SB 187-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS/MEETINGS    VICE-CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced SB 187 to be up for consideration. 5:13:59 PM SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Sponsor, related that when he began reviewing the Executive Ethics Act there was indication that the Legislative Ethics Act should be reviewed as well. He asserted that the same level of confidentiality should apply. The intent is to hold someone who files a complaint or is involved in the process to the same level of confidentiality as the members and staff of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. The investigators would also be brought under that umbrella of confidentiality. Current law says if a complaint is brought and then the complainant goes public, then the complaint is dismissed. However, the committee could go forward with an investigation. He submitted that if an ethics complaint is filed and the complainant immediately goes public with the allegation the committee would have no recourse but to dismiss the complaint and then go forward and investigate the allegations. He charged that that's a toothless law. 5:17:32 PM Confidentiality must be maintained until probable cause is reached. At that point the complaint could become public. If the complaint is dismissed as frivolous or baseless it remains confidential. However, if a complaint is filed and the person who is charged chooses to publicly defend him or herself then the entire record becomes public. That provision applies to both this bill and SB 186, he said. The bill also attempts to clarify that the way the legislature conducts business is the legislature's business and responsibility. Any attempt by a legislator to break the rules is taken seriously and the complaint is immediately taken to the body to determine what the procedure should be. The proceeding is in the full light of day and is discussed openly. SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked about the alternate member. SENATOR SEEKINS said having an alternate member increases the likelihood that a full committee could meet and conduct the committee's business, which includes voting. 5:30:14 PM SENATOR ELTON said he would not continue to question the matter of the class A misdemeanor, but it was still a subject of concern. He asked if it is correct that as a consequence of SB 187 he would never hear about a justified ethics complaint that was filed against his staff member provided the staff took corrective action as ordered by the ethics committee. SENATOR SEEKINS said that isn't the intent. The intent is that once there is probable cause and some action has been taken then the matter could become a public record. Confidentiality would be protected until probable cause is established. If the bill doesn't read that way now it will before it gets to the floor, he assured. SENATOR ELTON expressed concern about the proposed change to allow an alternate member to vote without having attended all the hearings on the issue. He compared the situation to someone who didn't attend an entire trial, but was allowed to vote as a part of the jury. He asked if the sponsor had considered other ways such as requiring that the alternate hear all the arguments before voting. SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that there is no such restriction on the regular members. SENATOR ELTON replied perhaps that needs corrective action. SENATOR SEEKINS said he had no problem looking at the issue, but he wouldn't saddle an alternate with a higher requirement than is imposed on the regular members. 5:34:21 PM SENATOR HUGGINS asked whether page 2, line 13-15 is to increase diversity in the ethics committee. SENATOR SEEKINS said yes. SENATOR HUGGINS offered the view that it's a good idea because others have recognized that it's a rather select group of people with a narrow band of interest. SENATOR SEEKINS submitted that occurred with no evil intent. The nominees come from the chief justice so it's no surprise that three are attorneys and one is the wife of a noted justice. SENATOR ELTON remarked it is understandable, but it doesn't speak to the qualifications of those who are selected. Referencing the prohibitions relating to employment, he asked whether people who might have a contract with the state would be prohibited from being on the ethics committee. For instance would a substitute teacher be excluded? SENATOR SEEKINS replied a substitute teacher would qualify, but not someone with a contract. SENATOR ELTON remarked it seems constraining to draw a bright line. It may be preferable to have the chief justice forward the names without restriction and then the legislature could exercise its judgment based on the individual's background. SENATOR SEEKINS said there are already restrictions. It's common sense to say you have to look at diversity. Of the three attorneys that are currently on the committee, two have contracts with the state for Office of Public Advocacy. He'd like to see geographic and employment diversity and he has no problem reserving a slot, but he's nervous when you suggest more. SENATOR HUGGINS referenced a previous discussion about his potato farmer from Palmer having little opportunity to serve on the ethics committee unless he knew the chief justice. If this gives him a better opportunity then I'm all for it, he said. He asked whether it does that. SENATOR SEEKINS said that's the intent and the farmer has a better chance under this structure than the current structure. SENATOR ELTON said he'd challenge the notion that the only people who get appointed know the chief justice, but that aside this doesn't get to that issue. This would just narrow the band of friends from which the chief justice could appoint. 5:43:30 PM Senator Therriault rejoined the meeting. SENATOR SEEKINS asserted that this is intended to broaden the perspective. 5:45:02 PM VICE-CHAIR WAGONER gave Chair Therriault an update and returned the gavel. CHAIR THERRIAUT asked Ms. Anderson to come forward. JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, stated that the committee had not reviewed the bill since it was just introduced. She could state support for issues that the committee had addressed in the past and she'd comment on those sections first. The committee supports having an alternate member sit in when a regular member is unable to attend a complaint hearing because it would speed the process. If the alternate legislator or public member sits in, it would be beneficial for them to sit in throughout the complaint process. The committee has also previously discussed and would support the provision for the people who are interviewed during an ethics complaint to fall under the confidentiality provision of the statute. The committee has always felt that is important. She referenced advisory opinions addressed in Section 6 and said more discussions would ensue. Currently the person who requests an advisory opinion has the option to have the discussion in either an open or executive session. If confidentiality is waived, the discussion takes place in an open session. She supported the point that everyone named would have to waive confidentiality to have the discussion occur in an open session. She disagreed with Senator Seekins proposal that advisory opinions remain confidential. All advisory opinions should be public, she said; that's what they're there for. 5:50:07 PM SENATOR ELTON said he thought names were scrubbed when an advisory opinion is released. MS. ANDERSON said that is correct. SENATOR ELTON asked for verification that if this were to pass and a person who is not named refuses to waive confidentiality then that advisory opinion wouldn't be made public. MS. ANDERSON replied that's the way she interprets the bill. MS. ANDERSON directed attention to Section 1, which makes it a class A misdemeanor to discuss an ethics complaint or release information about an ethics complaint. She reported that the commission chair feels that could make the public hesitant to file a complaint. Therefore, she issued a word of caution in adopting that provision. Section 1 of the bill says a person shall be charged with a class A misdemeanor, but it doesn't say the complaint would be dismissed. Under SB 187 the complaint would go forward and the commission supports that as an option for the committee. 5:53:39 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT said under the current language if someone makes an allegation and delivers the information to the press at essentially the same time then the complaint is dismissed. The result is that the battle is fought in the press. The sponsor could say whether he crafted the bill so that there is a penalty for hunting the headline. Certainly legitimate allegations should come in and proceed through the system, but the way the system is now it lends itself to abuse. MS. ANDERSON agreed with the analysis but continued to urge caution. Senator Elton's example of discussing an issue with your spouse is a good case in point, she said. SENATOR ELTON stated that he would be the last to argue that no previous ethics complaints were spurious and it wouldn't be hard to say that some of those complaints were politically motivated. However, the new provision in Section 1 doesn't get to the root of that issue, he said. Someone could go to the press regarding an alleged ethics violation and not actually file a complaint. They wouldn't be subject to the class A misdemeanor penalty unless they filed the complaint. CHAIR THERRIAULT responded the press isn't interested in being used as a political tool. An alleged ethics violation would probably be treated differently than a pending ethics complaint. SENATOR ELTON said information is transmitted in lots of different ways. Although he'd like to say that blogs and organization newsletters and such are just as responsible as the commercial press, he isn't sure that's the case. CHAIR THERRIAULT stated that no one should be precluded from making his or her views known, but he believes that the professional press would verify information. MS. ANDERSON said information about whether there was a complaint or not is not released. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if there were further comments. MS. ANDERSON said she had comments on Sections 7 through 14, which relate to the actual complaint process. She interprets the bill to mean that not all decisions from the ethics committee would be considered public. The only decisions that would be public would be those that went to a hearing or the ones that were forwarded to either the Senate or the House after probable cause was found. The noted that the sponsor said that isn't his intent and that he would make some changes. It's been agreed that dismissal orders should not be public because that means that there wasn't probable cause. However, she said, the public should be aware when there is probable cause because it's an accountability issue. She noted that the sponsor talked about changing that part of the bill as well. The way the bill is now, the hearing would be confidential, but as she discussed with the sponsor, the hearing should continue to be public because probable cause would have been established. It's like a grand jury that has found merit and is moving to the next stage. The noted that the sponsor agreed to change that part of the bill. She reiterated the sponsor's assertion that the section on the open meeting statute was an error and would be deleted. The final section that was repealed related to public hearings. She didn't discuss that with the sponsor in detail, but she assumed that he would add it back because it deals with the fact that the hearing is public. There were no questions. 6:01:22 PM MERLE THOMPSON, Susitna Valley resident, aired the view that the Ethics Committee does a fine job, but there is a problem with the public trust. He suggested there is reason that the public feels the way it does. He announced that he doesn't care for the secrecy provisions in the bill, but the real ethics problems center on conflicts of interest and how the legislature deals with them. That's where the bright lines are needed and they aren't there. When you have a conflict of interest it'd be a simple matter of recusing yourself, but it's not happening. That's why there's a public trust problem, he declared. The right things aren't being addressed here, he said. It kind of reminds me of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago ["The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956"] and his beet top soup. "We're getting this weak ethical soup. A beet top soup for the people and the chunks of beets for the legislators and it doesn't seem right to me." 6:06:02 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT said it would seem that he would have a problem with the grand jury system because there's nothing about it that is public. MR. THOMPSON replied that isn't a direct parallel. As Aristotle said, "The office will show the man." He suggested that it would benefit legislators to feel that the public holds them to a higher standard. CHAIR THERRIAULT said the ethics committee is acting as a grand jury and the fact that there is confidentiality until a decision is made isn't a problem with the general public. MR. THOMPSON said he would beg to differ. Calling the previous ethics rule change a strike against open government, he asserted that the proposed bill takes it a step further. 6:09:31 PM SENATOR WAGONER remarked he had four or five ethics complaints filed against him two years ago and every one was false. He took issue with the idea that unfounded ethics complaints that are filed for political gain should become public. MR. THOMPSON responded he must not have been harmed by the process because he reads newspapers quite often he didn't hear anything about any of the ethics complaints. SENATOR WAGONER said they weren't founded so they weren't made public. Had there been any substantial truth the public would have probably been informed. He reiterated Senator Therriault's argument that the ethics committee operates the same way as a grand jury. Unsubstantiated claims aren't made public because to do so would besmirch the individual's reputation. MR. THOMPSON pressed the view that his reputation hadn't been damaged. CHAIR THERRIAULT made the point that the reason that Senator Wagoner wasn't damaged is because the unfounded claims were dealt with in a confidential manner. He said he didn't understand what the argument would be to change that system. MR. THOMPSON reported he didn't have any problem with how the system was working two years ago, but it was changed last year and this bill proposes to change it again. "We've had a plethora of ethical lapses from different branches of government in the last two years and I think that's what people are responding to." The changes that are being made aren't addressing the real problems, he declared. 6:12:45 PM SENATOR HUGGINS commented there should be a disincentive to file complaints with no basis. MR. THOMPSON said he didn't need to reiterate that he believes that there are ethical lapses that aren't being dealt with in a particularly good way. We seem to be taking it the other way, which is to put the accuser under more question than the accused. SENATOR ELTON directed attention to the last section, which repeals open meetings and AS 24.60.170(m). He asked the sponsor to clarify whether the suggestion is to take both repealers out or just the one. SENATOR SEEKINS replied one would be taken out because it was put in by mistake. The other would be put back in after some modification. SENATOR ELTON asked for verification that AS 24.60.037(c), which addresses the caucus and political strategy would be taken out and AS 24.60.170(m) would be tweaked. SENATOR SEEKINS replied the whole section on caucus would stay in the bill. It would be addressed in a manner that clarifies the areas of responsibility for the legislature and the committee. 6:16:10 PM There were no further questions or testimony. CHAIR THERRIAULT held SB 187 in committee. SB 187-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS/MEETINGS    CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 187 to be up for consideration.   9:19:53 PM SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, sponsor, reviewed the proposed changes. Section 2 is the same as the original version and restates a truism that exists. Section 3 specifically names the open meetings guidelines. Section 4 follows the commonsense guideline of not loading the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics with people who are involved in government. Section 5 is unchanged from the original version. CHAIR THERRIAULT moved version F as the working document. There was no objection. SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER read Section 4(c) and asked about people who are members of no political party. SENATOR SEEKINS questioned whether non-party isn't in fact a political party. That point might need to be addressed at some point, he said. SENATOR WAGONER said he didn't believe that NP [nonpartisan] is recognized as a political party in Alaska yet a lot of people are registered that way. SENATOR SEEKINS opined that as currently written all of them could technically be nonparty. SENATOR WAGONER suggested that it be addressed. SENATOR SEEKINS clarified that the change in Section 5 is to allow an alternate member to attend all committee and subcommittee meetings and hearings rather than just hearings. SENATOR ELTON raised the point that there is a bright line prohibiting Senate members from going to House subcommittee meetings and vice versa. If Section 5 were interpreted strictly, an alternate legislator could go to either. CHAIR THERRIAULT pointed out the next line says the alternate may attend to the same extent as the regular member. SENATOR SEEKINS said it was deliberately crafted so that the alternate gets no more than the regular legislative member. SENATOR ELTON agreed. SENATOR SEEKINS said Section 6 relates to requesting an opinion. It clarifies that everyone has the same opportunity to protect his or her reputation. SENATOR ELTON informed the committee that when the review was complete he would motion to strike the new language in Section 6. He noted that advisory opinions are scrubbed of identifying characteristics and they provide information that might be helpful in guiding behavior. The addition of the proposed language would constrain access to advisory opinions. 9:26:23 PM SENATOR SEEKINS disagreed. SENATOR ELTON read the proposed language and made the point that the requester could say they didn't want the advisory opinion to be released. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Anderson to come forward. 9:27:10 PM JOYCE ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, read AS 24.60.150(a)(2). SENATOR SEEKINS asserted that the proposed language in Section 6 doesn't disallow sanitized versions. CHAIR THERRIAULT reread the provision and said it's a statutory duty to the committee. MS. ANDERSON offered the opinion that the proposed language is a bit confusing if you don't read the other section. She suggested changing the language so it doesn't look as though the advisory opinion remains confidential and isn't published.   CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if making reference to AS 24.60.150(a)(2) would suffice. SENATOR SEEKINS argued that there's a difference between the sections. The proposed language says the information about the opinion is confidential while the other section talks about publishing semi-annual summaries of decisions and advisory opinions with sufficient deletions in the summaries to prevent disclosure of a person's identity. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Senator Elton if his concern would be alleviated if it was made clear that AS 24.60.150(a)(2) remained operative and that the sanitized versions are still published. SENATOR ELTON replied the language in the other section speaks only to summaries and not to opinions. It's always been the committee's practice to release a sanitized opinion not a summary of the opinion. The documents aren't one and the same. MS. ANDERSON agreed with Senator Elton; public decisions that are issued are not summarized. He's also correct that advisory opinions are sanitized of information when drafted. Summaries have never been published; it's the public decision and advisory opinion itself that is published. SENATOR SEEKINS maintained that an opinion that has been sanitized is a summary of the opinion. Nonetheless, he said he was willing to look at the issue to make sure that a sanitized version of an opinion isn't precluded. Sections 7 through 14 are to ensure that confidentiality is maintained until a finding of probable cause. A finding that only recommends corrective action shouldn't be made public. MS. ANDERSON explained that since the ethics committee was established in 1992, 57 complaints have been filed. Probable cause was found in 10 cases; a mix of probable cause and dismissed allegations was found in 6 cases; and 41 cases were dismissed entirely. When probable cause was established, corrective action was recommended. That included: writing a letter of apology to the House or Senate, developing office policy regarding use of staff time, attending training sessions, removing private business from legislative setting. Since 1992 there have been three public hearings and just one complaint has resulted in the imposition of sanctions. She said that under the proposed policy only 4 decisions would have been issued from 1992 to the present. All others would not have been issued. SENATOR SEEKINS asked if that was out of 10. MS. ANDERSON clarified that there were 16 decisions issued. Decisions were also issued for those that didn't have probable cause because current statute says the cases are public if the complaint goes to an investigative stage. If not, the complaint is completely dismissed. MS ANDERSON said she would comment further following the presentation. 9:37:17 PM SENATOR SEEKINS read AS 24.60.150(a)(2) and said that's how the information comes down. He asked for an amendment to delete lines 20-25 on page 7. His intention is to pursue every complaint, but to hold responsible those people who break confidentiality.   CHAIR THERRIAULT recapped previous discussion about what currently happens when someone brings an action to generate a headline. If the person discloses the action, the complaint is dismissed. SENATOR SEEKINS argued that the complaint isn't really dismissed. 9:40:09 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT asked for verification that if the language is stricken then any complaint, whether it is disclosed or not, goes forward and the discloser is punished. SENATOR SEEKINS said yes; the penalty is for breaking confidentiality. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked about the change in Section 15, page 8, line 27. The words "or obtained" were added. SENATOR SEEKINS explained that the addition is to broaden the requirements. SENATOR ELTON asked if there is a difference between documents filed with the committee and documents filed by the committee. SENATOR SEEKINS said the intent is to include information obtained rather than just disclosed. SENATOR ELTON added, "Or filed." SENATOR SEEKINS responded filed doesn't cover it because there are disclosure processes. It's a term of art in the legal profession, he said. CHAIR THERRIAULT provided an example and suggested the addition is more inclusive. SENATOR SEEKINS remarked it's better to be redundant than to have a loophole. SENATOR ELTON noted that subsection (s) in Section 15 is new and asked if a person who said they intended to file a complaint would be subject to the penalty. SENATOR SEEKINS replied as long as a person didn't file the complaint they wouldn't be subject to the penalty. SENATOR ELTON pointed out that it says filing of or intention to file. If a person disclosed an intention to file a complaint and hasn't filed, he asked if that person would be subject to a class A misdemeanor. SENATOR SEEKINS said he didn't believe it would be interpreted that way. The intention is if someone intends to file a complaint and subsequently files it. He had no problem with adding language about subsequently filing the complaint. 9:44:24 PM SENATOR ELTON said that would clarify and narrow the ability to charge someone with a class A misdemeanor. I'm comfortable with the addition, he said. I'm not saying I'm comfortable with Section 15. He suggested the committee consider inserting "that is subsequently filed" after the word "complaint" on line 17. SENATOR SEEKINS said he had no objection. SENATOR ELTON moved the amendment. CHAIR THERRIAULT suggested it be a conceptual amendment to give the drafter some latitude. CHAIR THERRIAULT found no objection to conceptual Amendment 1. He noted that the repealers were dropped from the original version. SENATOR SEEKINS agreed saying they shouldn't have been there. 9:46:02 PM SENATOR ELTON directed attention to Section 10 and asked if his interpretation was correct that under this provision he would never know that his staff member committed an ethics violation if he or she completed the recommended corrective action. An ethics violation is something that is fairly important for an employer to know, he asserted. SENATOR SEEKINS said it's correct that the employer wouldn't know unless the employee chose to disclose the violation. SENATOR ELTON argued that the employing entity should know if a violation occurred and was confirmed by the ethics committee. SENATOR SEEKINS suggested that any of the legislators present would know about a staff member's ethics violation long before the matter was resolved. SENATOR ELTON responded if that's true then someone committed a class A misdemeanor by leaking the information. SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that the person who is charged has the right to disclose the information at any time to anyone so he didn't see how that could happen. SENATOR ELTON replied he could see how it could happen very easily. The person who was charged might not want the employer to know about the violation, but someone who was interviewed might. SENATOR SEEKINS said the employer would have a difficult decision if someone other than the violator disclosed the information. CHAIR THERRIAULT made the point that under the grand jury system an employer doesn't have a right to know about any charges that were dismissed. As a legislator, should I have a higher duty of a right to know about an allegation brought against a staff member than a private business employer, he asked. SENATOR ELTON said, absolutely, it's different. The Legislative Ethics Law governs the behavior of legislators and staff and I'd want to know if a staff member of mine violated the law and agreed to the corrective action. That violation occurred in a public trust that we both swore to uphold. Legislators cannot divorce themselves from what their staff members do in the office. Their actions reflect back on the legislators who hired them. Using the example of a criminal complaint that went to a grand jury and was dismissed isn't the same issue, he said. In this instance the person could be guilty and you still wouldn't know unless the employee tells you about it. "We have a duty as legislators to make sure our staff follows the law," he said. CHAIR THERRIAULT raised a question about a private employer's right to know an employee's business. SENATOR SEEKINS announced that he wanted to correct the record because his employees haven't taken an oath of office. It's a delicate balance, he said. If the ethics committee requires a corrective action, should that be a matter of public record or should there be a level of confidentiality? That's the decision that has to be made, but employees working for legislators don't have a greater responsibility than any other employee working anywhere else in the state of Alaska, he asserted. SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Anderson to comment on her experience. MS. ANDERSON said a point she'd like to make is that even though there was corrective action, the person was found with probable cause. That's similar to a guilty verdict even though there was corrective action. Looking back to 1992 she didn't see any cases that didn't have corrective action because what the person was doing was violating the ethics code. There was a finding of probable cause in all instances. 9:56:35 PM SENATOR ELTON said if a court orders corrective action there is a public record and that's the way it should be near. It's ironic that the proposal is to go beyond that. Not only would the matter be private, the employer wouldn't have any knowledge of an ethics violation. As an employer I'd want to know so I could make a judgment on whether or not that's behavior that I want to tolerate or make a corrective action beyond what the ethics committee suggested, he said. SENATOR SEEKINS disputed the statement that his employees are reflective of him. "Their actions may reflect on me. They may affect my reputation by their actions, but they certainly aren't reflective of me," he said. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if that's the only impact of Section 10. SENATOR SEEKINS interjected if the legislature wanted a minor infraction that has a minor correction to be public knowledge then he would go along. He said he was just trying to err on the side of privacy and not to make people criminals. 9:59:00 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Anderson to comment on his comparison to the grand jury and that if charges were brought then the matter would be public. SENATOR SEEKINS interjected to say that he would agree to a conceptual amendment that says that the line of confidentiality ends at probable cause rather than at the point of corrective action. 9:59:43 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if that would be accomplished by deleting Section 10. SENATOR ELTON noted the new language on lines 22 through 26. MS. ANDERSON read subsection (m) and said that perhaps Senator Seekins didn't realize that was reinserted. SENATOR SEEKINS said it was put back in because it needed to be modified rather than deleted. He had no problem with a conceptual amendment so that once probable cause is established the matter would become public. MS. ANDERSON stated that by reinserting (m) that is accomplished. 10:01:31 PM CHAIR THERRIAULT noted that Senator Seekins suggested deleting the language on page 7, lines 20-25. SENATOR SEEKINS agreed and said his intent is to prosecute every allegation of a violation of the ethics act to a determination of whether or not there was probable cause. CHAIR THERRIAULT moved to strike language on page 7, lines 20 through 25 as Amendment 2.   SENATOR ELTON questioned whether the net effect is that a complaint doesn't need to be dismissed if confidentiality is broken. SENATOR SEEKINS said yes. SENATOR ELTON removed his objection if it was implied that he had one. CHAIR THERRIAULT found there was no objection to Amendment 2. Finding no further questions or suggested amendments he asked for the will of the committee. SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report CSSB 187(STA) and attached fiscal notes from committee with individual recommendations. SENATOR ELTON objected and stated that his objection centers on the class A misdemeanor penalty for any sort of disclosure. That sets up a situation in which I couldn't tell my wife if a complaint is filed against me, he said. CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if his concern relates to the severity of the sanction or the fact that there's a sanction at all. SENATOR ELTON replied a sanction was adopted just last year to address this issue; the sanction was dismissal. Although the complaint is dismissed, the ethics committee had the option of re-filing the complaint. Certainly if the allegation is of a serious nature an investigation should go forward because the bad act of a complainant shouldn't allow somebody to skate. Having served on the ethics committee he said he believes that some complaints have been filed by bad actors. However, because the press and the committee acted in a responsible manner in those cases, neither political careers nor reputations were damaged. Although it's hard to quantify or prove, the bill provides a disincentive to filing a complaint. For instance a person who discusses an issue with someone and subsequently files a complaint would find that they had broken the law. SENATOR SEEKINS responded, "This same statute, basically, came from Oklahoma." This is a serious matter and we need to do this, he said. 10:07:40 PM SENATOR ELTON said a person wouldn't know that they broke the law until they file the complaint and are told. Further, he said, it's not fair to keep using the grand jury example. There are all sorts of reasons that someone might end up in court and the grand jury example covers just a portion of the fact situations that someone with a legitimate complaint might face. CHAIR THERRIAULT pointed out that all other matters would be civil. SENATOR ELTON responded they're civil matters that could cost a lot more than $10,000. CHAIR THERRIAULT said if the state is bringing the charge then it's through the grand jury process. SENATOR ELTON replied it might not be the state bringing the charge. It could be you or me or anybody. It's not just the state that files complaints with the ethics committee. SENATOR SEEKINS drew on his experience from serving on the Judiciary Committee and said that mensrea is inferred in a criminal complaint. A person has to have knowingly disclosed. CHAIR THERRIAULT called for a roll call vote on the motion to move the bill from committee. The motion passed 3 to 1 with Senators Wagoner, Huggins, and Therriault voting yea and Senator Elton voting nay. CSSB 187(STA) moved to the next committee of referral.