HB 170-MISUSE OF PUB. OFFICER OFFICIAL POSITION  1:03:48 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 170, "An Act relating to the misuse of an official position." 1:04:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, presented HB 170. He shared the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: There's an old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Like our existing ethics laws, House Bill 170 is all about prevention. It is intended to prevent any public official who might be tempted to personally use their position or influence to punish or put pressure on a person or business not to do so. This addition to the existing ethics statutes expressly prohibits such punitive action by a public official and makes it punishable under existing ethic act provisions. Providing this protection will increase public confidence knowing it is unlawful for public officials to use their authority for personal reasons. 1:05:08 PM DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor, further contextualized the proposed legislation. He stated, "When a person who has the ability to regulate or put into effect policy, goes beyond what the public purpose for doing that is, persons and businesses can be severely damaged." The purpose of the bill, he explained, was to protect people from their government, adding that it was the first legislation in the country to enact legal restraints to prevent a policy person from taking punitive action against a person for reasons other than appropriating state business. He noted that the bill language was an extension of the Ethics Act. Penalties for violating the law range from a $5,000 fine to a misdemeanor. CHAIR VANCE sought questions from committee members. 1:08:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked for the definition of "justifiable public purpose." MR. STANCLIFF, referencing page 2, lines 15-16, defined the phrase as a purpose related to the best interests of the state. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked for an example of a case in which this law would be used. REPRESENTATIVE CRONK recounted a scenario in which a government official misled a constituent, resulting in the constituent's inability to finance a piece of equipment for his business. 1:11:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that should the bill pass, it would no longer be legal to send misleading, misinformed information as a department official. MR. STANCLIFF said the bill would allow a guilty person to be held responsible and charged with a fine or a misdemeanor. From the constituent's perspective, he said, the letter from the state official was retaliatory behavior for opposing a piece of legislation that the division was advocating for. 1:14:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked, in terms of "justifiable public purpose," whether flipping a coin or consulting a magic eight ball on a decision would be considered unethical or whether malign intent was necessary. MR. STANCLIFF responded that the evidence would need to be more substantial. REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether proof of [malintent] was required for criminal prosecution or whether inconsistent decisions would suffice. MR. STANCLIFF shared his understanding that "the weight would be pretty heavy" to bring forth a misdemeanor conviction. He added that intent was factor. 1:17:32 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 1:18:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked for the legal definition of "misleading." REPRESENTATIVE CRONK did not know the answer. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD requested the definition of "public officer." In addition, she posed a scenario in which an elected official consistently recuses himself/herself from votes due to a conflict of interest. The elected official sits on a nonprofit "body" that distributes funds into the individual's nonprofit from which his/her salary is drawn. She asked whether the bill would cover that scenario. MR. STANCLIFF said, "It very well could." He explained that the bill would come into play when a public official misuses his/her power. REPRESENTATIVE GROH emphasized the need for legal advice. He referenced the definition of "justifiable public purpose" and asked Mr. Klein to address the question of intent and termination of evidence. 1:24:00 PM NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), said he did not understand the question in the context of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GROH summarized the scenario that inspired the bill. 1:25:16 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 1:26:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern that the bill sponsor was being impugned. CHAIR VANCE asked the bill sponsor to clarify the scenario that inspired the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CRONK restated the scenario as follows: A person was asking for something that he previously had gotten through the state and a person that works for the state figured out a way around and denied him that. And through that process, we realize that there ... was a lot of false statements for the denial. And we feel justified in bringing this bill forward because that person felt that because he opposed some prior legislation that this was punishment for him being very vocal against it. 1:28:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked Mr. Klein to describe the role of intent in the proposed legislation and how it would be determined. 1:29:05 PM MR. KLEIN stated that the prohibition in the proposed legislation did not speak to a specific mental state or intent of the public official. Instead, it was a prohibition on doing something that does not meet the standard of a "justifiable public purpose," as defined in the act. CHAIR VANCE asked whether the bill would allow a citizen to take action against a state-employed plow for what's perceived to be a punitive act of piling large amounts of snow in his/her driveway unless a "justifiable public purpose" was displayed. MR. STANCLIFF said he had a list of complaints involving questionable decisions that were much more serious than snow in a yard. He reiterated that the bill would expand upon the existing Ethics Act. 1:34:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER shared his understanding that the bill would create a "strict liability crime" and asked whether that was the intent. MR. KLEIN said the bill would be making, in addition to the Ethics Act, a paragraph that would be interpreted by the attorney general and the personnel board. Although there was no express intent or mental state requirement, the lack of a "justifiable public purpose" would need to be determined by the executive branch. 1:36:38 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 170 would be held over.