HB 201-DEFENSE OF PUB. OFFICER: ETHICS COMPLAINT  1:31:53 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 201, "An Act relating to legal representation of public officers in ethics complaints." 1:32:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX as prime sponsor of HB 201, stated that a committee substitute (CS) was available that would help to cut down on some "excess verbiage" that was present in HB 201. She explained that the proposed CS would make it clear that the attorney general may not represent the governor, lieutenant governor, or any other public official in an ethics violation complaint. She expressed that this would leave the regulations formed 10 years ago in place, and the status quo would continue as it has for the past 10 years. CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the proposed legislation would apply to the attorney general. 1:33:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she thinks the language "another public officer or former public officer" would include the attorney general. She remarked that Dan Wayne from the Legislative Legal Services could speak more to that topic. 1:34:24 PM DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, remarked that Representative LeDoux was correct; the attorney general was encompassed by the term "public officer." 1:34:45 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there were no further questions, asked for a motion to adopt the CS as the working document before the committee. 1:34:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 201, Version 31-LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20, as a work draft. 1:35:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to the motion. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he would like to know whether the changes to the proposed legislation meant that the committee would be moving away from conversations pertaining to reimbursements, and whether these changes should affect the legislative branch in addition to the executive branch. He expressed that he found those conversations to be rather interesting and fruitful in the past two hearings. 1:35:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that that is the direction the proposed legislation was going to take. She said she wanted to make the proposed legislation "nice and simple, and this CS accomplishes that." 1:36:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained the objection. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reiterated the point that he thinks those conversations were both interesting and fruitful, and he hopes that a way to continue them can be found. He stated that he could not see a better vehicle for discussing those points than HB 201. 1:36:32 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Drummond, Stutes, LeDoux, and Claman voted in favor of the motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 201, Version 31- LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20, as a work draft. Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Version S was adopted as a work draft by a vote of 5-1. 1:37:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that there might be a potential conflict between existing legislation under Title 23, which he said spells out that the attorney general is the legal advisor of the governor, and the legislation proposed under CSHB 201, which would make it so the attorney general cannot advise the governor on certain things. 1:37:59 PM MR. WAYNE responded that the constitutional requirement is to represent the office of the governor in an official capacity, not in a personal capacity as in the defense of an ethics complaint. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that he was trying to find a way that the proposed legislation could be misused, and he asked whether it would be possible for someone to file a complaint against the governor whenever he/she wanted to deprive the governor of advisement from the attorney general or whether there would be firewalls in place to prevent this. MR. WAYNE replied that the proposed legislation only deals with complaints filed under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, and any other situation involving litigation, disagreements about the law, or the limits of the governor's authority would not be covered under CSHB 201. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled a situation from the previous year, in which the governor was sending out social media regarding the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), and he asked whether a complaint filed against the governor for something related to that would "trigger" the Executive Branch Ethics Act and prohibit the attorney general from offering legal advice to the governor. MR. WAYNE replied that he could think of two ways that the term "trigger" might be relevant to the [Executive] Branch Ethics Act: First, when an officer is elected to public office the Act is triggered and the elected official is responsible for following it. Second, misuse of government resources by a public official, for political or personal purposes, might constitute a violation of the Act and someone could file a complaint. He remarked that if no complaint was filed, as in the hypothetical situation Representative Eastman had referenced, then the legislation proposed under CSHB 201 would probably not be applicable because it only applies to complaints filed under the Executive Branch Ethics Act. He pointed out that page 1, lines 7-8, of Version S state that specifically. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how difficult, time consuming, and costly it is for someone to file a complaint against the governor. He remarked that he could see how a situation may arise in which the governor has not acted improperly but someone might not want the governor to be able to work with the attorney general on a certain policy issue and might file a complaint to prevent them from working together. MR. WAYNE answered that his recollection of the complaint provisions of the Executive Branch Ethics Act is that there is no cost to file a complaint, and it may be relatively easy for a complaint to be filed; however, it is difficult for a complaint to pass through the various stages required to make it to a high level decision. He remarked that he has never filed a complaint and does not have first-hand experience with the process. 1:42:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it would be difficult for someone to file a complaint on a whim, and later - if it is admitted that the complaint was politically motivated and made to separate the governor and attorney general - whether there would be any penalty for that. 1:43:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that her thought on the topic is that the attorney general could not advise the governor as far as the ethics complaint goes, but he/she could advise the governor for anything else that does not pertain to that particular ethics complaint. 1:44:18 PM CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he agreed with Representative LeDoux's analysis. He said, as an example, that someone who is opposed to proposed legislation regarding electronic notarization could lobby against the proposed legislation by sending letters to the governor asking for him/her to not sign the bill, but could also file an ethics complaint against the governor saying that he/she took money from title companies in the last election and is conflicted on this topic. He said that he thinks the attorney general could still give advice to the governor on signing the bill but could not provide advice regarding the ethics complaint. 1:45:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was any penalty for filing fraudulent ethics complaints against a public official. He wondered whether there was something that could be done to rework the language in line 6 and line 7 of the proposed legislation under Version S to prevent it from being misinterpreted. 1:46:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she did not see how changing the language would be misinterpreted or needed to be made clearer. 1:46:47 PM MR. WAYNE commented that any statute or legal provision is subject to the interpretation of the individual reading it and, in this instance, it seems to him that the most likely interpretation of the proposed legislation is that it is limited to complaints which are filed. 1:47:28 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there were no further questions, discussed the committee's options for Version S. 1:49:13 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:51 p.m. 1:51:25 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that during the at-ease it was suggested that, since this was the third hearing on HB 201 in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, the bill could be moved from committee. He asked whether there was any objection to moving Version S out of committee. 1:51:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he would object to the motion. He expressed that he thinks more discussion on the proposed legislation would be fruitful. 1:52:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 201, Version 31- LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 1:52:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to the motion. 1:52:42 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Shaw, Drummond, Stutes, and Claman voted in favor of moving CSHB 201, Version 31-LS1264\S, Wayne, 2/18/20, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 201(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1.