Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/23/2002 01:35 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
January 23, 2002
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chair
Senator Dave Donley, Vice Chair
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gene Therriault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearing - Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
H. Conner Thomas
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Bonnie L. Mehner
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Arthur S. Robinson
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
H. Conner Thomas
P.O. Box 865
Nome, AK 99762
Bonnie L. Mehner
3201 C Street #200
Anchorage, AK 99503
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-01, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Senate Judiciary Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Members present were Senator
Donley, Senator Cowdery, Senator Ellis and Chairman Taylor. The
order of business was Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Confirmation Hearings.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced the first order of business would be
the confirmation hearing of H. Conner Thomas on his appointment
to the Ethics Committee. He thanked Mr. Conner on behalf of the
committee for volunteering to serve. He asked him to give the
committee a brief resume or comments important in evaluating his
appointment.
MR. H. CONNER THOMAS, Alaska Legislative Ethics Committee member,
testifying via teleconference, said he had served on the
Legislative Ethics Committee for one term. He had learned what
his role was and the usefulness of the Ethics Committee. He is
an attorney and has been practicing law in Nome since 1978,
starting with Alaska Legal Services and the Public Defenders
Office and he has been the Magistrate. In 1986 he went into
private practice in a small general practice firm.
He found work on the Ethics Committee interesting and he felt it
was a public service. He found the time commitment was not so
great that it interfered with practicing law.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked him for his service over the last year.
He asked if there were questions from the committee members. He
asked Mr. Thomas if this committee had previously confirmed him.
MR. THOMAS answered yes, for the first service.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if he had reviewed some of the changes in
the ethics law that passed with SB 103 (Election Campaigns and
Legislative Ethics).
MR. THOMAS answered that he was aware of the changes but had not
reviewed them in depth.
SENATOR DONLEY said there were a couple of changes that seemed
specifically directed at decisions of the Ethics Committee. The
Ethics Committee might have felt constrained by the way the
statute was written causing them to do something with which they
might not have even agreed with.
He gave an example of an ethics opinion that said it would be
improper to use state resources to ship computers that
legislators had bought with their own resources but were using in
their office for state business. That was one of the provisions
in SB 103 that was directly overturned. He didn't understand
that decision because for a long time it was very hard to get
equipment out of the leadership in the legislature. Legislators
would buy equipment with their own funds or campaign funds. The
opinion that it wasn't appropriate for the state to pay to bring
those computers down so people could use them for state business
did not make sense to him. He said the Ethics Committee got a
little carried away. He thought maybe they felt constrained by
the way the specific statute was written but the result didn't
seem to make common sense. He hoped some of those problems had
been fixed in SB 103.
MR. THOMAS didn't think he could comment on that particular
opinion because he was not a part of that group at the time that
particular decision was rendered. He said, based on his
experience on the committee, people do spend quite a bit of time
looking at the real impact of what the decision is going to be.
They are constrained to a large extent by the language in the
statute and it may be that was the reasoning of the committee
that it did not fit with the language. He said even though
something may have a common sense outcome if it is contrary to
the clear statutory language then he did not think the committee
had a lot of choice. Hopefully it comes back to where it has in
this case, for the Legislature to make the decision about whether
it should be modified. He understood that any individual given
set of facts might result in an odd result at times.
SENATOR DONLEY said one of the big challenges of ethics laws is
to craft them in such a way that it applies reasonably to the
vast majority of circumstances.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that Mr. Thomas was constrained, just as
Senator Donley, himself and any lawyer that serves in public
office, to reveal in your APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission)
disclosure:
· A list of all clients from whom you receive more than $1000.
· To provide a separate listing of any client on whose behalf
you may have contacted a state agency.
· To list what that agency is.
He asked Mr. Thomas to give his opinion as to the inherent
conflict that exists between the legal canons of ethics that
lawyers are sworn to uphold and carry out, and the requirements
of that disclosure.
MR. THOMAS answered that he felt the problem a lot of people have
with that is when someone comes into your office they expect you
to keep the matter confidential unless you end up in court. A
lot of situations they deal with don't go to court. Some people
are unhappy with the fact that their names appear in a list as
having consulted with an attorney. That is a conflict as he sees
it and understands some people have a very strong feeling that
they shouldn't have to disclose that and in fact refuse to serve
on this committee or others as a result of that. That is the
conflict. He said he had given it quite a bit of thought and
thinks it is appropriate because of the possibility of a
significant financial connection that may influence a decision
one way or the other. He said he definitely understood the
conflict.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he wasn't arguing whether or not it was
appropriate. He shared the concerns about misuse of office by
those who might fail to disclose such a conflict. He asked if he
also report the clients of his associates within the firm.
MR. THOMAS said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR recounted a personal situation where for some
years he maintained a law practice in Petersburg with an
associate and in Wrangell with a couple of associates. He had
submitted the required lists to APOC. A newspaper published all
those contacts between his offices and state agencies in the
newspaper with the clients' names and what agency had been
contacted. He received a phone call from a family in Petersburg
because that was how their seven-year-old daughter found out she
was adopted, by reading it in the newspaper.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said his office didn't see a new client for about
three months. His associate decided that he could not live under
that sort of a constraint and practice law meaningfully so that
office was closed. He said the conflict he was referring to was
that his associate had to have his name published, the client's
name published and the fact that he had been required by the law
to contact the Department of Health and Social Services at that
time to get confirmation that he could move forward with an
adoption.
Chairman Taylor said he raised the point because these things do
have an effect though he still believed in the appropriateness.
He explained how people in the legislature, calling themselves
consultants made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year working
for various interests. When asked by the press what they did for
those dollars they said they secured permits for them through
state agencies. He didn't think it was an appropriate action and
out of it came laws like those being discussed. It troubled him
and he was glad to hear that Mr. Thomas had thought about it too,
as it involves professionals who choose to volunteer for public
service and it has a chilling impact upon candidates. He
specified those who practice law because he thought he is the
only legislator who maintains an active practice of law. He
wanted Mr. Thomas to understand the basis and reason of his
question and appreciated his candor and the thoughtfulness of his
answer.
MR. THOMAS said initially he couldn't believe they were asking
those questions, that it wasn't appropriate or right, but after
going through the statutes he determined it was exactly what they
were asking. He said his position did change after thinking
about it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the privilege is actually a privilege that
belongs to the client. He said many firms have been faced with
each client having to sign a piece of paper as they became a
client of the firm volunteering that those matters they were
discussing with that attorney could be made public through this
process. He asked if he did that in his firm.
MR. THOMAS answered that they don't and he wouldn't release the
matters that were actually discussed. All that is released is
the name of persons who had paid his firm over $1000.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thought that if you have contact with a
state agency you had to disclose that.
MR. THOMAS said he did not have that type of practice.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he didn't think he did either, in a whole
year his firm had about five things, but attorneys do end up
making contact with state agencies at times and it was something
to think about. He said he would appreciate, in the future, Mr.
Thomas's comments and thoughts on that. He asked for any further
questions. Hearing none, he thanked Mr. Thomas for his service
and his willingness to serve in the future.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to accept H. Conner Thomas to be
appointed to the board of the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics and asked for unanimous consent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said there being no objection the letter
approving Mr. H. Conner Thomas to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics would be sent to the full Legislature for
consideration.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced Bonnie L. Mehner as the next person for
consideration. He asked Ms. Mehner to present her background for
the committee's information.
MS. MEHNER, testifying via teleconference, informed them that she
was a 40 year resident of Alaska and had been practicing real
estate in Anchorage for the past 27 years. She serves as Chair
of the Alaska Community Foundation, Trustee on Alaska Pacific
University's Board, and was appointed by Justice Fabe in May to
fill out the term of another attorney who removed himself from
the committee for many of the points discussed with Mr. Thomas.
She had attended several committee meetings and found the
discussion of ethics in detail very interesting. She did not
feel it was an overwhelming time commitment and it is something
she would be able to do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked her for her service and her willingness
to serve in the future. There were no questions for Ms. Mehner.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to accept Bonnie Mehner to be
appointed to the board of Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said there being no objection the letter
approving Bonnie L. Mehner to the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics would be sent to the full Legislature for consideration.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called for Arthur S. Robinson. He was not
available via teleconference.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced they would try to run committee
hearings three times per week but with everyone's busy schedules
it appeared that Fridays might be difficult. They would try to
do most of their work on Mondays and Wednesdays.
SENATOR ELLIS asked what sort of issues and types of legislation
did he expect to be the major focus of his committee this year.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR answered that he did not have an agenda. Some
things left over from last year are, liability immunity, which
would be coming from the House, equine immunity and some
insurance bills. He said Senator Wilken wanted them to consider
one on domestic law, whether or not couples could get legal or
binding separation as opposed to a divorce. He felt it was a
topic worth discussion and they should decide if they wanted to
move forward on that but he did not have an opinion on it. He
asked if Senator Ellis had some in mind.
SENATOR ELLIS said he had none at that time but would look at the
list.
SENATOR COWDERY said he was looking at some legislation on DWI
issues and mandatory insurance issues.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said they still had one DWI bill on forfeiture of
license. He thought the Governor and Senator Ward had each
introduced one.
SENATOR COWDERY said he had been talking to Anchorage Police
Officers. He explained that currently if someone is pulled over
and suspected of DWI and if they refuse the Breathalyzer it is
sort of an admission. However the paperwork involved for the
officer takes about 4 hours during which he is off the street.
This is required to make sure it holds. Senator Cowdery said he
was researching other states to see how they do it. He wants
officers spending more time on the streets and less time doing
the paperwork, which is often overtime.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said when he was a judge when someone walked
through the door with the complaint and all the police paperwork
was already done it took a minimum of 37 different pages just to
process them through the court system. He thought it was
overwhelming and there should have been an easier way but much of
it is due to how they drew the regulations and set up the
administrative procedures.
SENATOR COWDERY said he had some patrol officers contact him and
was working with them to see how other states have done things
that sped up the process and put the police back on the street.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 1:58
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|