JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES February 10, 1993 3:30 p.m. SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman Senator Dave Donley Senator Suzanne Little SENATE MEMBER ABSENT Senator George Jacko HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chairman Representative Pete Kott Representative Gail Phillips Representative Joe Green Representative Cliff Davidson Representative Jim Nordlund Representative David Finkelstein Representative Carl Moses Representative Ed Willis COMMITTEE CALENDAR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Public Members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics WITNESS REGISTER ISAAC CHARLTON 4027 Birch Lane Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Public member to testify. WILLIAM BROWN 9150 Skywood Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Public member to testify. LEO A. LAND P.O. Box 122 Haines, Alaska 99827 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the hearings. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-9, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the joint meeting of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to order at 3:40 p.m. to discuss the appointment and selection of two people to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics: ISAAC CHARLTON and WILLIAM BROWN. SENATOR TAYLOR introduced the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, and the remainder of the House committee members. SENATOR TAYLOR invited MR. CHARLTON to make an opening statement. MR. CHARLTON explained he liked to do public service and had participated, mostly on the local level, since leaving college. He equated ethics with his employment as a risk manager and as a certified public accountant. SENATOR TAYLOR opened the hearing to the legislators for questions. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS discussed with Mr. Charlton his employment with the University of Alaska, where he teaches correspondence and night courses. Number 124 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked a hypothetical question suggesting Mr. Charlton might have a conflict of interest on the budget of the University of Alaska while sitting in judgement on a legislator. MR. CHARLTON explained why it would be no conflict for him. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned whether there might be a perception of conflict by the public. MR. CHARLTON said he was far removed from the budget process. SENATOR LITTLE expressed her appreciation to Mr. Charlton for his interest in the position and asked about his state and national organizations, which have their own code of ethics. MR. CHARLTON listed four organizations, described the ethics component of each, and gave an example. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN quoted Mr. Charlton's remark that there was no fee large enough to jeopardize his license, and asked why he didn't include "conscious or ethics." MR. CHARLTON explained that any compromise of conscious or ethics could lose his license. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked which he held in highest esteem. MR. CHARLTON said he was considered to be an ethical employee and described the relationship among the points suggested by Representative Green. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Charlton if he had ever been in a compromising situation in his past. MR. CHARLTON said he was not aware of any. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was anything embarrassing in his background. MR. CHARLTON couldn't think of anything relevant. Number 240 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained there had been a criminal investigation sheet done on the other persons interviewed for the Ethics Committee. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN assured her a criminal check had been made and both Mr. Charlton and Mr. Brown have no criminal record. Number 256 SENATOR LITTLE asked about the voting record and was referred to the last page. SENATOR TAYLOR gave copies of their voting record to the two participants, and there was some discussion. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Mr. Charlton if he had a particular attitude about the complaints noted in the newspaper. MR. CHARLTON said the persons involved would be considered innocent until proven guilty. He described a TV interview the previous day in Fairbanks in which he had answered similar questions. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about other pressures besides the news media experience. MR. CHARLTON described media attention he had received when there was a short-fall in the University appropriation because of the liability insurance crisis. He described additional interviews related to other interests. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS questioned the time constraints on his employment in the event the Ethics Committee was kept in Juneau for a prolonged period of time. MR. CHARLTON explained he had discussed it with his supervisor, to the satisfaction of both. Mr. Charlton described time he had taken off for medical problems, and how he had depended heavily on his staff. Number 356 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked for clarification as to whether he would have difficulty with the stress of the job. MR. CHARLTON assured her he was well. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered about Mr. Charlton's general health. MR. CHARLTON explained the physical repairs had been to correct an inherited condition. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND questioned possibly having three out of five Ethics Committee members from the University of Alaska and asked Mr. Charlton if he knew two of the other candidates. MR. CHARLTON state he did not. Number 436 SENATOR TAYLOR queried Mr. Charlton as to his life experiences and family. He described his employment schedule, his spouse, his children, and his involvement in building, repairing, and racing cars. SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Charlton's opinion of lawyers. He explained the legal procedures in his office and how attorneys were selected by the RFP process. Number 488 SENATOR LITTLE asked Mr. Charlton about his general feelings on the use of alcohol, and he said it was fine in moderation. Since his heart problems, Mr. Charlton said he no longer used any alcohol. SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Charlton for his candid answers and wished him luck. MR. CHARLTON asked what would happen next, and there was a general discussion on the votes to be taken, assigned counsel, and the ethics code. SENATOR TAYLOR next welcomed MR. WILLIAM BROWN to the "hot seat" and asked for his opening statement. MR. BROWN explained his political interests during his two years in Juneau, as well as previous political involvement before coming to Juneau. He felt he had the attributes to be able to see all sides of an issue. Number 581 SENATOR TAYLOR asked for some background information on his work experience and family. MR. BROWN explained he had moved from Tacoma, Washington, had been a college professor since 1977, was married this past summer, and studied in many places because his father was in the navy. He described his life in Juneau working on his house. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Brown if he knew Mr. Curry. MR. BROWN admitted to knowing who he is, but said he has little contact due to their different teaching assignments. Number 612 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Brown if he might have a conflict of interest on the budget of the University of Alaska with sitting in judgement on a legislator. MR. BROWN said he would probably be aware of it, but felt he could see both sides and make objective opinions. He didn't know how it would be perceived by the public. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed concern at having state employees on the Ethics Committee because of a possible perception that the public would think a state employee would be overly protective. Number 660 MR. BROWN said he thought being objective was part of being a scientist. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Mr. Brown how he would handle his teaching schedule if the Ethics Committee would be busy for weeks on end. MR. BROWN explained how his teaching schedule could be modified to meet the needs of the Ethics Committee. He did hope the meetings would be in Juneau, but he described a contingency plan for trips to other places. In addition, Mr. Brown said he does research and writing, which could be postponed in the event of a prolonged Ethics Committee meeting. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, in reference to Mr. Brown's letter, asked for clarification on one of his statements dealing with economics. MR. BROWN gave an example to explain his point of view as an economist, and he contrasted his view to that of Mr. Charlton's. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested Mr. Brown would be bringing in external things to make a judgement call. MR. BROWN said it might help to see the intent through an economist's view point. They discussed vague facts, negative intent, and being innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Brown said he was not looking for negative intent. Number 732 SENATOR TAYLOR paused in the deliberations to announce some economic news for the state - a $630 million tax settlement with British Petroleum America. SENATOR LITTLE thanked Mr. Brown for his application to the Ethics Committee and stated he wanted to know if he had any familiarity with the Bush communities in Alaska. MR. BROWN explained that before moving to Alaska he had spent some time backpacking, but he hadn't lived in any other part of the state. Much of his knowledge about the Native culture, he said, was from his wife who is a weaver. SENATOR LITTLE asked Mr. Brown if he had any experience with press pressure. MR. BROWN related a story to indicate he was a bit chary of the press. He explained how he would respond to the press if asked about an ethics case. SENATOR LITTLE questioned him as to whether he had formed any opinions about recent events involving legislators. MR. BROWN said he was aware of the events and explained what he would say. Number 821 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Brown if he had ever run for a partisan office. MR. BROWN reviewed working on campaigns, but said he never actually ran for a partisan office. Number 840 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON asked Mr. Brown for clarification on his information base for judging people who have run for elected office. MR. BROWN speculated as to why running for office might help him be more perceptive about the workings of the legislature. TAPE 93-9, SIDE B Number 001 MR. BROWN said he had no reason to believe legislators were less ethical than any other occupations. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said it seems that ethical behavior in politics is very complex, is not an ordinary life, nor are legislators a normal type of citizen. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed with what Representative Davidson attempted to portray, but was unable to think of an analogy that would be of assistance. He gave an example to show the inadvertent occurrence in government. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON said Senator Taylor had portrayed it correctly. MR. BROWN acknowledged the difference in the life of a legislator and those in the academia, and referred to Senator Taylor's hypothetical example for his answer. They discussed conflict-of-interest and voting self-interest. Number 209 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she was impressed with Dr. Brown's objectivity to look at both sides of an issue, and said she would not apply for an ethics position. She asked to whom he owed his responsibility in his judgement. MR. BROWN said he would not compromise his own ethics, and would step down rather than do so. He described himself as a compassionate person. Number 279 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how Mr. Brown could judge fairly under the pressure of being a member of a Democratic group who would want a certain decision. MR. BROWN acknowledged he was a Democrat, but explained the focus would be on the ethical issue rather than his political party. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS quoted his statement, "If everything I read in the paper is completely factual ...." and asked Mr. Brown if his imagination could stretch to think that could be a completely accurate statement in itself. MR. BROWN said there was probably a mix of sensationalism and truth, but he could not say whether it was an ethics violation. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she wanted his personal opinion on whether everything he read in the paper could be true. MR. BROWN conceded sports scores were true. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS quizzed Mr. Brown on his political life before he moved to Alaska. He explained most of his political tasks were door-to-door campaigning, but when he was in graduate school at the University of Colorado, he worked on economic projects dealing with school funding and tax issues with then Representative Timothy Wirth. He didn't characterize these as being strictly political. Number 378 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND thought Mr. Brown's short residence in Alaska might have a bearing on his ability to perform the job on the committee. MR. BROWN repeated that he thought ethics were universal, and he explained more of his philosophy in this respect. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Brown why he would want to be involved in the Ethics Committee. MR. BROWN listed "being interesting" and "feeling good" as a couple of reasons. Number 415 SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Brown, in reference to some articles from M.I.T., what kind of an economist he was. He described himself as a "cautious interventionist," and explained his reasons. SENATOR TAYLOR was not concerned over Mr. Browns's views, and praised him for standing up for his convictions and accountability. SENATOR TAYLOR talked about the need for balance on the committee and asked Mr. Brown about his testimony as to "... certain standards that a public official needed to be upheld." Senator Taylor asked his opinion on standards of conduct for "a priest, a pauper, a butcher, a baker, a candle stick maker, and a politician." MR. BROWN explained there were some things the same for everyone, and he listed some acts as unethical for everyone. He then explained that "sexual harassment," when you grab a person who doesn't want to be grabbed, is always wrong, and he elaborated on this theme. He discussed the "appearance" of the act as important, too. Number 491 SENATOR TAYLOR said there was quite a significant difference between ethical conduct and criminal conduct, and he explained his perception that the difference is sometimes "blurred." He gave a true example of another representative to describe his meaning. Senator Taylor asked Mr. Brown if he thought that would be unethical conduct. MR. BROWN didn't think it would be an ethical issue unless the drinking was effecting the behavior, and he said this was becoming more of an issue. He listed some attributes for ethical behavior, such as honesty and trust. Number 545 SENATOR TAYLOR gave an example of former Representative Wilbur Mills as a brilliant member of Congress, who chaired one of the most influential committees in the House, where he crafted the Internal Revenue Code. He was, also, apparently a raging alcoholic, whose behavior culminated in an embarrassing display in a water fountain. Senator Taylor asked Mr. Brown if Representative Mill's alcohol problem was unethical. MR. BROWN said he didn't think alcohol-induced behavior was unethical, but alcohol could cause a person to do something that was unethical. He didn't think Representative Mill's act was unethical, but if he had used his authority to induce a sixteen year old girl to dance naked in the tidal pool with him, that would be unethical. Mr. Brown thought that behavior would need close scrutiny, and elaborated on the disease of alcohol. Number 606 SENATOR TAYLOR said the committee was really looking for judges who would judge the legislators, and he said that was a difficult standard to meet. He thanked Mr. Brown for his candid answers. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested Mr. Brown should read the ethics code, and Mr. Brown agreed it was a government of laws not people, but he reiterated his view of ethical behavior. SENATOR TAYLOR praised Representative Finkelstein's question as a culmination to the process and explained jurisdiction as related to the statute of limitations. He excused Mr. Brown. Number 659 SENATOR TAYLOR introduced LEO LAND, from Haines, who wished to testify. MR. LAND asked how it was decided who would be appointed as a candidate. SENATOR TAYLOR explained the initial selection was by Chief Justice Daniel Moore, and he reviewed the appointment process. He explained that Mr. Charlton and Mr. Brown had come from a list of alternates. Senator Taylor also explained that Justice Moore had been asked to send names of those with Bush experience, and females - for gender balance. Number 684 MR. LAND shared some of his own political history, and said he hoped the process would soon end. SENATOR TAYLOR said the difficulty was a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate. He again referred to the high standard required of Ethics Committee members to sit in judgement on the legislators. There being no further business to come before the committee, SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.