Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 106
01/31/2019 08:30 AM Senate SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
JANUARY 31, 2019
8:30 AM
FULL COMMITTEE
8:31:47 AM
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Dennis "Skip" Cook called the meeting to order at
8:00 a.m.
At Chair Cook's direction, Jerry Anderson called roll.
Roll Call
Senator John Coghill
Senator Tom Begich
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson (alternate for Senator Tom
Begich)
Senator David Wilson (alternate for Senator John Coghill)
Dennis "Skip" Cook
Conner Thomas
Joyce Anderson
Deb Fancher
Lee Holmes
Others
Jerry Anderson
Jacqueline Yeagle
Dan Wayne
2. WELCOME NEW LEGISLATORS
Chair Cook welcomed Senator Tom Begich and alternates
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson and Senator David Wilson to the
Ethics Committee.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Cook entertained a motion to approve the agenda.
Conner Thomas moved to approve the agenda.
No objection. The agenda was approved.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Cook entertained a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the November 1, 2018 Full Committee meeting.
Lee Holmes moved to approve the draft November 1, 2018 Full
Committee minutes.
No objection. The draft November 1, 2018 Full Committee
minutes were approved.
Chair Cook entertained a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the November 1, 2018 House Subcommittee meeting.
Conner Thomas moved to approve the draft November 1, 2018
House Subcommittee minutes.
No objection. The draft November 1, 2018 House Subcommittee
minutes were approved.
Chair Cook entertained a motion to approve the draft
minutes of the November 1, 2018 Senate Subcommittee
meeting.
Lee Holmes moved to approve the draft November 1, 2018
Senate Subcommittee minutes.
No objection. The draft November 1, 2018 Senate
Subcommittee minutes were approved.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment.
6. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIRS FOR 2019-2020
Chair Cook invited nominations for chair of the Senate
Subcommittee, explaining that the Senate Subcommittee chair
would also be the chair of the Ethics Committee.
Conner Thomas moved that Joyce Anderson chair the Senate
Subcommittee.
Chair Cook invited additional nominations.
There were no additional nominations. At Chair Cook's
direction, Jerry Anderson conducted a roll call vote for
Senate Subcommittee Chair.
Roll Call
Senator John Coghill Y
Senator Tom Begich Y
Dennis "Skip" Cook Y
Conner Thomas Y
Joyce Anderson Y
Deb Fancher Y
Lee Holmes Y
The committee elected Joyce Anderson chair of the Senate
Subcommittee by 7-0.
Chair Cook explained there would be no action on House
Subcommittee chair because the House is not yet organized.
Chair Cook invited nominations for vice chair of the Senate
Subcommittee.
Conner Thomas moved Deb Fancher for vice chair of the
Senate Subcommittee.
At Chair Cook's direction, Jerry Anderson conducted a roll
call vote for Senate Subcommittee Vice Chair.
Senator John Coghill Y
Senator Tom Begich Y
Dennis "Skip" Cook Y
Conner Thomas Y
Joyce Anderson Y
Deb Fancher Y
Lee Holmes Y
The committee elected Deb Fancher vice chair of the Senate
Subcommittee by 7-0.
Chair Cook congratulated both Joyce Anderson and Deb
Fancher and announced he would continue to chair the
meeting and Joyce Anderson would chair the next.
7. ADVISORY OPINION 19-01
Chair Cook invited Dan Wayne to present an overview of
Advisory Opinion 19-01.
With Chair Cook's agreement, Jerry Anderson explained that
the requestors of the advisory opinion had waived
confidentiality, which allows for the discussion and vote
to be held in a public session rather than in an executive
session.
Dan Wayne stated that he is a legislative counsel working
in the Legislative Legal office, a nonpartisan legal office
that advises legislators and the legislature. Legislative
Legal also participates in drafting Ethics Committee
advisory opinions. Wayne explained that he was the head
drafter of Advisory Opinion 19-01, along with considerable
help from colleagues.
Dan Wayne said there were a lot of parts and subparts to
the advisory opinion request. Wayne noted that the advisory
opinion does not have a conclusion due to what would have
been the length of the draft opinion with the conclusion.
Dan Wayne explained that most of questions asked were about
private meetings and committee meetings so he started with
the thought that most committee meetings are public
meetings.
Dan Wayne read the new language in AS 24.60.030(e)(3) on
page 3 of the opinion.
(3) except as provided in (g) of this section or while
participating in a public discussion or debate, take
or withhold official action or exert official
influence that could substantially benefit or harm the
financial interest of a person?
Dan Wayne said that if you read the exception broadly, a
committee meeting is public so it is a public discussion
and there were no limitations, but the problem is that it
could swallow the rule that was made specifically for
committee hearings. It did not make sense to interpret it
that way and so, Wayne explained, he interpreted it a
little differently in the draft.
Dan Wayne suggested he field questions from the committee
rather than going through each part separately.
Chair Cook agreed and asked committee members for
questions.
Senator Coghill asked for repetition of the section about
committee meetings because he wanted to have the actual
verbiage being discussed.
Dan Wayne reiterated that in HB 44 there are two new rules
having to do with committees. One is AS 24.60.030(e)(3), of
which Wayne re-read a part: ? except as provided in (g) of
this section or while participating in a public discussion
or debate?.
AS 24.60.030(e)(3) also cross-references AS 24.60.030(g),
which previously made no reference at all to committees.
Legislators needed only to declare a conflict when voting
on the floor. HB 44 amended that rule. Now a legislator
"shall declare a conflict of interest before voting on a
question before a committee of the legislature." The
opinion says that nevertheless, even though there is no
requirement to announce [a conflict of interest] at other
times, we [the committee] recommend the legislator declare
the conflict of interest even for the limited purpose of
discussing the matter.
Dan Wayne suggested that the committee recommend that
legislators declare the conflict because the [the purpose
of the] Ethics Act is to inspire trust in government, and
advocating in a committee hearing for a piece of
legislation in which a legislator has a conflict of
interest could be negatively perceived by the public.
The draft later refers to how the language in AS
24.60.030(g) affects the prohibition in AS 24.60.030(e)(3).
AS 24.60.030(g) declares that legislators have to declare a
conflict before voting; it does not say that legislators
with a conflict can't vote. However, legislators could not
sponsor or offer amendments to that legislation
Senator Coghill asked Dan Wayne for confirmation of his
understanding that in committee legislators can argue
legislation in which they have a conflict but not sponsor
or offer amendments to the legislation. But on the floor,
legislators have to declare and ask for excusal. Senator
Coghill also asked if legislators would be able to offer
amendments on the floor.
Dan Wayne responded that AS 24.60.030(g) says legislators
shall declare a conflict and request to be excused from
voting on a question before a house of the legislature. It
does not say that a legislator cannot offer amendments.
Sen Coghill asked when it comes to exerting influence or
action is a legislator permitted to advocate for a bill
during a meeting with other committee members, other
legislators and private people.
Dan Wayne replied that Advisory Opinion 18-05 says that if
a meeting is open to the public in accordance with AS
24.60.037, the exception in AS 24.60.030(e)(3) applies,
which allows legislators to participate in a public
discussion or debate and discuss or advocate for a bill. A
legislator may not participate in a meeting that does not
meet the open meetings guidelines in AS 24.60.037.
Senator Coghill asked if he could go into another
legislator's office and have a discussion about a bill on
which he has declared a conflict.
Dan Wayne replied that the draft Advisory Opinion says:
Like a caucus meeting, a private meeting between two or
more members of a legislative committee is not public.
Therefore, although the answer to your question may depend
on the applicable facts in each instance, generally the
answer is no; a legislator with a conflict under AS
24.60.030(e)(3) relating to a bill may not discuss or
advocate for the bill during private meetings with other
committee members.
Senator Coghill asked for confirmation that the prohibition
applies to other committee members or other legislators.
Senator Coghill that it could also be a barrier to private
meetings with individuals involved in activities in which
the legislator is also involved.
Dan Wayne affirmed Senator Coghill understanding.
Conner Thomas asked Dan Wayne to synopsize the draft
Advisory Opinion for attendees. Dan Wayne complied while
also fielding questions from the committee.
After Dan Wayne read the first question, Joyce Anderson
asked for confirmation of her understanding that a
legislator is required to declare a conflict before voting
but not necessarily before that point. Joyce Anderson added
that in another paragraph, the draft Advisory Opinion
recommends declaring earlier than that even though statute
requires declaring a conflict before voting.
Dan Wayne confirmed Joyce Anderson's understanding of that
point.
Dan Wayne read question two: During a public committee
meeting, can a legislator (with a conflict) participate in
discussion, debate the bill, advocate for the bill, and
testify on the bill. Wayne then read from the answer: Yes,
as explained in our response to question 1 above, AS
24.60.030(e)(3) allows a legislator to discuss, debate,
advocate, or testify on a matter where the legislator has a
conflict if part of "a public discussion,, or debate."
Wayne added this was also addressed in Advisory Opinion 18-
05.
Dan Wayne read question three: Can a legislator (with a
conflict) discuss or advocate for the bill during private
meetings with other committee members. Wayne said that
because it is similar to a caucus meeting, which is
private, the answer is no, and the answer is no in a
private meeting between two or more legislators.
Senator Begich proposed a hypothetical scenario: What
should legislators do when a topic arises in which they
have a conflict? Leave the room?
Dan Wayne replied he did not think the rule would
necessarily be interpreted that way.
Chair Cook suggested that in that situation at a minimum
the legislator should declare the conflict.
Dan Wayne agreed that is probably a good place to start and
whether the legislator leaves the room depends on the
circumstances.
Senator Begich stated that each of the legislators is a
content specialist in some area and he asked if legislators
would be able to offer content specific information without
advocating or opposing the legislation.
Dan Wayne said in a private meeting, the answer would be
no.
Senator Begich asked for confirmation of his understanding
that this prohibition disallows those legislators who are
citizen legislators from discussing with private
individuals items related to their job outside of the
legislature that could come before the legislature or are
already in legislation.
Dan Wayne replied that he was hearing two questions. The
rule does not prohibit a legislator from discussing an item
that might come before the legislature. It applies to items
that are before the legislature.
Senator Begich further explored whether in their
occupational capacity outside of session legislators can
have private discussions about legislative matters.
Dan Wayne repeated his understanding that Senator Begich
was referring to pending legislation where there is a
conflict of interest. Dan Wayne read sections of AS
24.60.030(e)(3):
(e) A legislator may not directly, or by authorizing
another to act on the legislator's behalf,
(3) except as provided in (g) of this section or while
participating in a public discussion or debate, take
or withhold official action or exert official
influence?
Dan Wayne explained that a legislator would not necessarily
be exerting official action or influence in the scenario
described.
?that could substantially benefit or harm the
financial interest of a person
(A) who is a member of the legislator's immediate
family;
(B) by whom the legislator or a member of the
legislator's immediate family is employed;
(C) with whom the legislator is negotiating for
employment;
(D) from whom the legislator or a member of the
legislator's immediate family has, in the
immediately preceding 12-month period, received
more than $10,000 of income.
Dan Wayne suggested that Senator Begich was referring to
(D) in his hypothetical question. Wayne said that if a
legislator is in the room with someone from whom pay is
received and that person asks about pending legislation
where the legislator has a conflict of interest or the
person asking would substantially benefit or be
substantially harmed, legislators should make a decision
about whether they should be having the conversation. If
the legislator's actions are perceived as official, then it
might be a problem but it is situation-specific.
Senator Coghill spoke about what a conflict of interest is
and noted that he appreciates the narrow category about
which Dan Wayne was speaking but AS 24.60.030(g) broadens
the category again because now it refers to any financial
interest in a: business, investment, real property, lease,
or other enterprise if the interest is substantial. Senator
Coghill added that AS 24.60.030(g) then defines
"substantial interest" greater than the effect on the
general public which is very broad and which becomes
difficult for a legislator to narrow down.
Dan Wayne agreed that AS 24.60.030(g) is broader in one
sense in that it refers to the effect "if the interest is
substantial and the effect on that interest of the action
to be voted on is greater than the effect on the general
public of the state. Wayne added that the phrase "the
effect on the general public of the state" is a big change.
It used to say, "substantial class of persons." Under the
old rule, if a legislator was a dentist and there was
dental legislation and all dentists would benefit in the
same way, the legislator would have been okay because he or
she was only a small part of the dental profession. Now, a
legislator is just a small part of the general public and
if there is dental legislation, a legislator needs to
maintain a greater distance from the legislation.
Dan Wayne continued by saying the changes from "equity or
ownership interest" to "financial interest" may not be a
big change, depending on how it is interpreted. Financial
interest is now defined in AS 24.60.990 as ownership of an
interest or an involvement in a business, including a
property ownership, or a professional or private
relationship, that is a source of income, or from which, or
as a result of which, a person has received or expects to
receive a financial benefit.
Dan Wayne repeated that the rule only requires a legislator
to declare a conflict and to ask to abstain from voting.
Other than that, a legislator can still advocate, discuss,
vote if required or allowed to by the body.
Chair Cook noted it seems the statute is broad in that it
refers to the development, drafting, consideration,
sponsorship, enactment, defeat, and so on as well as
legislation that has already been introduced rather than
coming into effect only after there is a bill.
Dan Wayne agreed with Chair Cook and explained that earlier
he had been referring to hypothetical legislation. Wayne
made a distinction between discussing hypothetical
legislation and requesting a draft of a bill that would use
legislative resources that would substantially benefit or
harm someone. If a legislator looks at requesting a draft
of a bill that would substantially benefit his or her
family but believes it is good for the state, AS
24.60.030(g) might put a damper on that action.
Senator John Coghill addressed his concern that a bill can
also cause economic harm to a legislator. Senator Coghill
advised that harm needs to be quantified as well as
benefit. Both are broad terms. Senator John Coghill asked
Dan Wayne if generally the statute would be looked at from
the lens of financial benefit rather than financial harm.
Dan Wayne read the section of statute that says, take or
withhold official action or exert official influence that
could substantially benefit or harm the financial
interestDan Wayne noted that is one thing about AS
24.60.030(e)(3) that makes it difficult every word or
couple of words is another a filter that must be applied
and key terms like "substantially benefit or harm" now have
definitions.
Senator John Coghill asked if a piece of legislation is
going to bankrupt him would he be prohibited from talking
about it.
Chair Cook addressed Senator John Coghill's question by
saying that the question posed is an issue included in the
next draft advisory opinion.
Dan Wayne said he did not know if confidentiality had been
waived with regard to that advisory opinion request.
Jerry Anderson replied that confidentiality had been waived
but the opinion is not yet available.
Senator Coghill said that is another chilling effect that
legislators will have to consider in this legislative
session.
Dan Wayne asked if it would be okay to move on to question
four. Chair Cook agreed.
Dan Wayne read: Can a legislator (with a conflict) discuss
or advocate for a bill during private meetings with other
legislators (that are not on the committee), including
legislators in the other body? Wayne said that in the draft
the answer is no. The exceptions for voting in committee or
in public discussion or debate do not apply because it is
private, not public. Wayne then read a section of the
answer that says: Therefore, based on AO 18-05 and the
facts you have provided, a legislator with a conflict under
AS 24.60.030(e)(3) relating to a bill may not discuss or
advocate for the bill during a private meeting with one or
more legislators that are not on the committee, even if
they are in the other house of the legislature.
Dan Wayne reminded the committee that when the committee
answers advisory opinion questions, it is limited to
answering questions based on the Ethics Act and based on
the facts presented. In the AO 19-01 request, not a lot of
facts were provided with each question. At the end of the
draft it says: In determining whether future conduct like
that described in the hypothetical facts violates the Act,
the committee will consider the applicable facts in each
instance. An appearance of ethical impropriety would be a
factor the committee would consider. He added that the
statement applies to all of the answers.
Dan Wayne moved on to question five: Can a legislator (with
a conflict) discuss or advocate for the bill during private
meetings with constituents, or, generally, other citizens?
The answer is no because it is a private meeting about a
bill in which a legislator has a conflict under AS
24.60.030(e)(3).
Dan Wayne then moved on to question six: Can a legislator
(with a conflict), during the public committee meeting (a)
offer amendments to the bill? Wayne read from the draft
advisory opinion: No. While the offer might occur during
public discussion and debate, it is nevertheless official
action or official influence prohibited by AS
24.60.030(e)(3). As noted above in our response to question
2, and in AS 18-05, a legislator's introduction or
sponsorship of legislation is always discretionary because
the Uniform Rules never require a legislator to introduce
or sponsor legislation, and choosing to do so in spite of a
conflict of interest would be contrary to goals of the Act
set forth in AS 24.60.010.
Dan Wayne added that this a new rule and continued:
Moreover, sponsoring an amendment or other legislation
requires taking official action or exerting official
influence beyond participating in discussion or debate or
voting [which is allowed]. It requires the legislator to
make at least one formal motion, and in most instances it
requires the legislator to request assistance from staff to
prepare the legislation.
Dan Wayne noted footnote number three, which cites previous
committee decisions AO 11-05 and AO 07-01 advising that a
legislator's introduction of a bill that could
substantially benefit the legislator's employer, would be
of special concern to the committee in connection with AS
24.60.030(e) if the bill were introduced at a time when the
legislator is negotiating terms of employment with that
employer, which was the rule.
Dan Wayne addressed question six, part b: What about voting
on amendments offered by others? Wayne said yes, because
voting is allowed.
Senator Tom Begich asked Dan Wayne to clarify if in public
it would be allowed to question another legislator if the
legislation under discussion would cause that legislator
financial harm.
Dan Wayne advised that with respect to committee meetings,
which were addressed in the question, the answer would be
yes as far as the rules are concerned. And the legislator
can respond to the question because it is part of a public
discussion or debate. But, Wayne cautioned, it depends on
whether the person wants to ask that kind of question of a
colleague.
Dan Wayne moved on to question 6, part c: Can a legislator
vote on the motion to move the bill from committee? Dan
Wayne said that the answer is yes as explained in part b,
the vote on a motion to move a bill from committee is a
vote "on a question before a committee of the legislature."
Dan Wayne moved on to question six, part d: Can [a
legislator] sign the committee report with a recommendation
do pass," "do not pass," "amend")? Dan Wayne said that
the answer is yes.
Dan Wayne addressed question six, part e: Can [a
legislator] sign the committee report "no recommendation"?
Dan Wayne said that the answer is yes because it is part of
voting.
Dan Wayne moved to question seven: According to Uniform
Rule 24, committee reports are necessary to move a bill
from committee and must be signed by a majority of the
members of the committees. When a member has a conflict,
would the member have to abstain from signing the report or
sign the report "no recommendation" in order to comply with
the law? Dan Wayne said the answer is no and read from the
draft advisory opinion: ?signing a committee report with or
without a recommendation, is part of voting on a question
before a committee of the legislature
Dan Wayne addressed question eight: Would a legislator with
a "large enough" immediate family, who received more than
$10,000 in the aggregate from the Permanent Fund Dividend
Corporation in October 2018 be prohibited from (a) taking
official action of a bill related to the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) or supplemental dividend payment? (b)
discussing or advocating for a PFD bill during private
meetings with other committee members? (c) Discussing or
advocating for a PFD bill during private meetings with
other legislators, including members of the other body? (d)
Discussing or advocating for a PFD bill during private
meetings with constituents, or, generally, other citizens?
(e) Discussing or advocating for the management or asset
allocation of the Permanent Fund investments?
Dan Wayne responded by reading the first sentence of the
draft advisory opinion answer: Regardless of whether a
member of the legislator's immediate family, or the entire
family, receive permanent fund dividends with a cumulative
value greater than $10,000, the answer to each of the
foregoing questions, ? is no. A legislator is not
prohibited from doing those things under AS
24.60.030(e)(3).
Dan Wayne continued reading the answer: In order for a
prohibition under AS 24.60.030(e)(3) to apply, the action
or influence targeted by that provision must "substantially
benefit or harm" the "financia1 interest" of a person under
subparagraphs (A) - (D) [of AS 24.60.030(e)] ? including "a
member" of the legislators immediate family. For purposes
of AS 24.60.030, "substantially benefit or harm" means "the
effect on the person's financial interest is greater than
the effect on the financial interest of the general public
of the state. A member of the general public of the state,
including a legislator, may have an immediate family large
enough to be eligible for and receive permanent fund
dividends for one benefit year with a value, when added
together, that exceeds $10,000, regardless of legislative
status. Therefore, the benefit to the legislator is no
greater than the effect on the financial interest of the
general public of the state.
Dan Wayne said that is a good example and maybe the only
one where everyone is affected the same way and continued
reading the last paragraph of the answer: Based on the
facts you have provided, the legislators interest in the
Permanent Fund, the Permanent Fund Dividend program, or a
permanent fund dividend received by the legislator or a
member of the legislator's immediate family, is not a
financial interest as defined in the Act.
Jerry Anderson asked if the Permanent Fund Corporation is a
person under the definition.
Dan Wayne responded that he did not know.
Jerry Anderson said, "Isn't the question answered under the
definition of person under AS 01.10.60.
Dan Wayne responded that it may not be part of the
legislation because the ethics committee does not interpret
areas of law other than the Ethics Act.
Jerry Anderson said that in other advisory opinions terms
from general statutory language has been used. Jerry
Anderson suggested the answer to that question may help
legislators when interpreting the statute.
Dan Wayne responded AS 24.60.030(e)(3) talks about matters
that affect persons and whether or not the entity is a
person is important in all of this but he does not think
it's necessary to consider the definition of person in
order to answer this question because it is answered
resoundingly by the fact it affects everyone the same way.
Senator John Coghill advised that there are public
corporations that significantly benefit individuals and it
may be better to not look too closely at that question.
Dan Wayne said that he always advises the committee not to
get into other areas of the law if it's not necessary to do
so.
Dan Wayne moved to question nine: If a bill authorizes a
supplemental payment of a Permanent Fund Dividend in an
amount that is a large percentage of the income of an
immediate family member of legislator, would that
constitute a "substantial benefit" to that family member?
Wayne said the answer is no and added that the answer in
the draft advisory opinion includes a reference to question
eight in which it explains that everyone is treated the
same under the PFD program.
Dan Wayne went on to read the question and answer to
question nine, part a: If yes, would a legislator be
prohibited from taking official action on that bill?
Because the answer to question 9 is "no", the response to
question (9)(a) is necessary.
Dan Wayne moved on to question nine, part b: What qualifies
as a substantial benefit? Dan Wayne read the answer: That
term is not defined in the Act. Dan Wayne added that the
term "substantial benefit or harm is defined.
Dan Wayne reviewed the conclusion. Wayne mentioned that he
included the language relating to the Ethics Act
foundational principles in AS 24.60.010, which was cited in
the last advisory opinion and dealt with similar issues.
That section advises legislators in situations where he or
she is uncertain whether to declare a conflict, public
perception is relevant.
Joyce Anderson recommended a few language changes for
consistency in the draft advisory opinion. Dan Wayne and
the committee reviewed Joyce Anderson's recommended
language changes and others that had been discussed earlier
in the discussion.
Chair Cook asked if the committee were ready to act on the
draft advisory opinion.
Conner Thomas moved to adopt draft Advisory Opinion 19-01
as amended during discussion.
Chair Cook asked for further discussion. No further
discussion.
Chair Cook directed Jerry Anderson to read the summary and
conduct a roll call vote.
Jerry Anderson read the summary: Formal Advisory Opinion AO
19-01 advises whether specific actions including to take or
withhold official action or exert official influence and
declaring a conflict and voting are proper under AS
24.60.030(e) and (g) in specified situations. Roll Call
Vote to concur or not concur with the draft opinion. A vote
of YES will be a vote to concur with the draft opinion. A
vote of NO will be to not concur with the draft opinion.
Jerry Anderson conducted a roll call vote whether to concur
with draft Advisory Opinion 19-01 as amended.
Roll Call
Conner Thomas Y
Joyce Anderson Y
Deb Fancher Y
Lee Holmes Y
Senator John Coghill Y
Senator Tom Begich Y
Dennis "Skip" Cook Y
The committee concurred with draft Advisory Opinion 19-01
by a vote of 7-0.
Following the roll call vote, the committee and Dan Wayne
reviewed again the language changes agreed to during the
discussion.
The committee recessed.
8. CHAIR/STAFF REPORT
9.
Chair Cook called the meeting back to order and directed
Jerry Anderson to present the staff report.
Jerry Anderson began his report by thanking Chair Cook and
Conner Thomas for each serving over 20 years as a member of
the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Jerry Anderson informed the committee he would be
requesting the new chair approve a credit card for Jacqui
Yeagle with a $1,000 credit limit and to approve an
increase in his credit limit to $2,000.
Jerry Anderson brought to the committee's awareness that a
number of legislative employees have accepted tickets to
unsanctioned events. Legislative employees may accept
tickets to unsanctioned events but the value of those
tickets is limited to less than $250 in a calendar year
from an individual source. In the event a legislative
employee accepts a ticket valued at $250 or more, rather
than initiating a complaint, the employee is asked to pay
back the price of the ticket. Jerry Anderson added that
those individual cases are not necessarily reflected in the
management log. Jerry Anderson also added that he is
emphasizing in training that employees be aware of the
situation.
Jerry Anderson directed the committee to the management log
in the packet. Jerry Anderson explained that the management
log is a tool used to track informal advice provided and
said routine requests are not included in the report. Jerry
Anderson asked for and answered questions from the
committee about the management log.
Senator Tom Begich identified himself as one of the
recipients of informal advice included in the management
log: May a legislator post a notice on social media for a
candidate forum which has all candidates running for an
office? Senator Begich explained that he had called and
talked to Jerry Anderson and Jerry had advised that Senator
Begich not post the information on his state page. Senator
Begich said that he had followed Jerry Anderson's advice
but emphasized that part of his role as a senator is to
inform constituents of events and he specifically asked
about this event because every single candidate running for
office was invited and it was not a partisan event.
Senator Begich asked for enlightenment from the committee
regarding this particular instance. Committee members and
discussion took place. After other committee members asked
clarifying questions of Senator Begich, Lee Holmes
responded that he would not look at a forum for all
candidates as an ethical issue as long Senator Begich had
not been participating as a candidate.
Joyce Anderson said that she agreed with Lee Holmes.
Chair Cook suggested adding the word "nonpartisan" to the
advertising might also be helpful.
Conner Thomas asked Jerry Anderson what his thoughts were
with regard to the question.
Jerry Anderson explained he looked at the language in AS
24.60.030(a)(5) where it says: "for the purpose of
political fund raising or campaigning," and concluded the
forum could have been a potential violation of the Ethics
Act.
Conner Thomas said that he could see why Jerry Anderson
interpreted Senator Begich's question the way that he had
because regardless of whether it was partisan or
nonpartisan, it was campaigning and that is the focus of AS
24.60.030(a)(5).
Senator John Coghill added that just because a group is
nonpartisan does not mean they are not an advocacy group.
Senator Coghill also advised there is a difference between
an invitation and an announcement. Senator Coghill
suggested the nuances are important to distinguish.
Chair Cook asked the committee what action they wished to
take on the matter.
Senator Begich said that he would submit a request for a
formal advisory opinion.
Jerry Anderson referred to the letter from the Chief
Justice Joel Bolger to Senate President Cathy Giessel and
the House Speaker naming Conner Thomas to another term as
member of the Ethics Committee. Confirmation by the
legislature will commence when both bodies are organized.
Jerry Anderson reported that an alternate public member is
still needed and asked the members to refer anyone
interested to the Chief Justice for consideration.
Lee Holmes asked how the committee stands in terms of
restrictions in the number of members from each political
party.
Jerry Anderson responded that at this time, a number of the
members are registered nonpartisan and so a potential
alternate member could come from either party.
Joyce Anderson added that in the past there had been an
attempt to have members from geographically diverse areas
of the state.
Jerry Anderson reviewed the yearly data provided in the
packet, noting specifically that the number of board
membership disclosures increased over time reflecting what
he believes to be a result of the greater emphasis in
ethics training about the broad definition of board
membership. Jerry Anderson also reminded committee members
that annual disclosures are due this year on February 14,
2019, and that date will be publicized in the newsletter to
be issued the first week of February.
Jerry Anderson reviewed the sections from the COGEL report
referring to the ethics committee activities in 2018.
Anderson reported that information sharing is really the
value of COGEL. For instance, in conversation with other
COGEL attendees, he learned that some entities have
searchable databases and he is working with IT to make the
committee's informal advice searchable.
Conner Thomas said the plenary sessions are excellent,
bringing in people from all over the country. Deb Fancher
reported she attended a lot sessions about sexual
harassment. Fancher noted that the term "sexual harassment"
is an outdated term and instead the emphasis is on
creating a culture of respect. Fancher agreed with Conner
Thomas that the plenary sessions were fantastic. Chair Cook
also agreed it was a good conference. Chair Cook noted he
is fascinated by the nature of the issues in which other
attendees are involved and the number of staff required to
handle the issues. Chair Cook said next year's conference
will be in Chicago.
Jerry Anderson stated that the only unpaid fine is that of
former Representative Alan Dick's and he is making payments
Jerry Anderson referenced new publications, the 2018
Advisory Opinions, 2018 Public Decisions, and the Standards
of Conduct Handbook. All publications are available to
members and are being distributed as applicable to
legislative offices and employees. Updated statutes are not
included because they were not available at the time of
publishing but will be distributed at a later time and will
be online as well.
10. 2019 ETHICS TRAINING
Jerry Anderson updated the committee on 2019 ethics
training activities. All legislators, legislative staff,
legislative employees, and public members of the Ethics
Committee are required to take training this year. Anderson
reported that gifts and the gift exceptions rules are
emphasized in training.
To date, 447 individuals have been trained over seven
sessions. At least 31 individuals have not taken training
yet. Additional trainings are planned.
The Human Rights Commission is presenting a one-and-a-half-
hour training during refresher training, leaving only one
hour and twenty minutes for regular topics in the refresher
ethics training, a total of three hours. New employees
attended two three-hour sessions for a total of six hours
for both Human Rights Commission training and ethics
training. A special training for new legislators was held
in December.
Senator John Coghill added that new employees are
anticipated after the House organizes. Jerry Anderson
responded that the new employee training was recorded and
it will be available as a training mechanism after live-
trainings are complete.
Senator Tom Begich asked if individuals who have not
attended training will be notified. Jerry Anderson
responded that notification would be sent to noncompliant
legislative employees and to the rules chair.
Joyce Anderson asked how many new legislators attended the
December training. Jerry Anderson responded that 11 new
legislators had attended and reported there were lots of
good questions.
Jerry Anderson reported that gifts and gifts exceptions
rules are emphasized in training. Joyce Anderson suggested
a couple of changes to the gift rules handout to which
Jerry Anderson agreed.
11. BUDGET
Jerry Anderson directed the committee to the budget
documents, which include the FY19 budget summary and the
FY20 budget request.
12. CONTRACT REPORT
Jerry Anderson directed the committee's attention to the
contracts approved by the committee at the November 1, 2018
meeting for Brent Cole and Monique Rapuzzi. No money has
been spent for Monique Rapuzzi. Some money has been spent
for Brent Cole on the Representative Eastman matter
(Complaint H 17-03). Jerry Anderson suggested amending the
Brent Cole contract to $5,000.
Chair Cook entertained a motion to increase the amount in
the Brent Cole contract.
Deb Fancher moved to amend the contract.
Conner Thomas asked if $5,000 would be enough. Jerry
Anderson responded affirmatively.
At Chair Cook's direction, Jerry Anderson conducted a roll
call vote.
Joyce Anderson Y
Deb Fancher Y
Lee Holmes Y
Senator John Coghill Y
Dennis "Skip" Cook Y
Conner Thomas Y
Senator Tom Begich Y
The motion passed 7-0 authorizing an increase of the Brent
Cole contract to $5,000.
13. 2019 LEGISLATION UPDATE
Jerry Anderson reported he was unaware of any legislation
the committee needed to review.
Senator John Coghill reported that discrete changes to HB
44 are being drafted.
Joyce Anderson asked Senator Coghill if the changes were
related to the conflict of interest issues or other issues.
Senator John Coghill reported the changes are related to AS
24.60.030(e) and AS 24.60.030(g).
Senator Tom Begich added they hope to keep it to only those
sections.
14. OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Cook stated that the only other business is the date
of the next meeting. Chair Cook reported he had asked Dan
Wayne when draft Advisory Opinion 19-02 might be ready and
Dan Wayne was uncertain. Chair Cook recommended waiting to
schedule a meeting and asked Joyce Anderson her opinion.
Joyce Anderson agreed.
15. ADJOURN
Chair Cook entertained a motion to adjourn.
Conner Thomas made a motion to adjourn.
No objections.
The meeting adjourned at 11:19 AM.
11:19:49 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FullPacketBASIS.pdf |
JETH 1/31/2019 8:30:00 AM |
|
| AO 19-01.pdf |
JETH 1/31/2019 8:30:00 AM |