SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES  2:35:22 PM CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31 "An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under the Legislative Ethics Act." [CSSB 31(STA) was before the committee. SB 31 was previously heard on May 10, 2021, February 2, 2022, and February 11, 2022. Public testimony was opened and closed on February 2, 2022.] CHAIR HOLLAND asked the sponsor to provide a brief synopsis. 2:35:56 PM SENATOR SHOWER explained that SB 31 would prohibit binding caucuses. Under the bill, a legislator cannot bind another legislator or threaten them with punitive action for not voting in a certain way. SENATOR SHOWER read AS 11.41.530(a) A person commits the crime of coercion if the person compels another to engage in conduct from which there is a legal right to abstain or abstain from conduct in which there is a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in the person who is compelled a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the person who makes the demand or another may... (4) take or withhold action as a public servant or cause a public servant to take or withhold action; SENATOR SHOWER stated that this language is crystal clear. He related his own experiences with binding caucuses. He recalled Senator Kiehl's earlier question and clarified that there was no intent for SB 31 to apply to legislators holding discussions on their bills. 2:39:08 PM CHAIR HOLLAND explained that the sponsor's stated intent is to prevent a situation in which a legislator is obligated to vote for or against a motion under threat of losing staff, funding, chairmanships, committee assignments, or support for personal legislation. He asked whether the bill would meet that intent. 2:39:26 PM NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, answered that the bill as drafted could meet that intent. The bill would prohibit certain conduct and place it in the Legislative Ethics Act. If someone complained about that kind of conduct, and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics found a legislator was binding another legislator through threats, the committee could find an ethics violation. 2:39:56 PM CHAIR HOLLAND related that Senator Hughes wondered who would determine whether someone was guilty of an ethics violation under a binding caucus. She asked if it would be the majority leadership, an individual negotiating on behalf of the majority, members of the majority caucus in general, or individual legislator or "bindee." 2:40:26 PM MR. KLEIN responded that it would depend on how the complaint is received and what the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would consider. He related his understanding that generally, the committee would review a single legislator's conduct. The committee could find majority leadership, the leadership of any caucus, a member joining a caucus, or the "bindee" in violation of the Ethics Act. It would further depend on whether they were committing or being bound to commit under the Ethics Act. 2:41:15 PM SENATOR SHOWER replied that the response made sense. Initially, he was told that nothing prevented binding caucuses. Thus, the goal of SB 31 was to put something in statute, so an individual could be held responsible and the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics could take action. 2:42:31 PM CHAIR HOLLAND suggested replacing the language on page 1, line 9, "a bill, appointment, veto, or other measure" with "a procedural vote or budget bill." 2:42:51 PM SENATOR MYERS asked for a synopsis of the consequences of an ethics violation. MR. KLEIN responded that AS 24.60.178(b) provides a list of potential sanctions. He offered to read the list or provide a general synopsis. 2:43:32 PM CHAIR HOLLAND suggested he provide a general synopsis. MR. KLEIN stated that AS 24.60.178 (b)(1) would impose a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each offense, and AS 24.60.178(b)(1) would provide for any other appropriate measure. He opined that the most severe penalty would be expulsion from the legislature. He explained that a committee would recommend the sanction, such as the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the recommendation would go to the Senate president. He said any sanction would require a majority vote of the house or senate except for expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote. 2:44:21 PM CHAIR HOLLAND recalled Senator Kiehl's question was whether the bill could be interpreted to mean that minority members must have the same resources as majority members. He asked Senator Kiehl to restate his question. 2:44:37 PM SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding from the sponsor's stated intent and Mr. Klein's answers that it would violate the ethics law if someone said if you don't join a caucus, the member will get the standard allocation of two staff and 36 range points. In contrast, the majority offices receive three staff and 57 range points. 2:45:30 PM SENATOR SHOWER remarked that he had discussed with Senator Kiehl that the current staff level determinations were not necessarily right. He stated that the intent specifically was to require a legislator to vote a certain way or withhold something from them for not voting with the caucus. He recalled that the coercion statute under AS 11.41.530(a)(4) makes it is a crime for a citizen to legally cause a public servant to take or withhold action. He related that binding caucuses require their members to vote on the budget or procedural votes and nothing can be done about it. He opined that no one should be able to require someone to vote a certain way. 2:46:47 PM SENATOR HUGHES recalled that when Mr. Klein outlined the process for ethics violations, he said it required the legislature to vote on any sanction. She asked if the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics could impose the sanctions, or if it requires a majority vote by the legislature. She asked for examples of other sanctions the ethics committee could impose. She further recalled that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics might impose a sanction requiring the legislator write a letter of apology, or it might decide to remove the legislator from serving on a committee. 2:48:08 PM MR. KLEIN paraphrased the list of ethics sanctions under AS 25.60.178. (1) imposition of a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each offense or twice the amount improperly gained, whichever is greater; (2) divestiture of specified assets or withdrawal from specified associations; (3) additional, detailed disclosure, either as a public disclosure or as a confidential disclosure to the committee; (4) in the case of a legislative employee, suspension of employment with or without pay for a stated period of time or until stated conditions are met, or termination from legislative employment; 2:48:26 PM (5) restitution of property or reimbursement of improperly received benefits; (6) public or private written reprimand; (7) censure, including, in the case of a legislator, removal from a leadership position or committee membership and a determination that the legislator will not be appointed to serve in a leadership position or on a committee during the remainder of that legislature; (8) placing the person on probationary status; (9) in the case of a legislator, expulsion from the house of the legislature; (10) any other appropriate measure. 2:48:47 PM MR. KLEIN added that sanctions must be voted on by the majority of the house or the senate. 2:49:07 PM SENATOR SHOWER related several scenarios that illustrated a legislator was being punished for their speech or vote. He asked if those examples would constitute coercive elements. 2:50:03 PM MR. KLEIN answered that if SB 31 were to pass, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics would decide how it would apply. He stated that he was unsure he had any opinion on whether any specifically described conduct would be considered binding another legislator and constitute a violation of the Ethics Act. Regarding whether threats of punishment were coercive, he thought that using the commonly understood meaning of coercive could include threatening action against someone since it could make a person feel a certain way. However, it would depend on the specific facts of the complaint and the ethics investigation. 2:51:04 PM SENATOR MYERS said he was grappling with drawing a fine line between organizing and coercing. He related a scenario to illustrate his point. He said donating to a legislative candidate because the constituent likes the legislator's stance on an issue is legal and ethical. However, giving a candidate a donation to vote a certain way would likely be considered bribery. He suggested if a caucus agreed with a legislator and offered the person an opportunity to chair a committee and join the majority, or a caucus determined the legislator did not share the caucus goals and denied them membership, or leadership taking punitive action and pulling the chairmanship seemed to create a fine line. He was unsure how the committee could address it. He wondered if it would be left to the ethics committee to decide. He said he agreed with the intent of the bill. 2:53:26 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked to revisit an issue. She recalled Mr. Klein said sanctions must go to the floor for a vote. However, she offered her view that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics could impose requirements or ask a member to write an apology. 2:54:32 PM MR. KLEIN offered to further research this and report to the committee on whether the house and senate must vote on sanctions or if the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics can impose some sanctions. 2:55:09 PM CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.