HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE April 21, 1998 8:17 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Joe Ryan Representative Kim Elton Representative Mark Hodgins MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Al Vezey COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL 244 "An Act relating to polygraph or other lie-detecting testing for certain correctional officers." - MOVED SB 244 OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR HOUSE BILL 257(STA) "An Act relating to voter qualification, disqualification, and registration; relating to voter registration officials and election personnel; relating to election notices; relating to mail elections; relating to certain election procedures; relating to the transportation of ballots; and relating to the official election pamphlet." - TECHNICAL CHANGES TO CSHB 257(STA) CS FOR SENATE BILL 105(FIN) AM "An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics; relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office; relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the definition of 'public official' for employment security statutes; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HCS CSSB 105(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 244 SHORT TITLE: POLYGRAPHS FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD, Taylor Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/16/98 2217 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/16/98 2217 (S) STA, JUD 2/17/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 2/17/98 (S) MINUTE(STA) 2/18/98 2561 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR 2/18/98 2561 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD NR: DUNCAN 2/18/98 2561 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COR) 4/06/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 4/07/98 3177 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 1NR 4/07/98 3177 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, MILLER, PEARCE 4/07/98 3177 (S) NR: ELLIS 4/07/98 3178 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (COR) 4/08/98 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 4/08/98 3199 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1NR 4/8/98 4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/08/98 3200 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 244 4/08/98 3200 (S) PASSED Y19 E1 4/08/98 3205 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/09/98 2936 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/09/98 2936 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY 4/21/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/21/98 (H) STA RPT 1DP 3NR 4/21/98 (H) DP: JAMES; NR: IVAN, RYAN, HODGINS 4/21/98 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COR) 2/18/98 4/21/98 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY BILL: HB 257 SHORT TITLE: VOTING & ELECTIONS SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 4/22/97 1263 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/22/97 1263 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 4/22/97 1264 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 4/22/97 1264 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 4/07/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/09/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/21/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: SB 105 SHORT TITLE: ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE ETHICS COMMITTEE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/25/97 494 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/25/97 494 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 3/11/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 3/11/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 3/13/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 3/13/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 3/18/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 3/25/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 3/25/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 3/26/97 873 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE 3/26/97 873 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD 3/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM) 3/26/97 873 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB (LAA) 3/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM) 4/10/97 (S) FIN AT 5:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/10/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 4/10/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 4/15/97 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/15/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 4/16/97 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/16/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 4/16/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 4/16/97 1163 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 5NR NEW TITLE 4/16/97 1163 (S) DP: PEARCE; DP IF AM: PHILLIPS 4/16/97 1163 (S) NR: SHARP, PARNELL, ADAMS, TORGERSON, 4/16/97 1163 (S) DONLEY 4/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA) 4/16/97 1163 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (LABOR, LAW) 4/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA) 4/18/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 4/18/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/18/97 1276 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 4/18/97 4/18/97 1279 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/18/97 1279 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/18/97 1280 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED AND WITHDRAWN 4/18/97 1281 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y4 N13 E3 4/18/97 1282 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y4 N13 E3 4/18/97 1283 (S) AMENDMENTS 4, 5 NOT OFFERED 4/18/97 1283 (S) AM NO 6 ADOPTED Y12 N5 E3 4/18/97 1285 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y7 N10 E3 4/18/97 1286 (S) AM NO 8 FAILED Y5 N12 E3 4/18/97 1287 (S) AM NO 9 ADOPTED Y17 N- E3 4/18/97 1291 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 4/18/97 1291 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 105(FIN) AM 4/18/97 1292 (S) PASSED Y15 N2 E3 4/18/97 1292 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 4/18/97 1292 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 4/21/97 1334 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 4/21/97 1335 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 10 UNAN CONSENT 4/21/97 1335 (S) AM NO 10 ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1 4/21/97 1336 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 4/21/97 1337 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N2 E1 4/21/97 1337 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 4/21/97 1370 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/22/97 1232 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/22/97 1233 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 2/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/12/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/12/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/17/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/17/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/19/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/24/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102 2/24/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/26/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102 2/26/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 3/03/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102 3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 3/05/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102 3/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 3/12/98 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 102 3/12/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 3/19/98 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 102 3/19/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 3/26/98 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 102 3/26/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 4/04/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/04/98 (H) MINUTE(STA) 4/07/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/09/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/16/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/18/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/21/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Ward Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 423 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4921 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Ward, sponsor of SB 244. GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator Division of Elections Office of the Lieutenant Governor P.O. Box 110017 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4611 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the technical changes to HB 257. BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Kelly Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 101 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4823 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 105. SUZIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant Legislative Ethics Committee P.O. Box 101468 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone: (907) 258-8172 POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer questions on SB 105. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-56, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Ivan, Ryan and Hodgins. Representatives Elton and Berkowitz arrived at 8:25 a.m. and 8:32 a.m. respectively. SB 244 - POLYGRAPHS FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is SB 244, "An Act relating to polygraph or other lie-detecting testing for certain correctional officers," sponsored by Senator Ward. Number 0007 CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Ward, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He said SB 244 is a very simple bill, basically it would allow that correctional officers are administered polygraph testing as a pre- employment screening device, investigations, etcetera. Currently the only people that the state allows to take polygraph tests are police officers and certain transportation officials. Those would be the security guards at the airport. This basically brings correctional officers who are armed and exhibit a great amount of power over their subjects to be brought under that same capability of having that test administered. He indicated it is supported by both the unions that represent their correctional officers and there has been no opposition as of yet to this piece of legislation. Number 0016 CHAIR JAMES asked what is the accuracy factor of lie detector examinations. MR. JOHNSON said he couldn't speak to that because he isn't an expert on lie detectors. He indicated he knows they are used in pre-employment screening for police officers. They are not the definitive answer but it might lead to a further investigation, it may not be the only thing that disqualifies an individual for employment, but it might lead to further research into the background of that individual. Generally they're accepted, by the police department and the employment, as acceptable - with acceptable measures, certainly not a 100 percent. Number 0024 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN noted there are cultural differences and backgrounds in some areas which this may cause confusion for some Alaska Natives. He used Bethel as an example, he asked where the tests are taken and who pays for them. MR. JOHNSON replied the cost would be absorbed by the state. He noted there is no fiscal note, so it would be very much like filling out the application, the application is provided by the state. In terms of the cultural differences, there's nothing in this bill that mandates the lie detector. Currently they can administer it to correctional officers - this gives them the ability to. CHAIR JAMES reiterated it's not mandatory, it's just an option. MR. JOHNSON replied yes. Number 0037 CHAIR JAMES indicated that there might be something else in the application that would make them determine that (indisc. - coughing) to do a lie detector test, some trigger, or would they just choose to do it all the time. Chair James indicated she had a problem with not everybody filling them out because if you don't you're discriminating against people. She said, "I have a little problem with giving a lie detector test to this person but not this person." MR. JOHNSON explained it's not mandatory. He stated he can't speak to how the department will administer it that would be a policy decision, they may choose to only do it in case of an investigation where they've got a problem inside an institution and then they chose to administer a lie detector test. They might use it as pre- employment screening. He reiterated that he can't speak to how they would use it, but this gives them the capability of using it. They might not use it for pre-employment. Number 0048 CHAIR JAMES clarified it's currently allowed for police officers but not for correctional officers. MR. JOHNSON replied, "Yes, and no one else in the state with the exception of those limited transportation officials who are police officers in terms of airport security. So, technically have all the rights of police officers - are armed. Those are the only two categories right now that can take the lie detector test, this just adds correctional officers into that." Number 0052 REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN made a motion to move SB 244, with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There being no objections, SB 244 moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HB 257 - VOTING & ELECTIONS Number 0057 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 257, "An Act relating to voter qualification, disqualification, and registration; to voter registration officials; to election notices; to mail elections; to certain voting procedures; to the transportation of ballots; and to the official election pamphlet and certain immunity from liability regarding claims arising from publication of the official election pamphlet." Number 0060 GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, came forward to explain the technical changes that need to be made in HB 257. She said, "The Committee Substitute that is before you, was heard at a hearing, I believe it was two weeks ago. When it was taken to Legislative Legal [Services] for official drafting of the CS, there were a couple of technical changes that needed to be made and that's what we would like to present to you. I believe everybody has a copy of an amendment sheet... It merely changes the manner in which the title is written. The drafter at Legislative Legal Services felt this better covered the scope of the intent of the bill. There was a section that was omitted in the original draft of the bill - changing the word 'question' to 'special review' so that is added." Number 0068 GAIL FENUMIAI concluded, "In order to clarify what type of testing that the State Review Board would be doing of the ballot counting equipment, we we're including, to add in there, in accordance with the regulations adopted, because testing procedures - so that means it would be detailed out in regulation. That's the effect of this proposed amendment." Page 1, lines 1-4: Delete all material and insert: An Act relating to voter qualification, disqualification, and registration; relating to voter registration officials and election personnel; relating to election notices; relating to mail elections; relating to certain election procedures; relating to transportation of ballots; and relating to the official election pamphlet. Page 4, line 24: Delete (a) Sec. 13 AS 15.15.198(a) is amended to read: Page 4, line 25: Insert before "(a)": Sec. 15.15.198. Voter not on official registration list. Page 4, following line 28: Insert: (b) A person whose registration is inactive under AS 15.07.130(b) and who votes a special review [QUESTIONED] or absentee ballot shall have the ballot counted if (1) the person was registered to vote for either of the two most recent general elections; (2) the person signs a statement to that effect; and (3) the earlier registration is verified by the director. Page 15, line 8: After "accuracy": Insert: in accordance with the regulations adopted under (a) of this section CHAIR JAMES noted for the record Representative Elton is present. CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 1. Number 0076 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There being no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0079 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move CSHB 257(STA), with individual recommendation and attached zero fiscal note. There being no objections, CSHB 257(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. SB 105 - ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE Number 0088 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is CSSB 105(FIN) am, "An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics; relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office; relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the definition of 'public official' for employment security statutes; and providing for an effective date." Number 0090 BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Kelly Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He stated he distributed the revised work draft, LS0079\Q, Cramer, 4/20/98, that incorporates all the amendments made at the last meeting of the State Affairs Committee. MR. BROWN also distributed Amendment Q.1 that reflects some concerns that other members of the House had, who probably won't have an opportunity to look at the bill in committee themselves. Number 0096 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked if travel at state expense is included in the amendment. MR. BROWN replied it is in both sections, the legislative ethics section and the executive branch ethics section. Mr. Brown referred to Section 17, page 15, AS 24.60.031 adds a new subsection on fund-raising during session. Section 74, page 48, AS 39.52.120. The provisions of the two are very similar and they do allow you to "double-back" as long as you pay for your trip - the most recent time you travel somewhere, then there's no 48 hours... Number 0109 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS had a question on Section 17, page 15, beginning on line 10. (2) legislator made a trip at state expense to a place, returned from that place, and then, within 48 hours, made a second trip to the place and the cost of the second trip was not paid for at state expense; REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "If I was in Fairbanks on state business, flew into Anchorage on my normal course of going home, and then I flew down to Kenai, and then returned, I haven't really returned to the place that I came from at state expense - which would be Fairbanks. ... I just wanted to make sure there's no problem. ... Let's say that I live in Fairbanks, and I flew on state business to Anchorage and then decided I was going to have a fund-raiser, and it was a heck of a lot cheaper for me to fly to Kenai at my own money and back ... or I even traveled by car to Palmer and back at my own expense. Does then that absolve me from having to go back to Fairbanks before I have a fund-raiser?" CHAIR JAMES stated she didn't believe the intent of this is to have you go back to Fairbanks. Number 0127 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS gave another example. He said, "Let's say that I lived in Kenai and I'm flying into Anchorage on state business, and then while I'm there I think, well I'm going to have a fund-raiser, there's a fund-raiser planned. Rather than go to Kenai again, if I just rented a car and drove to Palmer and back, made a trip out of town and back at my own expense, I guess that's what I'm asking. As long as you make a trip out of the location, and back at your own expense, it doesn't really matter where you go." CHAIR JAMES indicated what she would do is reimburse the state out of her campaign money, the cost of getting from Kenai to Anchorage. If you're going to have a fund-raiser, you take your fund-raising money and pay your way to get there. MR. BROWN stated if you look back at the beginning of prohibition, you may not travel at state expense to a place where you plan to hold a campaign fund-raising event. That's the initial rule you have to look at -- it's a matter of planning. He said, "The best way to protect yourself is to have the most - the leg immediately prior to the fund-raiser, not be paid for at state expense. Someone still might try to challenge you under this but that would be your best first line of defense. Don't pay the last leg of your journey with a state TR [travel request]." Number 0149 MR. BROWN remarked, "I'm more concerned actually, because it just occurred to me while you were talking, that second might not work if you're really busy going back and forth, and it almost seems (indisc.) subsequent. (Indisc.). So I don't know that we've perfected this language yet, it's a thorny issue. And I don't think I see a problem sequential legs like you do. I think as long as your most recent leg -- we can only close it so tight and there's still going to be a tiny loophole and I think that's probably as tight as we can get it." Number 0153 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said he agreed with Mr. Brown. Under the provisions, as amended, he believes the simplest way out the bind in that example would be, when you travel to Fairbanks at state expense, either drive to Anchorage at your own expense or fly to Anchorage at your own expense. Then you don't need to worry about it because you haven't arrived in Anchorage on a state TR. Number 0159 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said his point is, can you cleanse it by taking a shorter trip someplace and going back. obviously it's cheaper to buy a ticket to Kenai, and back and forth, or to drive to Palmer, back and forth, than it is to pay your own way from Fairbanks. Number 0175 CHAIR JAMES stated she doesn't believe this amendment will stay in the bill until the end. But it's very important to her because she doesn't believe they should be traveling on state expense for campaign fund-raising activities. She indicated she feels very strongly about it both on the legislative and governor's side. She would like to leave it in there. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS mentioned he agrees wholeheartedly, he's just looking at the loopholes. Number 0181 CHAIR JAMES said she would be happy to take an amendment. Number 0187 MR. BROWN explained the first provision of Amendment Q.1 (page 3, line 17, Version Q). He said the Campaign Finance Act currently allows you to raise money for 45 days after your election concludes. For most elections, those that occur the first Tuesday in November, that's pretty much the end of the year (within a week or two), so the concern that was brought to him was, "Why should it just be the end of the year." Well, if it were the end of the year, in the state, that would be the end of the year even for April elections and that would be undoing what the voters and legislature passed. Delete: to any candidate later than the 45th day Insert: to any candidate after the earlier of December 31 of the year of the election or the 60th [LATER THAN THE 45TH] day MR. BROWN said, "So the compromise language to address that concern was that it would be either the 31 of December or the 60 day. It's about 60 days from a November election to the end of the year, it expands it a little bit - logically in people's minds that's not, I don't think a huge change, giving them another week and a half, giving you another week and a half basically to retire (indisc.) is what it is. Or I suppose raise money to roll over to your next account, but there's a limit on how much you can do that any more. So this changes the timing deadline to continue raising money after your election is concluded to 60 days after the race is over as opposed to 45, or the end of the year so we don't have people going 60 days into January." Number 0198 CHAIR JAMES said that does make sense. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Brown to explain how this would work if you're defeated in a primary election, it would then be 60 days... MR. BROWN interjected you'd have 60 days to wrap it up, yes. Number 0200 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked, "Do we have any failsafe language in here, that if the case is presently before the court, it determines that a lot of this stuff is an evasion of our free speech, and so forth, and throws it out. That we're not going to pass this (indisc.), we're going to put it back in." MR. BROWN responded he doesn't have failsafe or severability language yet. He said he doesn't believe it's going to matter because this is not putting any new sections into the Campaign Finance Act, this is amending current section of the Act, but we're not creating any new sections. Mr. Brown concluded, "If the law (indisc.) throws those out, the changes just made would be moot because the law they were changing would be moot - the changes that makes the Legislative and Executive Branch Ethics Act would still be made. Maybe we want to put specific severability language in though, in the next committee of referral to ensure that." Number 0208 CHAIR JAMES said that's a very good point because what we have done, is we have done some things in this ethics act that parallel the campaign finance, and so if the campaign finance goes away, it doesn't automatically take this away. MR. BROWN replied no it doesn't. He said he doesn't know that the legislature wants to vacate its policy on fund-raising during session if the Campaign Finance Act is thrown out. CHAIR JAMES asked "If the Campaign Finance Act is thrown out, we already had, before that a requirement that you couldn't raise money during session - previous to that. That's one issue that wouldn't - it still would go back to the way it was before wouldn't it." MR. BROWN replied it's changed a little bit, but that's correct. The prohibition on raising money during session in the ethics law predated the campaign initiative passed by the voters, so it wouldn't change at all. No one has challenged the ethics Act as being a violation of their constitutional rights. Number 0216 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Brown to look into the severability clause for a possible amendment. She believes an amendment would be a good idea. MR. BROWN indicated he would. Number 0226 MR. BROWN referred to page 4, lines 25 and 26, Version Q. He explained the amounts for the victory party and thank you gifts for the volunteers of $500 and $50 respectively were not really appropriate amounts. Mr. Brown said, "That a $500 party for a large campaign might not be a very good party, and that a $50 gift didn't necessarily restrict payment to volunteers, but is under [AS] 15.13.116(a)(1), you can pay bills incurred for expenditures reasonably related to your campaign, and that could really be a contrast for personal services to any of your volunteers, or nonvolunteers who'd be paid during the course of the campaign for any amount you named. I mean really any cash payment for someone who worked in your campaign in a substantial capacity would be reasonably be related. So, putting in a gift amount just seemed kind of unnecessary. Instead of changing the amounts there, it was thought that it was easier just to just delete (2), on lines 25 and 26, because those gifts and victory parties are reasonably related to your campaign under (1). And you're going to have to disclose what you do with it anyway, so there's going to be public disclosure of how you spent the money." Delete: (2) pay for a victory or a thank you party costing less than $500, or to give a thank you gift of a value of less than $50 to a campaign employee or volunteer; Insert: (2) [PAY FOR A VICTORY OR A THANK YOU PARTY COSTING LESS THAN $500, OR TO GIVE A THANK YOU GIFT OF A VALUE OF LESS THAN $50 TO A CAMPAIGN EMPLOYEE OR VOLUNTEER;] Number 0237 MR. BROWN referred to page 4, lines 13 and 14. He said the changes change the references to the public office expense term account and public office expense term reserve options later on in the list. He said we're changing line 13, to (a)(8) and on 14, to (a)(9). He explained we are altering references to the disposal of assets language later in the bill because the amendment seeks to delete option (2) which is on page 4, lines 25 and 26, referring to paying for a victory party or gifts for a volunteer. Number 0245 MR. BROWN continued. He stated, "The rest of the page here, all the changes on page 4, lines 13, 14, 22, 25 and 26, and then if you flip to page 2 of the amendment, all of those changes going down there, go through and renumber the following subsections accordingly - as a result of taking subsection (2), which refers to the victory parties, out." UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said he doesn't know why he didn't do the normal "renumber accordingly." MR. BROWN replied he didn't either, that's the way the drafter drafted it. Number 0250 MR. BROWN stated, "The next substantive change is on page 3 of the amendment, line 6 (page 10 of version Q). But everything up to that point reflects this removal of the victory party and volunteer gift language." MR. BROWN referred to page 10, line 2 of the bill. He said, "This deletes 'upper-level employee' and reinserts the language 'Legislative Director.' Amendment Q.1 removes the requirement that staff, in the legislative branch (compensated at range 19 and above) disclose like legislators and legislative directors currently disclose." He reiterated that it removes the disclosure requirement for legislative staff. Number 0256 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked where did the inspiration for this change come from. MR. BROWN replied Speaker Phillips - and many other people have said why this disclosure is being implemented, it's going to be costly, it's going to be cumbersome, and staffs don't make decisions. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated we had made that same point earlier and it would have been easier if you had just done what we wanted at that time rather than going to the Speaker. CHAIR JAMES said good point. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, as a former staff member of four years experience, staff make lots of decisions. CHAIR JAMES noted that some staff do and some staff don't. MR. BROWN replied the buck stops at the legislator, the disclosure ought to be incumbent upon the legislator. Staff still has to disclose on receipt of gifts, close economic associations, membership on boards, just not to APOC [Alaska Public Offices Commission]. Number 0270 MR. BROWN referred to page 19 of the bill. He said, "The bill currently changes the legislative ethics disclosure deadline from the 15 of April to the 15 of February, so it's earlier in the session. under (c)(6) of this section that has a value of $250 or more shall be disclosed to the committee annually on or before February 15 [APRIL 15] of the following calendar year; MR. BROWN stated, "The concern is that's a little too early for people to disclose. The compromise was to move the deadline to the 15 of March - in between, which is when the executive branch public official disclosures are currently reported to APOC." He asked when are those going in now. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied April 15. MR. BROWN said, "I believe we've actually changed the reference later in the bill so it's the 15 of March for everyone." Number 0279. CHAIR JAMES asked why we have it as March 15 instead of April 15. MR. BROWN replied right now the bill changes it from April to February. The proposal in the amendment is to change it to the 15 of March so you have one more month to turn this stuff in. CHAIR JAMES asked what did we go from April 15 to February. MR. BROWN stated because that was an attempt to standardize it, it was an attempt to go from the APOC deadline back to the legislative ethics deadline (February 15). Number 0286 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why are we doing two forms when one would do. MR. BROWN replied that's the way the law was passed a long time ago. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if they could do just one form because he hates filling out forms. You can do one form and it could go to whoever needs it, but it's just one form. MR. BROWN replied but they're different forms. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ told Mr. Brown to do something to make them one form. Number 0292 SUZIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant, Legislative Ethics Committee, said, "There is that possibility and people have looked at blending the forms. First let me say that I don't think you can eliminate the big APOC conflict of interest form, all elected officials in the state fill it out, I don't think the legislature would want to eliminate that form." MS. BARNETT stated, "On our side, one of the most important forms that I would strongly urge you to keep in is the gifts of travel and hospitality, there is a lot of interest in that and it's a 30- day disclosure and we give that information out all the time to people if they ask for it. They want to know who is taking you where, and what, and who paid for it. MS. BARNETT continued. She said, "You fill out forms saying your close economic associations on an annual basis, and within 30 days of any new associations. It's the update of the forms that is valuable. With the APOC reporting things that happened in the previous year - this year, the ethics disclosures are things that are happening this year and it's current so that, Representative Berkowitz, as you're in a committee, if you want to know what so and so's interests are in this, you should be able to come back and see that that person has a close economic association, or serves on that board, or that kind of information should be available to you concerning 1998." Number 0304 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he's just interested in paper- minimization, he believes that's some federal mandate that they ought to subscribe to. He said, "It seems to me that the two forms can be consolidated because there's substantial overlap. And as far as the reporting of all our gifts, and such, we do that anyway. All I did when I filled out the form this year was go back into the file and pull out everything that was over 100 bucks that I'd already filed anyway." MS. BARNETT stated this bill actually does change that, all the gift reporting ends up over with ethics and not with APOC. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "We do do it twice, even under this agenda. ... Someone flies me out to say, up to the Slope, I fill out a form saying the spent $300 on me to take me up to the Slope and show me around and you get that form promptly. And then, with this end of the year report, I give it to you again bundled with all the other trips." Number 0311 MR. BROWN remarked you won't have to after this bill passes. MS. BARNETT reiterated you only report gifts once. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he's not saying do away with legislative ethics or do away with the APOC. He stressed what he is saying is combine the two. MR. BROWN replied there is no combination possible if staff isn't filing APOC reports. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated you can do a form that the staff has to complete for legislative ethics. He reiterated he just don't want to fill out the information twice. It's a waste of time. Number 0318 MR. BROWN said, "For the gift information, that's already been taken care of. It would be possible to go ahead and take the conflict of interest information and maybe assume that that was -- but then again you've got the timeliness issue. Does the public have to wait until next year to know about your conflict of interest now?" REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said some of the stuff that is held to be conflict of interest is absurd. Family property, that's out-of- state, there's no way that impacts any decision he would make in this legislature. All it serves to do is notify people of his financial situation, or what they perceive to be his financial situation just because he might have a minuscule interest in something. This stuff gets reported everywhere. He said, "I've never had anyone come to me and say ... because you and your brother are co-owners of something, somewhere, it's going to impact you. No one's called me on it, no one's ever done anything, and to my knowledge no one in this body has ever been called on something like that." Number 0324 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked why can't you have one form and have two parts in it. If you're a legislator you fill out part 1 and 2, and if you're staff you fill out part 2. It comes due on one day, there's one mailing, you send it back to one place, you can have the last years stuff and you can have the current stuff. That would be parts 1, 2 or 3, however it works. But the point is, is we only get one packet, we fill it out, we send it off and we're done with it. Then they can go ahead, they can send it off to however many people they want to internally, but it isn't your fault if it doesn't go from ethics to APOC and vice versa because you send it to one place and that's it. Representative Hodgins thanked Representative Berkowitz for the good idea - let's put it into law. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said APOC and ethics could have a "home page." They could use it to fill out their forms and anybody could access that information. CHAIR JAMES mentioned not everyone has an Internet. Number 0338 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Barnett if it's possible to make April 15 the magic date for everything, and then they come up with a form that is capable of what they have been discussing. MS. BARNETT replied, "I think it's possible. I caution you folks in the legislature that it is not just the public who wants this information ... I am more often asked by legislators for the information and you may not want to wish to wait until April 15. It's always possible to combine paper and forms, I think Brook [Miles, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices Commission, Department of Administration] will be able to speak to it, but I worry about you waiting until April 15 to have that information." CHAIR JAMES suggested March 15. MS. BARNETT said, "February 15 would be my recommendation, you've done a lot of work by March 15." Number 0346 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked if February 15 work for everything going into one massive form. Does that give everybody enough time from the year-end to get all that information forward? MS. BARNETT responded it may not be possible, you probably don't have all of your financial information that is required for APOC, you have all the information for us by February. She thought Ms. Miles might be able to better answer the question. Number 0351 CHAIR JAMES said, "I don't know what we wouldn't have. Almost all the deadlines for everything that you would be getting, W2's or 1099's or other reports except small business, corporations, and tax, and stock things - you probably wouldn't have those necessarily." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, if he owned one share of something, that they can support it the same as if he owned 100,000 shares. Number 0366 MR. BROWN said he thinks it's probably unlikely that this amendment can affect the change in consolidating the forms. He indicated they could pick the date though, and March is considered to be a compromise - it's earlier than APOC is currently getting the information and it's later than ethics is getting their information. CHAIR JAMES noted Ms. Barnett indicated she didn't like the March 15 date either because by then they would have done a lot of business and that might be too late for the information that they're reviewing. She asked Ms. Barnett if that's what she said. Number 0372 MS. BARNETT replied yes. She said, "I have to speak to something that I think is a good idea, and there is an updating requirement in our disclosures, it doesn't exist in the APOC forms. So that, as you're dealing with people in the legislature, you are able to call me and say, 'Does so and so have this conflict of interest.' Within 30 days you have to notify us of certain things. So, I again, I think February 15 is preferable and I still like an updating of information throughout session at least." REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked do we need to put in a lot of amendments in this to make this work or can most of that stuff be done through your endeavors and regulations. What is the best mechanism to be used at this point? MS. BARNETT said, "I think we would actually have to change the statute, I didn't think this will do it. But certainly APOC and I can sit down - we have in the past talked about this and played around with it. So we could come back to the legislature with a proposal, but I think the way this reads - and Brook could say one way or the other, I think we will need to change statute." REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Chair James when was she planning on moving this bill out of committee. Number 0388 CHAIR JAMES replied today, it next goes to House Finance but they don't want to spend a lot of time on it. Chair James said how do we get from here to there. She suggested they not fix it right now because it needs intense review. She indicated what she would like to request President Miller and Speaker Phillips each appoint someone to work on that during the interim with APOC and legislative ethics to see what kind of streamlining can be done. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stressed he is not comfortable with that, he wants it done in the next committee. If Mr. Brown can come up with the information and have an amendment ready, Finance can look at it, say yea or nay, and be done with it. MR. BROWN said he can do that. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated the disclosure is a presumption of disclosure to make sure I'm not buttering my own bread, is that the reason he has to disclose. If that's a presumption, what is the problem of making this disclosure at one time... CHAIR JAMES said it's curiosity. Number 0402 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understood what Representative Ryan was saying, do a one-time full disclosure, and if something changes, rather than having to fill out a new form every year just do the addition, deletion, update because the (indisc.) information doesn't change that much from year to year and Ms. Barnett said we have to do updates anyway. TAPE 98-56, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIR JAMES said, "... things that maybe we do or do not need. Therefore, I think we need to take a look and see whether or not we have required by statute these things to such an extent that they ought not to be. That's why I'm interested in taking a look at the statute and the requirements as well as the reporting. Once you make the requirements in the statue - that's why we've gotten ourselves here. Maybe there is a simpler way to do it, and that's why I was suggesting -- and (indisc.) to stop anybody from doing that anyway, if they want to do it on their own." Number 0014 CHAIR JAMES asked the committee if they were okay with changing the date from February 15 to March 15. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if they are talking about a future amendment that tries to accomplish a lot of what they talked about today, then making a decision on the date is probably premature. Number 0020 MR. BROWN said, "I didn't know that it is because the bill already makes a change from the 15 of April to the 15 of February. So the bill is already written with the minimal consolidation of only the gift information and not the rest of the form(s) -- already moved it back two months. So I think you can independently decide that moving it forward again a month is a good idea even with two forms - it might be a better idea..." Number 0029 CHAIR JAMES asked the committee if someone wants to amend the amendment on line 9 through 11, then please make a motion to amend the amendment, otherwise they are going to go on. Number 0031 MR. BROWN referred to page 22, line 30, of the bill. He explained this is another change in the deadline, it's changing it everywhere in the Legislative Ethics Code. Number 0035 MR. BROWN referred to page 26, lines 16 through 18, this deals with the rights of a person to attend an executive session of the Legislative Ethics Committee when its deliberating concerning an advisory opinion. Delete the following: A person who requested an opinion, including a legislator, may not require admittance to an executive session of the committee when it is deliberating concerning the advisory opinion. MR. BROWN explained the committee wanted specific language that kept people out of those executive sessions and this amendment would delete that language which would arguably give you the right to request the attendance at a meeting where they were debating an advisory opinion. He indicated the advantage to having a ban on attendance by persons, who request the opinions, is it probably increases the candor of the conversation about the advisory opinion being debated. The disadvantage is that you may feel like it's a depravation of your rights to be present when something you asked is being answered. Number 0043 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated what bothers him, if they use that assumption, the logical extension of that would be that they could sit in on jury deliberations. It does change the tenor of the discussion. He said he would like to hear from Ms. Barnett on this issue. MR. BROWN mentioned this is for an advisory opinion, this is before you're in trouble so to speak, this is when you're saying, "Will I get in trouble if I do this." Number 0049 MS. BARNETT responded, "I think that there is a concern about allowing people in during deliberations. Most people who, when the topic doesn't have a concern, a lot of people waive the confidentiality and we have a great discussion out in the open which is wonderful when that gets to happen. A few of these opinions, people ask for some very touchy information and we may actually have to find that if they took that action, they would be in violation. And sometimes they have already taken that action. A complaint doesn't get filed at that point, but it's very tricky, and at that time you don't want - I don't think the legislature wants someone sitting in the room, trying to sway the opinion of the committee away from reading the law, and saying this is the way it is." MS. BARNETT said, "I would encourage you to understand that the committee invites people into their advisory opinion executive sessions and into other executive sessions. You have access to the committee up to the point of the actual deliberation. I would encourage you not to adopt this [part of the] amendment." Number 0065 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated the aspect of this committee being a jury troubles him. He said, "If I'm in a criminal procedure, and I have a jury, I have a right to council, and the council has the right to challenge the perspective jurors, have numerous rights. And then here we have a committee appointed by somebody in the courts and they're taking on the characteristics of a jury, and I have nothing but to sit back and wait until they decide what they're going to do. And then appeal it to whatever body I happen to be a member of. It's pretty (indisc.) and I don't feel comfortable with that. ... Anybody can file an accusation against me, I'm a sitting target." Number 0073 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the distinction is at the different levels of process, and the evidence gathering, and evidence hearing stage. It's his understanding that the object of the complaint is permitted to be present. And it's only after evidence has been gathered, and the committee is in deliberations, that their seeking or the possibility of going into a closed session. He asked if that was correct. MR. BROWN replied we're not looking at that right now, we're looking at advisory opinions, it's a different part of the process, it's when you say can I do this, if I did this would it be okay. We're not looking at hearings or complaints. There's nothing really related to advisory opinions in the judicial system, you never ask a judge, if I went out and shot this person would I have committed murder. They would never impanel a jury and have that jury give you an advisory opinion. At this point, they are giving you preliminary advice. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he wonders why this committee has to have this exclusive power to exclude people from their deliberations when everybody else, except a criminal trial doesn't have that. Why do they have all this protection, let them stand up and be counted? If they make a decision that affects other people, people should know who made the decision and which decision was made so they can be accountable for their actions. Number 0096 CHAIR JAMES said she has gotten advisory opinions in the past. It seems to her the whole issue of advisory opinions shows that we don't have enough structure to be able to mend everything. Chair James said, "It seems to me, like if I was asking for an advisory opinion ... I am probably not there, but I don't see any reason for me not listening into this discussion. I don't think I should participate, ... but I would be there to ask any questions if it's not clear exactly what kind of an opinion I'm asking for. I think that the deliberating in this case, and I know that Suzie [Barnett] disagrees with me on that because she's already stated that she feels like the conversation, or the deliberation would be persuaded by the person being there. I don't necessarily think that is true. On top of that, I think it's necessary for the person to see how that deliberation ended up with this opinion, because otherwise you could question and have asked another advisory opinion. I guess I support this amendment here, but I do understand that concern because it's much easier to talk about somebody when they're not there..." Number 0114 MS. BARNETT indicated she believes the committee ought to deal with it. She said, "In fact, when I looked at the amendment this morning I thought ... compromise language might be that the committee may allow the requester to attend while it is deliberating, because right now the committee would find that they can't. In general, the committee can deal with the person in there, it's just that - when they are deliberating on some of these, the person could try to influence the outcome." Number 0122 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands the need to exclude someone. You're going to make in all probability comments about credibility and impressions that necessitate open discussions. And if you are to take a devil's advocate role in order to formulate an opinion in an open session, you might not arrive at the best conclusion. He understands the need even here to close down deliberations. CHAIR JAMES jokingly said she was so pleased to hear him say that because he has been pounding and pounding on us having open caucuses and now you see why we don't. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that you can close the caucus when strategy is being discussed. Number 0132 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he sat in on these sessions and read advisory opinions in the past. He indicated he sees this as less an issue of what is right or wrong, as it is an issue of let the committee do its work in a timely manner, if we adopt this portion of the amendment things get slowed down. Representative Elton said he can't remember this being an issue in his brief time with the committee. He asked Ms. Barnett if it has been an issue for the committee before. MS. BARNETT replied no one has ever requested to sit in. The committee members themselves have asked for advisory opinions and they just excuse themselves from participation. She reiterated her response and indicated she can't remember where this came from. Number 0145 CHAIR JAMES asked how did this get in the bill in the first place if it's never been a problem. MR. BROWN stated this was a request by the ethics committee at the beginning of last session. MS. BARNETT indicated this was requested by Senator Donley. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Barnett, "If there is anything unclear in the request, you always work with the legislator or the legislative employee that has made the request so that before it gets to the deliberation stage you have a good sense and can present to the committee, a good sense of what the question actually is, right." MS. BARNETT replied yes, and again, the requestor is invited to join the committee up until the point of deliberation. So if there was any question, we would invite them in. Number 0155 CHAIR JAMES addressed Ms. Barnett. She said, if we take this out, we're back where you were, and that's not a problem you say. MS. BARNETT stated, "If you take it out - I guess I'd recommend saying that the committee is allowed to invite the requestor in when it is deliberated. So in other words, if they really want the person in, to continue even when they're deliberating then the committee can ask you in. Right now I think they'd say, 'Oh gosh, we can't do that.' So I'd take a different approach, but if you take it out, it's fine, but if you leave it in." Number 0161 CHAIR JAMES interjected then we can agree that we need to take it out. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS noted that it's 9:10 a.m., and if she wanted to move this out today... CHAIR JAMES said she understands that. She said she also wanted to inform Theresa Obermeyer that they will not have time to take testimony because they are going to be adjourning at 9:30 a.m. and that they have to get this bill out. MR. BROWN stated, "It's not in the amendment right now, it takes it out and it's not the end of the world and it can be revisited if need be." CHAIR JAMES clarified that they are moving along. They have not made any amendments to the amendment at this point. Number 0170 MR. BROWN referred to page 26, lines 21 and 31 of version Q. He explained this changes the statute of limitations for the Legislative Ethics Act from "five" to "two" years. That is the statute of the limitations for the Executive Branch Ethics Act, it's the term of office for one representative and it was suggested that was a fair amount of time for an ethics complaint to be (indisc.) over your head. After two years, it's no longer prosecutable. The committee is getting the right to reinstitute things though, if you quit and come back, if it's (indisc.) your window, they can still (indisc.) you. Number 0177 MR. BROWN referred to page 33, line 21, of version Q. He stated, "This specifies who the appointing authority for employees of House Records and Senate Records are, the Speaker thought we had not specified that. They would have been Leg. Council, this puts them on the appropriate side of this capital ... the Finance Committee for House Records, and the Finance Committee for Senate Records." Page 33, line 21, following "finance committees" Insert: employees of house records and senate records, (4) the appropriate rules committee for employees of standing committees of the legislature, other than the finance committees, employees of house records and senate records, and employees of the senate secretary's office and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives; Number 0180 MR. BROWN referred to page 34 of version Q. He explained this deletes the reference to upper-level employees disclosing, since only legislators, public members of the committee and legislative directors are going to be disclosing under the legislative code. Delete: Financial disclosure by legislators, upper-level employees, and public members of the committee {LEGISLATIVE DIRECTORS]. A legislator, an upper-level employee, and a public member of the committee [LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR] Insert: Financial disclosure by legislators, public members of the committee, and legislative directors. A legislator, a public member of the committee, and a legislative director Number 0183 MR. BROWN noted the following changes: Page 34, lines 15 and 16: Delete: an upper-level employee [A LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR] Insert: a legislative director Page 35, line 30, through page 36, line 16: Delete all material and insert a new section to read: Sec. 24.60.210. Deadlines for filing of disclosure statements. A legislator and a legislative director shall file an annual report with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, covering the previous calendar year, containing the disclosures required by AS 24.60.200, on or before March 15 [APRIL 15] of each year. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 36, lines 18 and 19: Delete: upper level employee Insert: legislative director Page 36, lines 27 and 28: Delete: upper level employee Insert: legislative director Number 0187 MR. BROWN explained the next change deals with a report by APOC to appointing authorities for legislative employees who didn't file their disclosures in time. Since they're not filing disclosures anymore, we no longer have to have as much language about whom APOC would tell if they didn't file the disclosure. He reiterated, "We're getting rid of my disclosure requirements, so we can get rid of the language that mandates who APOC tells that I'm not in compliance." Page 36, line 29, through page 37, line 3: Delete: the appropriate committee of the legislature. For the ombudsman and employees of the office of the ombudsman, the appropriate committee is the Alaska Legislative Council. For upper-level employees who are not employed by the Legislative Affairs Agency or the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, the commission shall notify the Rules Committee of the appropriate legislative body. Insert: the Alaska Legislative Council or Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, as appropriate. For the ombudsman, the Alaska Legislative Council shall be notified. Page 37, line 29: Delete: ; Insert: . Page 37, line 30, through page 38, line 1: Delete all material. Number 0197 MR. BROWN referred to page 39, line 2, following ".": Insert: This subsection applies to employees in the exempt service, except those listed below, notwithstanding AS 39.25.110. MR. BROWN explained this deals with the ban on exempt employees running for office. He stated, "Because the Personal Act does not, by its nature, apply to exempt employees because they're exempt from the Personnel Act, but we are putting in a provision that bans their candidacy, Mike wanted to make sure that we had a reference to the applicability of the ban on employee candidacy to the exempt service as well as to the partially-exempt in the classified service." Number 0202 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if this was the amendment that they passed. MR. BROWN replied he didn't understand his question - in terms of the language banning who can run. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he thought they opened up the process. Number 0205 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied we did, but then changed it at the last meeting because there was concern that with the language where we allowed exempt employees to run if they took leave, different kinds of leave, we took that back out. There was concern that what we had done is we had also opened up a huge window on the ban on classified employees from running for partisan office. Number 0210 MR. BROWN remarked that all those people can run, the ban doesn't apply to them, this subsection is a section that bans persons from running. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ verified that firefighters, youths employed by DNR [Department of Natural Resources], including students can run. MR. BROWN replied yes, but the lead provision was taken out. This reference just makes sure that we say that this section applies to exempt employees. That's why they're called exempt, by nature, they're supposed to be exempted from the whole Personnel Act. This is one component of the Personnel Act that is going to apply to them. Number 0214 MR. BROWN noted the last of the changes is renumbering. Number 0215 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to adopt Amendment Q.1. Number 0216 MR. BROWN suggested the committee adopt version Q as a work draft and then Amendment Q.1. Number 0218 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS amended his motion to adopt HCS CSSB 105, version Q, with the Amendment Q.l. Number 0219 CHAIR JAMES said, "Before I accept that motion, let's say that we did have an amendment on the floor of Q.1, which will be displaced by this motion, to accept the CS Q and Q.1 the amendment, is there any objection." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Chair James to explain the motion. He indicated he heard a two-part motion that we adopt version Q and the amendment [Q.1]. CHAIR JAMES replied that's what they did. Number 0225 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to adopt HCS CSSB 105, version LS0074\Q, there being no objections, that version was before the committee. Number 0027 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to adopt Amendment Q.1. Number 0229 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He said he would like to offer an amendment to the amendment on page 3, line 15 of the amendment. Page 26, line 16 through 18: Delete: A person who requested an opinion, including a legislator, may not require admittance to an executive session of the committee when it is deliberating concerning the advisory opinion. Number 0232 CHAIR JAMES objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted for the amendment. Representative Hodgins, Ivan, James and Ryan, voted against the amendment. The amendment to the amendment failed by a vote of 2-4. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections to Amendment Q.1. There being none, Amendment Q.1 was adopted. Number 0240 CHAIR JAMES noted, "We have a fiscal note here, it's a draft, it's not signed, but we will probably have one signed before I move it on for $5,000 from the Attorney General's Office for additional staff time for the reporting that's required by this bill. So we need to move this fiscal note with it was well." Number 0243 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HCS CSSB 105, version Q, as amended, with individual recommendations, and attached fiscal note. Number 0246 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. CHAIR JAMES requested a roll call vote. Representatives Ryan, Hodgins, Ivan, James, Elton and Berkowitz voted to move HCS CSSB 105(STA). HCS CSSB 105(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT Number 0251 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee at 9:30 a.m.