under which the loan or guarantee was
given, the amount outstanding at the time of filing,
and whether or not a written loan agreement exists.
10:20:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
10:20:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is looking at "the language that
was passed by the voters," and he noted that the committee is
substantially changing what the voters "thought they were
passing." He said he would like a legal opinion on the issue.
He said he would also like to see consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to [New Amendment 13]. He said,
"If we're going to stay with the financial disclosure, as
stated, it should probably then be as stated by the voters." He
added:
What I'm going to probably do then is offer an
amendment to take ... Section 5 of ... what the voters
passed and put it into this bill, so that we have ...
consistency. And then, if there [are] other
consistencies, then we work with the law as it was
outside of the voters' will.
10:23:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Ms. Anderson if there is one related
amendment more cumbersome than another or more clear than
another, in terms of the concerns of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics or the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC).
10:23:37 AM
MS. ANDERSON replied that even though [AS] 24.60.200 is in the
Ethics Statute, it is actually administered by APOC; therefore,
she recommended that the executive director of APOC would be the
best person to answer that question. She added:
In relation to Mr. Jones' concern with the ambiguity
in what was passed at the last committee meeting, ...
this language seems to clear that up, based on what my
conversation was with Ms. Miles last night.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question from Representative
Roses, confirmed that by "this language" she means [New
Amendment 13].
10:25:28 AM
MR. JONES, in response to questions from Representative
Gruenberg, confirmed that the purpose of New Amendment 13 is to
clear up potential ambiguity and make the issue simpler to
address, which he confirmed it would do.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to Chair Lynn, said she concurs with
the statement made by Mr. Jones.
10:25:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, in response to the previous comment from
Representative Coghill regarding the potential change in the
wording of the initiative, said a request was made to get the
attorney general's opinion on the legislature's ability to make
those changes. He concurred with Representative Coghill
regarding the need for consistency. He warned that it is
dangerous territory for the legislature to try to interpret what
the understanding of the voters was when they voted on the
initiative.
10:27:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the original
Amendment 13, and the previously highlighted language in
brackets at the end of that amendment. He said at the last
meeting, Representative Coghill moved to adopt Amendment 3,
which restored the language in order "to make this exactly the
same as the initiative." He said New Amendment [13] "keeps that
language in." He stated, "So, the Coghill amendment restoring
that language remains in this, and we have not changed that from
the initiative."
10:28:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Doll, explained the use of "shall" and "may" in
Amendment 13 and New Amendment 13.
10:29:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked who made the objection to New Amendment 13.
10:30:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to New Amendment
13, with the understanding that "if we're going to amend
initiatives, this is the beginning."
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no objection, New
Amendment 13 was adopted. [Representative Johnson's objection
was treated as withdrawn.]
CHAIR LYNN announced that the committee would once again take up
Amendment 9, which was tabled, [as amended, during the House
State Affairs Standing Committee's meeting on 2/27/07].
Amendment 9 read as follows:
Page 7, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 24.60.030(f) is amended to read:
(f) A legislative employee may not serve in a
position that requires confirmation by the
legislature. A legislator or legislative employee who
serves [MAY SERVE] on a board of an organization,
including a governmental entity, shall disclose [THAT
REGULARLY HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE LEGISLATOR OR EMPLOYEE
IF THE LEGISLATOR OR EMPLOYEE DISCLOSES] the board
membership to the committee. A person [A LEGISLATOR OR
LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE WHO IS] required to make a
disclosure under this subsection shall file the
disclosure with the committee by the deadline
[DEADLINES] set out in AS 24.60.105 stating the name
of each organization on whose board the person serves.
The committee shall maintain a public record of the
disclosure and forward the disclosure to the
appropriate house for inclusion in the journal. This
subsection does not require a legislator or
legislative employee who is appointed to a board by
the presiding officer to make a disclosure of the
appointment to the committee if the appointment has
been published in the appropriate legislative journal
during the calendar year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
10:30:32 AM
MS. ANDERSON reviewed that Amendment 9 was recommended by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and would require
legislators and legislative employees to report all boards and
commissions to that committee. She offered her understanding
that currently the legislative financial disclosure requires
legislators to disclose their boards and commissions, while in
the ethics code, "disclosing boards and commissions is
subjective." She said Amendment 9 is an attempt at consistency
between the financial disclosure and the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics' rules so that legislators are not confused.
She explained further that in the legislative financial
disclosure, reports are made on March 15 for the previous year,
while the ethics code requires the reporting of boards and
commissions within 30 days of serving on one.
The committee took an at ease from 10:35:04 AM to 10:35:33 AM.
10:35:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reviewed that the amendment to
Amendment 9, previously adopted by the committee [on 2/27/07],
put back the bracketed language on lines 7-9 [as numbered on
Amendment 9].
10:36:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked why deleting that language in the first place
was a problem.
10:36:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that without that language,
it would become burdensome, unnecessary, and irrelevant to be
required to disclose every church board, garden club, or chess
club on which a legislator serves when those entities do not
have anything to do with the legislature.
10:37:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN indicated that having to report everything simplifies
the process and makes it unnecessary to consult with Ms.
Anderson over every issue.
10:37:30 AM
MS. ANDERSON reiterated that "basically we were just trying to
make this requirement in synch with APOC." She indicated that
[adopting the amendment to Amendment 9 to reinstate that
language] was a policy call.
10:38:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that anyone could name a recipient
in his/her individual capital appropriations, and giving anyone
money is a substantial interest in legislative action.
10:39:17 AM
CHAIR LYNN concurred that what may not look like substantial
interest at the time, may be considered so on down the line.
Chair Lynn asked Representative Johnson if he would like to
"make a fix on this."
10:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that what the committee needed
to do was move to rescind its action in adopting [Amendment 1]
to Amendment 9.
10:40:30 AM
[During the ensuing discussion, the committee clarified its
intent to no longer deal with Amendment 9 [as amended], so that
it could bring a "New Amendment 9" before it.]
10:41:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested taking New Amendment 9 and
"make Representative Johnson's amendment to that."
10:42:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to rescind the committee's action
in adopting Amendment 9. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt New Amendment 9, labeled
25-GH1059\K.54, Wayne, 3/2/07, which read as follows:
Page 7, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 24.60.030(f) is amended to read:
(f) A legislative employee may not serve in a
position that requires confirmation by the
legislature. A legislator or legislative employee who
serves [MAY SERVE] on a board of an organization,
including a governmental entity, that regularly has a
substantial interest in the legislative activities of
the legislator or employee shall disclose [IF THE
LEGISLATOR OR EMPLOYEE DISCLOSES] the board membership
to the committee. A person [A LEGISLATOR OR
LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE WHO IS] required to make a
disclosure under this subsection shall file the
disclosure with the committee by the deadline
[DEADLINES] set out in AS 24.60.105 stating the name
of each organization on whose board the person serves.
The committee shall maintain a public record of the
disclosure and forward the disclosure to the
appropriate house for inclusion in the journal. This
subsection does not require a legislator or
legislative employee who is appointed to a board by
the presiding officer to make a disclosure of the
appointment to the committee if the appointment has
been published in the appropriate legislative journal
during the calendar year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
10:43:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. He
recommended a conceptual amendment to New Amendment 9, "to
include all boards and commissions."
10:43:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that what Representative
Johnson wants to do is to delete the phrase on [page 1], lines
6-8 [as numbered on New Amendment 9], which read as follows:
that regularly has a substantial interest in the
legislative activities of the legislator or employee
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Chair Lynn, [moved] to
adopt Amendment 1 to New Amendment 9 [to delete the
aforementioned text]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 to
New Amendment 9 was adopted.
10:44:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection to New Amendment 9
[as amended]. There being no further objection, New Amendment
9, [as amended], was adopted.
10:44:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 10, [which was
adopted by the committee on 2/27/07], labeled 25-GH1059\K.40,
Wayne, 2/23/07, which read as follows [with some handwritten
changes]:
Page 13, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 24.60.130 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(p) Notwithstanding (h) and (n) of this section,
if a complaint before the committee alleges a
violation of this chapter by a group of legislators
that includes a legislative member of the committee
and that member's alternate, the member and alternate
member are disqualified from serving on the committee
with regard to the complaint. If the two disqualified
members of the committee are part of the majority
caucus, the presiding officer of the house in which
the two disqualified members serve shall appoint from
that house an alternate to serve with regard to the
complaint. If one of the two disqualified legislative
members of the committee is not part of the majority
caucus, the leader of the minority caucus with the
greatest number of members shall appoint from that
house an alternate to serve with regard to the
complaint. If a complaint alleges a violation of this
chapter that includes all legislative members of the
majority caucus of one house, the presiding officer of
that house shall appoint from the other house an
alternate to serve with regard to the complaint. If
the complaint alleges a violation of this chapter that
includes all legislative members of a minority caucus
of one house, the leader of that minority caucus shall
appoint from the other house an alternate to serve
with regard to the complaint. In this paragraph,
"caucus" has the meaning given in AS 24.60.130(o)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "22, and 26"
Insert "23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed to line 20 of Amendment 10, [as
numbered on the amendment], and he noted that a statutory
reference is made [handwritten in the amendment] to AS
24.60.130. He said that statute refers solely to organizational
minority caucuses. He noted that lines 8 and 9 of the amendment
refer to "the majority caucus". He announced for the record
that the House Judiciary Standing Committee would be working on
this language to "craft a proper definition of all caucuses for
the purpose of that paragraph."
10:46:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is any language "in this"
that excludes boards and commissions appointed by the
legislature. He revealed that he was recently appointed to [the
Parks Offenses Bail Forfeiture Schedule Advisory Committee]. He
said he thinks that type of appointment is open and transparent
to the public.
10:47:13 AM
MS. ANDERSON answered as follows:
No, you do not. If you are appointed by either the
House or the Senate, or by the presiding officers, you
do not need to report that to the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] as being on a board or commission.
You are prohibited as a legislator from being on any
board or commission that must be confirmed by the
legislature. So, in other words, you cannot be on any
board or commission that maybe the governor would want
to put an appointment on, unless the appointment was
printed in statute, stating that you shall be part of
that board or commission.
10:49:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, at the
request of Chair Lynn, reviewed that there is an Amendment 20 in
the committee packet [not offered], which is an earlier draft of
a version of Amendment 22 [not offered] labeled, 25-GH1059\K.43,
Cook/Wayne, 2/26/07. However, he noted that there is a revised
version of Amendment 22, labeled, 25-GH1059\K.50, Cook/Wayne,
3/2/07, also in the committee packet.
10:51:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt [Revised] Amendment 22, Version 25-
GH1059\K.50, Cook/Wayne, 3/2/07, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 4, following "government;":
Insert "relating to blind trusts approved by the
Alaska Public Offices Commission;"
Page 19, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 26. AS 39.50.040 is amended to read:
Sec. 39.50.040. Blind trusts. (a) A public
official may transfer all or a portion of the
official's assets to a blind trust for the duration of
service in public office. The original assets placed
in the blind trust shall be listed by the official in
a [THE] statement [REQUIRED TO BE] filed under this
section, together with a description of the actual or
potential conflicts of interest, or appearance of
conflict, that the official seeks to avoid by the use
of the trust. A copy of the [CHAPTER. THE] instrument
creating the blind trust must be included with the
statement.
(b) For a blind trust to qualify under this
section, the following conditions must be met:
(1) the trust may not contain investments
or assets in which the ownership right or interest is
required to be recorded in a public office other than
with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, or contain
assets with permanency that makes transfer by the
trustee improbable or impractical, including
businesses, real estate, security interests in
personal property, and mortgages [ASSETS TRANSFERRED
TO THE TRUST SHALL BE MARKETABLE];
(2) the trustee shall be a bank or other
institutional fiduciary;
(3) the trustee shall have full authority
to manage the trust, including the purchase, sale, and
exchange of its assets in accordance with fiduciary
principles;
(4) the trust instrument shall contain a
clear statement that its purpose is to remove from the
trustor control and knowledge of investment of trust
assets so that conflicts between the trustor's
responsibilities and duties as a public official and
the trustor's personal or financial interests will be
eliminated [INFORMATION REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND THE
NATURE OF ITS ASSETS SHALL BE CONFIDENTIAL FROM THE
TRUSTOR FOR THE DURATION OF THE TRUST];
(5) the trustee shall be directed not to
disclose to the trustor any information about the
identity and nature of any of the assets in the trust,
and the trustee shall be required to report any known
breach of this confidentiality or the termination of
the trust to the commission [OFFICE WHERE THE TRUSTOR
IS REQUIRED TO FILE STATEMENTS UNDER THIS CHAPTER];
[AND]
(6) the trust shall be irrevocable and
shall be terminated only upon the death of the
trustor, upon termination of the trustor's status as a
public official, or upon order of the commission;
(7) the trustee shall be required to
(A) prepare and file the trustor's personal
income tax returns, withholding from distribution of
the trust's net income amounts sufficient to pay the
trustor's tax; and to participate in the audit of the
trustor's returns during the period of the trust, with
authority to compromise the trustor's tax liability;
or
(B) submit to the trustor, for income tax
purposes, a certification of income paid without
identifying the assets producing the income;
(8) the trustee shall be directed to avoid
knowingly making any investment in a corporation,
business, or venture over which the trustor is likely
to take action by virtue of the trustor's official
position;
(9) the trustor may not retain control over
the trustee, and the trustor is not permitted to make
any recommendations or suggestions as to the trust
property;
(10) the trust instrument agreement must
provide that the trustee will give the attorney
general or personnel board access to any records or
information related to the trust that is necessary
when investigating or hearing an accusation alleging a
violation of AS 39.52;
(11) the trustee shall report to the
commission the beginning and ending value of the trust
and, if the commission requests, the trustee shall
prepare under seal a detailed description of
transactions and holdings of the trust; the document
prepared by the trustee under seal is not public
information unless an accusation under AS 39.52
relevant to the blind trust is filed by the attorney
general or the personnel board, and
(12) the trust may not become effective
until the trust instrument is submitted and approved
by the commission [REPEALED]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "and 26"
Insert "26, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
10:51:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
10:52:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to a request from
Representative Gruenberg, reviewed the changes made in Revised
Amendment 22. He said the language was borrowed from another
state's statue to more fully address the issue of blind trust.
He said the language addresses ambiguities and puts limitations
on a trustee. He said the amendment addresses "what would
unintentionally break that blind trust." He indicated that the
amendment addresses all the concerns previously expressed by
Tamara Cook, [the director of Legislative Legal and Research
Services], and it also meshes with the Alaska Executive Branch
Ethics Act.
10:56:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concurred with the need for policy
regarding blind trusts, but said he thinks that [the issue of
blind trusts] would best be addressed in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
10:58:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES pointed out that every item discussed in HB
109 has legal implications and he thinks the House State Affairs
Standing Committee should continue to deliberate the issue. He
stated that he likes the way other amendments were incorporated
into Revised Amendment 22.
10:59:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he does not disagree with
Representative Roses. However, he said, "Where the heavy
lifting and the debate on this is going to happen is in [the
House Judiciary Standing Committee], but I'm not certain that
our time is best spent on this as a committee."
11:00:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he thinks Revised Amendment 22 is
well written and he supports [adopting its language in to the
bill]. Conversely, he indicated that he would also have no
problem [in the House State Affairs Standing Committee's not
adopting it] and sending it on for further scrutiny in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
11:01:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated his preference to adopt Revised Amendment 22.
11:02:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew his objection.
11:02:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that Revised Amendment 22 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I think this indicates the
intent of the committee that we want this kind of provision in
the bill."
11:02:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN directed attention to Amendment 23.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 23, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 19, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec.27. AS 39.50.200(b) is amended by adding new
paragraphs to read:
(59) Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority (AS 44.88);
(60) the board of directors of the Knik
Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (AS 19.75.031 and
19.75.041);
(61) Alaska labor relations agency (AS
23.05.360 - 23.05.390);
(62) the Board of Trustees of the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AS 47.30.016);
(63) the board of directors of the
Alaska Railroad Corporation (AS 42.40.020 -
42.40.060)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected.
MR. JONES said Amendment 23 is designed to correct [omissions]
in the list of boards and commissions required by statute to
file financial disclosures with APOC. It would add names to the
current list, which includes the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, among other
boards and commissions. He said the governor provided the list
of heretofore omitted boards and commissions. He said he does
not think it would be controversial to suggest that the names on
the list should be included. He said the public would benefit
from knowing a bit more about the financial situations and
associations of the members of the boards and commissions listed
in Amendment 23.
11:05:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES withdrew his objection.
CHAIR LYNN announced that Amendment 23 was adopted.
11:05:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved to adopt Amendment 24, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 19, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 27. AS 39.52.110 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) Stock or other ownership interest in a
business is presumed to be insignificant if the value
of the stock or other ownership interest is less than
$5,000."
Page 19, line 28, through page 20, line 26:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
11:06:08 AM
MR. JONES relayed that Amendment 24 would replace a provision in
[Version K] with a provision that the governor suggested in the
original version of HB 109. He said Section 27 of Version K
lists various interests in a business, including "service as an
officer, director, or employee, having $5,000 or more in stock
or equity interest, or having a 1 percent interest or more in a
business" as being a significant financial interest. He said
Amendment 24 would replace that language with its text
[previously provided]. Mr. Jones continued:
The reason we adopted the approach of a presumption is
to allow us to reach those cases where the interest
itself is worth less than $5,000, but the effect of
the official's action could be to increase that value
substantially. If we take a black line test and say,
"As long as it's under $5,000 you're good to go," the
risk is that somebody has something worth $4,999,
takes official action on it, increases the value of
that interest to a million [dollars], and then says,
"You can't touch me; it's under $5,000; I'm good; I'm
golden."
We don't want to allow that; that's why we apply a
presumption. The presumption means: if it's over
$5,000, you can't do it; if it's under $5,000, you
better ... get permission from your designated ethics
supervisor, because you aren't home free just because
it doesn't meet that $5,000 threshold.
Now, yesterday on the Senate floor, ... they added
this language into SB 19 to supplement the list of
other significant financial interests that exist in
that bill. So, they had a list that's parallel to
what exists now in Section 27 of ... [Version K] and
then added the presumptions.
MR. JONES said although [the Senate's action] was a step in the
right direction, it doesn't "get us all the way home," because
it still leaves the possibility of the aforementioned example
whereby someone can increase the value of their interest to
above the $5,000.
MR. JONES related that another concern is the issue of
enforcement, with respect to a 1 percent standard. He stated:
It can be difficult to calculate, in some
circumstances, what a 1 percent interest is,
particularly where the business has stock options that
it's offered or different levels or classes of stock.
In addition, ... what really matters ... is how much
money is at stake, not what percentage of it is at
stake. Because 1 percent of $1,000 business is going
to be $10, and I think we'd all agree that in the big
picture, that is not a significant financial interest.
So, why not go to what really matters ...? And that's
why we didn't include a 1 percent or some other
percentage standard in our proposal.
11:10:14 AM
MR. JONES continued:
The other thing that Section 27 includes that we did
not include is this list of various participations in
a business that would disqualify you: being an
officer, being a director, being an employee, or a
contractor. And that's because our goal was to solve
the problem that was identified when Mr. Bundy and Mr.
Daniel looked at the issue involving the former
attorney general [Greg Rehnquist]. They said, "There
isn't a clear standard here of when financial interest
in a business is significant." We haven't had trouble
figuring out that when you're a director for an
officer or an employee, or contractor of a business,
you have a substantial interest in that business. So,
that isn't a problem that we felt needed to be
resolved or that we decided to attack.
11:11:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that at first he was inclined to
disagree, but he said, "The governor has convinced me."
11:11:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the State Affairs ethics
subcommittee [herein referred to as "the subcommittee"]
considered this issue at length and was concerned about "just
making it a presumption." He offered the opposite side of the
coin, stating, "If it's simply presumed to be insignificant,
that is not a bright line, ... is difficult to apply, [and] may
be subject to subjective interpretations both by the employee
and by the supervisor." He said the Senate's action was "to add
the presumption to the list," which he said has merit. He
continued:
What it does is it says that there is a presumption,
but that if these factors can show that it really is a
significant list, then the employee should be
prohibited from participating in the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he does not have a problem with
"adding the new Section 27," but he does have a problem
"deleting everything else." He recommended dividing the
question, first taking up "adding Section 27," followed
separately by the determination on whether or not to delete
"everything else."
11:13:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he will not object to dividing the
question, but he will debate leaving in "the laundry list of
issues."
11:14:12 AM
MR. JONES said he has no problem with dividing the issue, but
would like the opportunity to address "the second part of the
divided question" when that time arrives.
11:14:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to divide Amendment 24, so that
Amendment 24 A would include the language on lines [6]-10 and
Amendment 24 B would include the language on lines 12-13, as
numbered on Amendment 24. [The motion was treated as adopted.]
11:14:50 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved [to adopt] Amendment 24 A, which read as
follows:
Page 19, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 27. AS 39.52.110 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) Stock or other ownership interest in a
business is presumed to be insignificant if the value
of the stock or other ownership interest is less than
$5,000."
There being no objection, Amendment 24 A was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt Amendment 24 B], which
read as follows:
Page 19, line 28, through page 20, line 26:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He continued:
I've been convinced by the governor that the list that
is proposed to be deleted should be deleted. And I
think the reason why is almost all of the issues
dealing with this laundry list of personal interest,
ownership of stock, membership to the board, are
almost all significant issues, and would not fly under
the issue of insignificant.
11:15:52 AM
MR. JONES offered his understanding as follows:
I believe the motion is to adopt [Amendment] 24 B,
which means we would delete the current language in
Section 27.
11:16:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
24 B, stating that he had made an error in moving to adopt the
amendment, because he does not want to delete the material [in
Section 27].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 24 B.
The committee took an at-ease from 11:17:17 AM to 11:18:13 AM.
11:18:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained why he would object to
adopting Amendment 24 B, as follows:
What we've got is simply a general statement that if
your ownership is less than $5,000, it's presumed to
be insignificant. However, there's nothing in the law
that would help the supervisor or the employee or
anybody else determine ... whether it could be
significant, even if it's less than $5,000. And these
factors that are here will guide anybody who's looking
at the situation.
... Two years ago, when we dealt with the potential
conflict of interest by the attorney general, it was a
really difficult and time consuming and expensive
proposition, because there was nothing to guide
anybody in determining what insignificant meant.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded that it could be helpful to
have the language, presently in Section 27, in statute, and it
certainly would do no harm.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Johansen,
Johnson, Roses, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 24 B.
Representatives Gruenberg and Doll voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 24 B was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
11:22:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 27, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 21, line 27, following "Commission.":
Insert
"In this subsection, 'policy-making
position' has the same meaning as 'policy-making
position' in AS 39.50.200(a)(1)."
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected for discussion purposes.
11:23:16 AM
MR. JONES directed attention to Section 30, on page 21 [of
Version K], in which there is a provision that extends the one-
year lobbying ban that exists under current law to apply to two
other classes of positions: deputy heads of departments and
people who hold policy-making positions in the Office of the
Governor. He said Amendment 27 would clarify the definition of
policy-making position by tying it to the definition used in the
APOC disclosure statute. He stated, "The effect would be that
whoever holds a policy-making position in the Office of the
Governor that requires that person to file a financial
disclosure annually with the commission, will also be subject to
this one-year lobbying ban after leaving service in that
position."
11:24:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited AS 39.50.200(a)(1), which read as
follows:
(1) "assistant to the governor or the lieutenant
governor" includes any executive, legislative,
special, administrative, or press assistant to the
governor or lieutenant governor, and any person
similarly employed in a policy-making position;
11:25:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would offer [Amendment 1] to
Amendment 27, to replace the phrase "policy making position" in
both places it appears with "assistant to the governor or the
lieutenant governor".
11:26:17 AM
MR. JONES offered his understanding that [Amendment 1 to
Amendment 27] would define administrative assistant rather than
policy-making position.
11:26:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thought it was the intent of
Amendment 27 to adopt the entire definition in [AS]
39.50.200(a)(1).
11:26:45 AM
MR. JONES explained that the intent of Amendment 27 is to
clarify that those who are required, by virtue of the definition
in Title 39, Chapter 50, to file financial disclosures would
also be subject to the one-year lobbying ban after leaving
service in those positions. He said there were concerns
regarding whether the phrase "policy-making position" was
sufficiently clear; therefore, Amendment 27 would tie the
definition directly by referencing it to the definition in the
APOC disclosure statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it was the intent of Amendment
27 to include "any executive, legislative, special,
administrative, or press assistant to the governor or lieutenant
governor".
MR. JONES responded that the intent was to include all those who
serve in policy-making positions as determined by the APOC.
11:27:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated:
Would you answer my question: Does it include those
people? Because otherwise the only thing that's ...
left is "any person similarly employed in a policy-
making position", and that is no help at all, because
you're defining policy-making position as any person
similarly employed in a policy-making position. It
doesn't make any sense unless you do the whole thing.
MR. JONES responded:
... I agree, it's circular. Our feeling was if that
was sufficiently definite to include in the APOC
disclosure statutes, it would be helpful to include
that in this provision concerning post-state
employment lobbying to make it clear ... that if you
had to file a financial disclosure, you're also
subject to the lobbying restriction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked again, "The people at the
beginning of that definition, do they have to file those
reports?" He asked, "Do you intend to include them in policy-
making positions?"
MR. JONES replied, "Yes, they do have to file those reports;
that's why they're listed in the definition."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 27
[wording provided at beginning of discussion].
11:29:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He said he thinks those who,
for example, work in the Office of the Governor or the Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, hold a policy-making position, have
influence over the press, and have to report to APOC, should
fall under the definition [in AS 39.50.200(a)(1)].
11:29:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Coghill to
withdraw his objection, because he said that's exactly his
intent in moving Amendment 1 to Amendment 27. In response to a
request for clarification from Representative Coghill, he
explained that since it is the intent to "include everybody in
[AS 39.50.200](a)(1), just use the exact phrase that they use in
... [that statute] so that it's absolutely crystal clear."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that if that is what Amendment
1 to Amendment 27 would actually do, [he would support it];
however, he stated his understanding that "that is not the
testimony of the ... drafter of the amendment."
11:30:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES offered his understanding as follows:
The intent is that anyone that is currently required
to file a financial disclosure is who you're including
... as part of your concern here.
11:31:08 AM
MR. JONES responded, "With respect to those in the governor's
office, that's correct."
11:31:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to the language on page
21, [beginning on line 20, of Version K], which read:
or employee of the Office of the Governor in a policy-
making position
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES suggested that adding "who is required to
file a financial disclosure" directly after that language would
accomplish the objective without the circular loop of "defining
a policy maker as a policy maker."
11:31:39 AM
MR. JONES stated:
That would accomplish the same result. I'm not sure
whether it's removing the circularity of it, because
of course then you have to determine who's required to
file. But ... that's another way of skinning the same
cat.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if current APOC requirements list who
must file.
MR. JONES confirmed that "APOC definitions do describe who has
to file," although he said there is some room for interpretation
regarding positions held.
11:32:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected to Amendment 1 to Amendment 27.
11:32:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
1 to Amendment 27, and he suggested that Representative Roses
offer the amendment that he had just discussed.
11:33:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
27.
The committee took an at-ease from 11:33:49 AM to 11:34:41 AM.
11:34:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 35, as follows:
On page 21, lines 21:
Between "policy-making position" and "may not
engage"
Insert "who is required to file a financial
disclosure with APOC"
There being no objection, Amendment 35 was adopted.
11:36:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 30, labeled
25-GH1059\K.28-A, Wayne, 2/21/07, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided, with some handwritten changes]:
Page 22, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 32. AS 39.52 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 39.52.225. Disclosures in connection with
executive clemency. Before granting executive clemency
to an applicant for executive clemency, the governor
shall disclose in writing to the attorney general
whether granting the clemency would benefit a personal
or financial interest of the governor. The attorney
general shall publish a written determination whether
granting executive clemency to the applicant would
violate AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190. The written
determination of the attorney general is not
confidential, but information set out in that
determination identifying a person other than the
applicant for clemency who is a victim or witness in a
criminal matter may not be made public."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "33"
Insert "34"
11:36:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
11:36:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the idea
for Amendment 30 was Chair Lynn's. Regarding the "person other
than the applicant for clemency", he said there is existing
Alaska law that requires that information to be confidential.
MR. JONES said the governor has not made any proposals regarding
the provision of Amendment 30, and he stated that he sees no
significant harm in requiring the governor to make such a
disclosure. He stated his belief that the governor has "come
out in favor of [Amendment 30]."
CHAIR LYNN said Amendment 30 would not tie the governor's hands
in regard to the ability to grant clemency.
MR. JONES offered his understanding that that is correct;
Amendment 30 would merely require disclosure.
11:38:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 30 was adopted.
11:38:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 33, labeled 25-
GH1059\K.30, Wayne, 2/22/07, which read as follows:
Page 22, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 32. AS 39.52.960(14) is amended to read:
(14) "official action" means performance of
any duties in the course and scope of a public
officer's employment, including review, advice,
participation, assistance, or other kind of
involvement regarding a matter, such as a
recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote,
or other similar action, including inaction, by a
public officer;"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
11:40:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, said he was having difficulty
remembering the genesis of Amendment 33, but he recalled it was
an amendment deferred from the subcommittee. He said he thinks
he objected to it at the time of the subcommittee's meeting and,
thus, would most likely be withdrawing his motion.
11:40:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his concern had been and remains
that if the bill does not allow someone to review past action,
mistakes will be repeated. He said that is the only part of
Amendment 33 with which he has a problem; the rest is fine.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment
33.
11:42:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 34, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
AS 39.50.200(a)(1) is amended to read:
Insert after professional corporation, limited
liability company,
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that Amendment 34 would add the
bold, underlined phrase to the Public Official Financial
Disclosure Act. He said [AS 39.50.200(a)(10)] currently read as
follows:
(10) "source of income" means the entity for
which service is performed or that is otherwise the
origin of payment; if the person whose income is being
reported is employed by another, the employer is the
source of income; but if the person is self-employed
by means of a sole proprietorship, partnership,
professional corporation, or a corporation in which
the person, the person's spouse or domestic partner,
or the person's dependent children, or a combination
of them, hold a controlling interest, the "source" is
the client or customer of the proprietorship,
partnership, or corporation, but, if the entity that
is the origin of payment is not the same as the client
or customer for whom the service is performed, both
are considered the source.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his motion to adopt Amendment
34. He explained that he is not certain the amendment is
"complete enough" and he wants the House Judiciary Standing
Committee to address it.
11:45:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to rescind the committee's action
in adopting Amendment 2 in order to be able to further amend it.
[Amendment 2 was once again before the committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reviewed that Amendment 2 addresses
electronic filing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment 3 to
Amendment 2, labeled 25-GH1059\K.49, Wayne, 2/28/07, which read
as follows:
Page 2, lines 4 - 15:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.040(m) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(m) Information required under this chapter
shall be submitted to the commission electronically,
except that the following information may be submitted
in clear and legible black typeface or hand-printed in
dark ink on paper in a format approved by the
commission or on forms provided by the commission:
(1) information submitted by a candidate
for municipal office; in this paragraph, "municipal
office" means the office of an elected borough or city
(A) mayor;
(B) planning commissioner;
(C) utility board member; or
(D) assembly, council, or school board
member;
(2) any information if the commission
determines that circumstances warrant an exception to
the electronic submission requirement;
(3) information submitted before May 1,
2009, by a candidate for the legislature."
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "Sections 2, 22, and 26"
Insert "Sections 22 and 26"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the intent is to support
electronic filing.
MR. JONES stated:
The reason that we decided to pursue a fix is that it
wasn't clear that the prior amendment, ... as amended,
did what the committee intended. The prior amendment
..., as amended, would actually have made electronic
filing for all campaign disclosures required
immediately, except for the governor and lieutenant
governor, and that didn't seem to be consistent with
the discussion the committee had about it. ... With
this fix, electronic filing would be effective
immediately for everybody, excluding, of course,
municipal offices, except candidates for the
legislature. And for candidates for the legislature,
campaign disclosures would need to be filed
electronically as of May 1, 2009, which is the 18
months before the November 2010 General Elections.
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any objection to Amendment 3 to
Amendment 2. There being none, it was so ordered.
11:49:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, as amended.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
11:49:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL brought up a [New] Amendment 17.
The committee took an at-ease from 11:50:02 AM to 11:51:17 AM.
11:51:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt [New] Amendment 17,
labeled 25-GH1059\K.45, Wayne, 2/26/07, which read as follows:
Page 16, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 24.60.210(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person required to file a disclosure
statement under AS 24.60.200 shall file an annual
report with the Alaska Public Offices Commission,
covering the previous calendar year, containing the
disclosures required by AS 24.60.200, on or before
March 15 of each year, except that a person appointed
as a legislator under AS 15.40, a public member of the
committee, or a legislative director must file within
30 days after the person's appointment."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 9:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 10:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 22, line 11:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 14:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 31"
Page 22, line 15:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 18:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 22, line 19:
Delete "Sections 2, 22, and 26"
Insert "Sections 2, 23, and 27"
Page 22, line 20:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 34"
There being no objection, [New] Amendment 17 was adopted.
11:52:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN said there is a zero fiscal note in the committee
packet.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if anyone could think of any
forgotten amendments that may need attention. [No one brought
any to the committee's attention.]
11:53:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked that as HB 109 goes forward,
everyone keep focus on the balance between what is right and
what is fair.
11:54:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL remarked on her experience addressing HB 109
as a new legislator and expressed appreciation for everyone's
work on the bill.
11:55:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said several issues have been deferred
to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He stated concern
over the adoption of Amendment 14 in its present form, and he
said his recommendation would be to amend the bill.
11:56:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reflected that just 45 days ago he was a
member of the public. He admitted to being someone who thought
the legislature wouldn't get into problems if it would just pay
more attention to detail. Having worked with the subcommittee
and committee on HB 109, he said he wants the public to know
that it is sometimes the attention to detail that gets the
legislature into a bind. He said he wants the public to know
how hard legislators work.
11:57:55 AM
CHAIR LYNN said no legislation is perfect, but HB 109 is the
first step in a long process. He said the intent of the bill is
to restore the public's trust in their legislators. He thanked
the committee members and their staff.
12:00:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL echoed that this is a work in progress.
He said the legislators in office were given the public's trust
when they were elected, and the question is how to hold the
legislature accountable and how to determine the method by which
that accountability is measured. He said HB 109 offers
guidance, even though there is still room for debate and
consideration of what is fair.
12:01:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 109, Version 25-
GH1059\K, Wayne, 2/21/07, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 109(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
12:02:35 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|