JOINT HOUSE AND SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES February 24, 1993 3:30 p.m. HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Rep. Brian Porter Rep. Jeannette James Rep. Gail Phillips Rep. Joe Green Rep. Pete Kott Rep. Jim Nordlund Rep. Cliff Davidson HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT None SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Sen. Robin Taylor, Chairman Sen. Rick Halford Sen. George Jacko Sen. Suzanne Little Sen. Dave Donley SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Sen. Georgianna Lincoln Sen. Loren Leman Rep. Eileen MacLean Rep. Bill Williams Rep. Jerry Mackie Rep. David Finkelstein COMMITTEE CALENDAR Confirmation Hearings - Public Members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics WITNESS REGISTER ANNIE LAURIE HOWARD 3220 Amber Bay Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Phone: 344-9289 Position Statement: Answered committee questions EDITH VORDERSTRASSE P.O. Box 214 Barrow, Alaska 99723 Phone: 852-2010 Position Statement: Answered committee questions ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-21, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the Joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. He noted members of both committees who were present. He announced that the purpose of the meeting was to review four appointees to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. He asked Mrs. Annie Laurie Howard to address the committee first. Number 045 MRS. ANNIE LAURIE HOWARD said that she thought many of the committee members knew her from her service on the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and her participation in COGEL, the Congress on Governmental Ethics Laws. She said that she had applied for a seat on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics because she had worked closely with Rep. David Finkelstein and former Sen. Virginia Collins in drafting the ethics law that passed the year before. MRS. HOWARD stated that she was aware that the Joint Judiciary Committee had already interviewed a number of outstanding nominees, and she had assumed that her application to serve on the ethics committee was not going to amount to anything. She said that one day earlier she had been informed that she was a nominee. MRS. HOWARD stated that she served on the steering committee of COGEL, an organization made up of all 50 states and some foreign countries. She said the organization was concerned with campaign finance and ethics. She added that she felt very strongly that the legislature needed a very strong, non-partisan, apolitical ethics committee. Number 107 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard to outline the process that she had gone through in applying to be on the ethics committee. Number 120 MRS. HOWARD responded that after the ethics law passed, a notice went out asking that members of the public interested in serving on the ethics committee submit resumes to Chief Justice Moore. She said she sent a resume to the Chief Justice, and received a telephone call from him some time in November. He indicated that 84 people had applied to serve on the committee, and that those people who were to be nominees would be notified by a certain date. When that date had come and gone, she said, she assumed that she had not been selected as a nominee. MRS. HOWARD noted that some of the earlier nominees had been rejected, but she had not given her application any more thought. She said that since she had not been on the original list of nominees, and because she had been out of town for a while and involved in other projects, she had not been thinking about her application. The day before, she added, she was going about her business when she received word that she needed to go to Juneau the next day for a confirmation hearing. Number 163 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard if she had had time to read the new ethics law. MRS. HOWARD replied that she had read the law, and in fact had helped to write it. REP. DAVIDSON thanked Mrs. Howard for being willing to serve on the ethics committee. MRS. HOWARD noted that there used to be only two public members on the ethics committee. She said that public input was what gave APOC strength, in her opinion; therefore, she felt very strongly about the relatively large number of public members on the ethics committee. Number 196 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard about her comments that she probably knew a great deal more about ethics than some legislators did. He commented that ethics was a growth industry. He asked Mrs. Howard if she had ever been involved in a political campaign. Number 209 MRS. HOWARD explained that one year she had worked on Jan Faiks' campaign. Shortly after that, she added, she began her service on APOC. During that service, she said, she was completely apolitical, not so much as contributing to any political campaigns. She said that there was a great deal of comfort in being totally absent from the tribulations of political parties. Number 225 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that it made any difference that there were partisan labels on the public members of the ethics committee. Number 232 MRS. HOWARD responded that she did not feel that it made any difference. She added that, in her opinion, the only reason there were partisan nominees was so that the public would feel that the nominees had been selected impartially. However, she noted that she felt that the ethics committee should be totally apolitical and nonpartisan. She noted similarities between the ethics committee and APOC. She stated that she had seen no partisanship on APOC. She expressed her opinion that ethics committee members should be precluded from any political activity whatsoever. Number 273 REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mrs. Howard believed that the selection process to date had been nonpolitical. He also asked Mrs. Howard why she felt qualified to judge legislators. Number 277 MRS. HOWARD replied that she did not feel qualified to judge legislators or anyone else. She expressed her opinion that ethics could not be legislated, but the only thing that could be done was to evaluate the ethicalness of an act. She stated that a person either had ethics or did not have ethics. Mrs. Howard said that what might be ethical for one person would not necessarily be ethical to another person. REP. DAVIDSON asked if Mrs. Howard meant that ethics were comparative. Number 288 MRS. HOWARD replied that she did not think that ethics were comparative. She asserted her belief that it was important that no determinations be made until all of the facts were known. She stated that ethics was a nebulous thing. She mentioned an instance in her past when, after an APOC hearing, a legislator who appreciated the way she had voted sent her roses. She felt that it was unethical for her to accept the flowers, so she called the legislator and told him that she would be donating them to the Pioneer's Home. She concluded by saying that it was hard to define ethics, but she knew them when she saw them. Number 330 REP. DAVIDSON thanked Mrs. Howard for her responses. He withdrew his question about her opinion of the selection process. MRS. HOWARD stated that she did not think that she had any greater handle on ethics than anyone else did. But, she said, she had the advantage of learning about ethics committees in the other 50 states through her work with COGEL. Number 340 REP. GREEN noted that there had been a change in acceptable behavior over the years and wondered how Mrs. Howard would view actions that were acceptable by today's standards, but unacceptable when she was younger. Number 375 MRS. HOWARD said that as the mother of two sons, and as someone who had been associated with young people over the years, she had to learn to change some of her views. She said that she had to recognize that her sons danced to a different drummer than did she. She noted that she had a degree in special education and she had learned that although the Lord might have made people equal in some respects, He had not done so in other respects. She commented that people had to accept other people as they were. Number 409 REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Howard if she would evaluate an identical act, performed by three different legislators of different ages, equally. Number 429 MRS. HOWARD said that her evaluation would depend entirely on the circumstances surrounding the situation. She stated that she believed that judgments should not be made relative to a person's age. She remarked that a person's age might be a qualifying factor that would come into play. MRS. HOWARD said that all of the facts needed to be considered before decisions could be made about a person's behavior. She noted that each ethics committee member would carry her or his own mores into the committee with them, but would need to be totally impartial. She likened the committee to a jury, in that jurors could not enter jury service with their own prejudices. Jurors have to listen to the facts and make a determination based on those facts. She added that a juror could not be biased by a defendant's status, but needed to be completely impartial. MRS. HOWARD stated that nothing was either totally black or totally white. She added that one's circumstances needed to be taken into consideration when a situation was being evaluated. REP. GREEN sought to encapsulize Mrs. Howard's response. Number 490 MRS. HOWARD said there might be circumstances where the age of an individual was relevant, as the individual might be senile. Number 500 REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Howard if she had any close economic associations or personal relationships with anyone who was involved with state government. Number 507 MRS. HOWARD noted that she had many friends, acquaintances, and associates who were involved in state government. However, she had no familial or business relationships with any of those people. Number 522 REP. KOTT mentioned that Mrs. Howard had put down a legislator as a personal reference on her application. He asked her to comment on her relationship with that legislator, and whether or not that relationship would affect her impartiality. Number 529 MRS. HOWARD replied that Senator Kerttula had taken an interest in her a number of years ago when she was ill. But, she said, she did not share a close personal friendship with him. She said that regardless of who the ethics committee was evaluating, she would give her or him the benefit of the doubt and listen to all of the facts surrounding an allegation. Number 560 REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Howard to comment on what ethics problems she believed to exist currently. MRS. HOWARD commented that the state of Louisiana had decided to abolish its ethics law. She added that some other states were combining ethics and campaign finance laws, which she thought was a good idea. She noted that South Carolina did not have an ethics watchdog group. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that he did not want anyone to feel limited in time or scope of discussion. REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Howard if she could impartially investigate an allegation against him, in light of their past association with the Neighborhood Watch program. Number 617 MRS. HOWARD cited an example from her past, in which she had impartially evaluated an acquaintance. Number 626 REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Howard if she had formed any opinions about recent allegations against legislators. Number 633 MRS. HOWARD replied that because she knew that there was an outside chance that she might be nominated to serve on the ethics committee, she had refused to pay any attention to accounts of the allegations. She commented that during her tenure with APOC, the members would be sent information in advance of meetings. She commented that it was difficult, in those circumstances, not to form a subconscious opinion before arriving at the meeting. Number 663 REP. PHILLIPS commented on Mrs. Howard's work with Rep. Finkelstein and former Sen. Collins on drafting the ethics law, and also on her work with COGEL. She asked Mrs. Howard if she were encouraged by any legislator to apply to serve on the ethics committee. Number 684 MRS. HOWARD said that no legislator had encouraged her to apply. Number 686 REP. PHILLIPS noted that the ethics law required the legislature to select public members based on party affiliation. She asked Mrs. Howard about her earlier statement that an ethics committee member needed to be totally nonpolitical. She asked if Mrs. Howard thought that it was possible for a person to be totally nonpolitical on a committee like the ethics committee. Number 694 MRS. HOWARD said she thought it was indeed possible, as she was totally nonpolitical during her APOC service. She said that committee members would not be denied the opportunity to register and vote, but would not participate in or contribute to campaigns. She said members would go into the committee "washed clean" of any political philosophy. Number 719 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Howard if she would have difficulty spending long periods of time in Juneau working on committee business. Number 724 MRS. HOWARD responded that she would have no problem spending time in Juneau on committee business. She noted that she and her husband traveled frequently, and that on a couple of occasions urgent APOC business had come up, but she was able to be reached by telephone. Number 734 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Howard to explain why she felt that it was important to have an ethics law and an ethics committee. Number 738 MRS. HOWARD commented that ethics could not be legislated, but perceived breaches in ethics could be penalized. She said it was important to deal with perceived breaches of ethics in an arena apart from the rest of the legislature. She added that in order to resolve situations involving ethics, it was important that people not closely allied with the subject of the investigation were involved. Number 757 SEN. LITTLE thanked Mrs. Howard for applying to serve on the ethics committee. She asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that unethical behavior among legislators could be changed. Number 764 MRS. HOWARD replied that an attempt should be made to change unethical behavior. She added that she did not see the ethics committee as a "missionary committee," but a committee that evaluated specific incidents or allegations. She said it was her hope that no business would come before the committee, because that would mean that no unethical behavior had occurred. MRS. HOWARD commented that she did not see the committee's role as setting out to change the behavior of legislators. She added her belief that people were either ethical or unethical. She referred to the ethics committee as a "watchdog" organization that might serve as a partial deterrent. She said she did not think that it was up to the committee to tell an individual how to live. TAPE 93-21, SIDE B Number 000 SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Howard if she had dealt with pressure from the media in the past, and whether she perceived that it would be a problem if she served on the ethics committee. Number 006 MRS. HOWARD replied that she had experienced constant media pressure during her APOC service. She explained that she had learned to dodge the press as well as to answer questions from the media. Number 017 SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Howard if she had made any comments to her friends about the recent allegations raised against legislators. MRS. HOWARD said that she had avoided making comments about the allegations because she had applied to serve on the ethics committee. (Sen. Donley arrived.) Number 041 REP. JAMES congratulated Mrs. Howard for being selected as a nominee. She also told Mrs. Howard that she appreciated her candor. She asked Mrs. Howard if her personal philosophy would come into play during her deliberations as a member of the ethics committee. Number 069 MRS. HOWARD said that people were who they were because of conviction. She stated that her service on APOC had been an education and a tremendous growth experience for her. She said that when sitting on the ethics committee, one would have to disqualify one's personal convictions and look at the facts. Number 109 REP. JAMES commented that there was a public perception of unethical behavior among legislators. She asked Mrs. Howard if she agreed that the ethics law and the ethics committee might set the public's mind at ease to some extent. Number 125 MRS. HOWARD said that she did not necessarily feel that legislators were unethical. She said that legislators, like all human beings, made mistakes. She noted that external data might give a person a certain perception, but setting aside one's own judgmental factors and looking at the facts would lead one to a conclusion. Number 164 REP. GREEN noted that perceptions were often formed rapidly. He asked Mrs. Howard how she separated fact from fiction. Number 206 MRS. HOWARD replied that one had to take things at face value, up to a point. She added that she liked to believe that she had sufficient intelligence to make evaluations. She said she asked questions and used her judgment. Number 248 REP. DAVIDSON commented that anyone could accuse anyone else of anything at any time. He asked how she would deal with false accusations. Number 260 MRS. HOWARD replied that she would become incensed with a person who made a false accusation. She thought that false accusers should be penalized. REP. DAVIDSON asked Mrs. Howard if she hastily judged the press. MRS. HOWARD replied that she did not hastily judge the press, but she did challenge erroneous statements made by the media. She cited an example in which a statement had been falsely attributed to her by the press. She had insisted on a retraction. Number 310 REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that there ought to be different standards applied to public officials than those applied to people in other occupations. Number 321 MRS. HOWARD said that she did feel that way, to a certain extent. She commented that the people entrusted legislators with running the state, and because of this, they should be circumspect. She stated that she did not believe that legislators as a group were unethical. She added that candidates for office should be scrutinized. Mrs. Howard noted that public officials should not be expected to be perfect, as all people made mistakes and regretted past actions. She stated that each person needed to do the best that she or he could. Number 370 REP. KOTT asked how she would respond to a statement that there was no difference between unethical behavior and violating a law. Number 375 MRS. HOWARD replied that Rep. Kott had mentioned two different things. She said violating a law was not an ethical thing to do, but it depended on the circumstances and on the law. She said it was her understanding that the ethics committee would not deal with criminal acts and civil violations, but with ethics. She stated that an ethical violation was not necessarily a violation of the law. MRS. HOWARD noted that one could not place ethics in a box and say "this is ethics." One could only penalize unethical behavior. Number 407 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Howard if she had in mind a set grouping of concepts, laws, moralities, or ideals that she considered to be "ethical." Number 419 MRS. HOWARD replied that the chairman's question was difficult to answer. She noted that ethics was a nebulous quantity. Number 432 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Howard if she thought that John F. Kennedy's womanizing was unethical. Number 438 MRS. HOWARD replied that she felt that it was not unethical, unless it had adversely impacted the administration of his presidential duties. She said she felt that it was a matter between a man and his conscience. She noted that she would not personally engage in abortion, but she felt it was a matter between a woman and her conscience. Number 462 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Howard if Gary Hart's conduct had been unethical. Number 466 MRS. HOWARD said that the Gary Hart situation was a moral matter, not an ethical one. She said that she viewed ethics in relation to his duties as a public official. She mentioned Senator Bob Packwood and said that the ethicalness or unethicalness of his behavior would depend on how it all reflected on his job as a public servant. Number 485 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR mentioned Wilbur Mills, the father of the Internal Revenue Code, who was an alcoholic. He asked Mrs. Howard if Mills' alcoholism was unethical. Number 497 MRS. HOWARD commented that it would depend on whether or not his alcoholism affected his job as a public servant. Number 506 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that he was trying to make a point that there was a difference between morality, criminality, and ethics. Number 508 MRS. HOWARD related an incident from her APOC tenure in which a legislator had castigated her for the way she had voted. She said she found that legislator's behavior to be extremely unethical. Number 544 REP. NORDLUND commented that Mrs. Howard's history of political activity troubled some legislators. He noted that the legislature had rejected another nominee, Dr. Rodman Wilson, because of his political activity. Rep. Nordlund asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that she should be disqualified for the same reason. Number 560 MRS. HOWARD responded that she had not been politically active for the past six and one-half years, since she became a member of APOC. Number 577 REP. DAVIDSON commented that Chairman Taylor could probably come up with less-partisan examples of unethical behavior if he tried. Number 588 REP. FINKELSTEIN asked Mrs. Howard if she felt that Dr. Wilson's political involvement had interfered with his ability to be objective while serving on APOC. Number 592 MRS. HOWARD replied that Dr. Wilson's past political activity had not interfered with his work on APOC. Number 595 REP. FINKELSTEIN commented that the ethics law required that the ethics committee apply employment discrimination statutes, including sexual harassment statutes to legislators. He said that those statutes did not require that sexual harassment activities affected the "harasser's" work. Number 610 MRS. HOWARD replied that harassment would definitely affect a public official's work. Number 617 REP. PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that Dr. Wilson's rejection had nothing to do with his political activities, but rather his comments to the press about recent allegations against legislators. Number 635 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mrs. Howard for appearing before the committee. He announced that there would be a five minute break before the committee heard from Mrs. Edith Vorderstrasse. He noted that due to a Senate majority caucus at 6:30 p.m., the hearings would spill over to the next day. TAPE 93-22, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR reconvened the meeting at 5:13 p.m. He asked EDITH VORDERSTRASSE to come forward and address the committee. He notified VIRGINIA JOHNSON and SHIRLEY MCCOY that they would appear before the committee the following afternoon. He asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she would like to offer an opening statement. Number 027 MRS. EDITH VORDERSTRASSE said that she had applied to serve on the ethics committee because she felt that each individual should be responsible for her or his actions. She said that she felt that she was qualified to serve on the ethics committee because of her involvement with several boards. She noted that the North Slope Borough personnel board was similar to the ethics committee in that members heard all sides of an issue and then made a decision. MRS. VORDERSTRASSE stated that her family supported her decision to apply to serve on the ethics committee. She mentioned that she had heard on the radio that interested members of the public were being asked to apply for seats on the ethics committee. She applied and was notified in late December that she was not one of the top ten applicants. She said that Chief Justice Moore contacted her two weeks earlier to ask if she were still interested in being on the committee. She replied that she was still interested, and about four days later, Chief Justice Moore called again to say that her name would be forwarded to the legislature. Number 082 REP. PORTER mentioned that Mrs. Vorderstrasse had worked for Rep. Eileen MacLean. He asked if she could be impartial when hearing allegations against Rep. MacLean. Number 099 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she felt that she could be impartial. She added that she knew several legislators. She said she did not make decisions based on media accounts, but rather on what was brought before her during a hearing. Number 119 REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she thought that the public would perceive a problem, recognizing her past relationships with legislators, with her serving on the ethics committee. Number 128 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that someone would always perceive a conflict of interest in a given situation. Number 144 REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had formed any opinions about recent allegations made against legislators. Number 148 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that she had not, because she had applied to serve on the ethics committee. She added that she could not make a decision based on accounts in the press. Number 165 REP. PHILLIPS questioned Mrs. Vorderstrasse on a statement in her cover letter which said, "we must quit excusing unethical behavior of our leaders." She asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse to explain what she perceived to be unethical behavior. Number 171 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that what might be ethical to her might not be ethical to someone else. Regarding John F. Kennedy, she said that she did not know whether or not the allegations against him were true, and therefore could not comment on whether his behavior was ethical or not. She said that individuals needed to be responsible for their actions. She noted that elected officials were there to represent their constituents and the state of Alaska. She said public officials had been entrusted to act for their constituents' and the state's best interests. Number 205 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she perceived that the legislature was taking unethical actions that she was uncomfortable about, or that she would hesitate to make a decision about, if she were appointed to the ethics committee. Number 215 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she did not think so. She added that no evidence had been brought before her, and what she was told by the press was not necessarily true. Number 227 SEN. LITTLE thanked Mrs. Vorderstrasse for applying to serve on the ethics committee. She asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she would have any difficulty spending time in Juneau on ethics committee business. Number 241 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she saw no problem with spending time in Juneau. Number 258 SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had experience dealing with the press, and whether or not she perceived the media pressure that the ethics committee members would likely endure as a problem. Number 266 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that she had no problems in dealing with the press in the past, as a school board member and a Native corporation board member. Number 282 SEN. LITTLE asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had formed any opinions about recent allegations against legislators. Number 288 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she had drawn no conclusions, although the newspapers were full of articles about the allegations. Number 297 SEN. JACKO thanked Mrs. Vorderstrasse for applying to serve on the ethics committee. He asked her if she had been referring to the public's perception that the legislature engaged in unethical behavior when she wrote the aforementioned statement in her cover letter. Number 309 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that the public perceived public officials as unethical. She noted that assumptions got people into trouble. SEN. JACKO asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she attributed her perception that legislators engaged in unethical behavior to the media or to her prior work as a legislative staffer. MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she did not attribute it to either the media or her tenure as a legislative aide. She said that each individual had her or his own set of morals and ethics. Number 351 REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had any close economic associations or personal relationships with anyone involved in state government. Number 363 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she did not. Number 367 REP. KOTT asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse to tell him about the business that she owned, Border Ventures. Number 370 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that she and her husband owned Border Ventures, a general contracting business. Number 379 REP. KOTT asked if Border Ventures had been a successful business. Number 381 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that the business had its ups and downs, like any other business. Number 388 REP. PORTER asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had read the ethics law. MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that she had read it. REP. PORTER commented that as a member of the ethics committee, Mrs. Vorderstrasse would be applying the ethics law to a given situation and not her own personal code of ethics. He asked what she would do in the event that a provision of the ethics law did not mesh with her personal code of ethics. Number 399 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she would apply the ethics law to the situation, because it was the guideline used by the committee. Number 403 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she felt that legislators ought to be held to a higher ethical standard than other individuals. MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said she did feel that they should be held to a higher ethical standard, because constituents entrusted them with the authority to act in their best interests and in the best interest of the state. REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse why she felt it was important that the legislature have an ethics committee and an ethics law. Number 417 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said it was important because everyone was entitled to due process. Number 425 REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she would view individuals of different ages or genders as being held to different standards of ethical behavior. Number 453 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that all individuals should be held equally accountable for their behavior. Number 470 REP. GREEN commented on geographical differences in how behavior was perceived. He asked if Mrs. Vorderstrasse would take into account a person's background and age when evaluating a complaint brought before the ethics committee. MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that age should have no bearing on the decisions made by the ethics committee. Number 511 REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she, as a young person, would be more or less tolerant than an older person. Number 521 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE responded that the ethics committee had to follow certain guidelines, and age was irrelevant. She added that her standards were not the same as every other person her age. Number 534 REP. GREEN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she were an influential person, or one who was easily influenced. Number 543 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE reiterated that she made decisions on what she heard. She noted that she would have to live with the decisions that she made. Number 556 REP. KOTT requested that Mrs. Vorderstrasse comment on tax problems that Border Ventures had. Number 562 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she had filed her payroll taxes late on several occasions, but the situation had been resolved. Number 589 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse about her ability to spend time in Juneau for extended periods of time on ethics committee business. Number 597 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE mentioned that she had a seven-year-old daughter, but her husband was supportive of her application to serve on the ethics committee. She reiterated her belief that spending time in Juneau would not be a problem. Number 609 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if she had seen or perceived unethical behavior in the legislature while she was working for Rep. MacLean. Number 617 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that public officials had to be responsible. As a school board member, she felt a strong responsibility to be ethical. She noted that public officials were constantly in the spotlight. Number 632 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR repeated his question about whether or not Mrs. Vorderstrasse had seen or perceived unethical behavior among legislators, while she was working for Rep. MacLean. Number 634 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she had not seen unethical behavior in the legislature, nor did she believe it to exist. Number 639 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that Mrs. Vorderstrasse had spent most of her life in Barrow. He asked if she had been working in Barrow at the time of the "North Slope scandal." Number 649 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE replied that she was not involved with the borough at all at the time of the scandal. She added that her business had had contracts with the North Slope Borough, but not at the time of the scandal. She said that at the time it had been very difficult for her business to get work because borough officials gave contracts to other contractors. Number 668 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mrs. Vorderstrasse had been referring to North Slope Borough officials in her cover letter when she said that some leaders had not acted properly. MRS. VORDERSTRASSE indicated that Chairman Taylor was correct. She said that, in her cover letter, she was not referring to what she had seen in the legislative arena, but rather in the North Slope Borough. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the behavior of North Slope Borough officials was a disappointment to her. MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that it was a disappointment. She noted that the borough's debt service had skyrocketed as a result, and that the citizens of the borough were still paying for the scandal. Number 680 REP. FINKELSTEIN asked Mrs. Vorderstrasse if, as a member of the school board, she filed conflict of interest forms with APOC. Number 686 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she did. Number 687 REP. FINKELSTEIN stated that the chairman might want to look into that issue, due to Mrs. Vorderstrasse's related response on a questionnaire. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if it would be true that if Mrs. Vorderstrasse were confirmed, she might merely need to resign from the school board. Number 687 REP. FINKELSTEIN said that the chairman was correct, but he wanted to bring the matter up in the event that Mrs. Vorderstrasse did not want to resign from the school board. Number 699 MRS. VORDERSTRASSE said that she was aware of the need to resign from the school board in the event that she was confirmed. Number 703 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mrs. Vorderstrasse for appearing before the committee and said that he appreciated her candor. He said the committee would reconvene at 4:00 p.m. the following day. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m.