JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES February 4, 1993 11:00 a.m. HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Rep. Brian Porter Rep. Jeannette James Rep. Pete Kott Rep. Gail Phillips Rep. Joe Green Rep. Cliff Davidson Rep. Jim Nordlund HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT None SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Sen. Robin Taylor, Chairman Sen. Rick Halford Sen. Suzanne Little Sen. Dave Donley SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT Sen. George Jacko OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Rep. Cynthia Toohey Rep. David Finkelstein Rep. Jerry Sanders COMMITTEE CALENDAR Continuation of Confirmation Hearings - Public Members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics WITNESS REGISTER Niel Thomas 14740 Mossberry Lane Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Phone: 345-1552 Position Statement: Answered committee questions via teleconference Margie MacNeille 8101 White Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Phone: 346-3326 Position Statement: Answered committee questions via teleconference Dr. Rodman Wilson, M.D. 6234 Tanaina Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Phone: 243-5583 Position Statement: Answered committee questions via teleconference ACTION NARRATIVE HOUSE TAPE 93-8, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE meeting to order at 11:12 a.m. on February 4, 1993. He explained that due to weather problems, the public member appointees to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics were not able to fly into Juneau. Appointees Margie MacNeille, Rodman Wilson, and Niel Lawrence would therefore participate in the meeting via teleconference from Anchorage. Senate members present were Senator Taylor, Senator Halford, and Senator Little. Senator George Jacko was absent. House members present were Representative Brian Porter, Representative Jeannette James, Representative Pete Kott, Representative Gail Phillips, Representative Joe Green, Representative Jim Nordlund, and Representative Cliff Davidson. A quorum was present. Number 071 MR. THOMAS said that he was pleased to have been appointed to the Ethics Committee. He said that his real estate work lent him experience in bringing together people with differing interests. He noted he also has experience as an arbitrator of labor disputes and was the former director of the State Human Rights Commission. In that role, he worked as an impartial fact finder. Given that experience, he felt that he had something to offer to the Ethics Committee. He also said that he did not consider himself a partisan political person. Number 134 REP. PHILLIPS said that she had information indicating that in 1986 Mr. Thomas had changed his party affiliation to Democrat, and then in 1992 changed his registration back to undeclared. She asked Mr. Thomas to clarify his partisanship based on that information and also to tell the committee whether his 1992 change in registration had anything to do with his application to the Ethics Committee. Number 154 MR. THOMAS responded that Rep. Phillips' information was news to him. He said in 1992 he changed his residence address. He stated that he could not remember why, in 1986, he declared a party registration. He noted that changes he made in his registration in 1992 had nothing to do with the Ethics Committee. Number 180 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Thomas if he were aware that there were to be two Republicans, two Democrats, and one undeclared individual comprising the public members on the Ethics Committee. Number 195 MR. THOMAS said that he first became aware of the need for public members on the Ethics Committee via a newspaper advertisement last fall. Number 212 REP. GREEN asked Mr. Thomas what prompted him to apply to be on the committee. Number 226 MR. THOMAS said that he noticed that the committee had been reconstituted, saw the advertisement looking for public member applicants, and felt that he could lend some expertise to the committee. He said that his decision had no connection to his real estate career, except for the relevant experience he had gained in that career. Number 244 REP. JAMES asked Mr. Thomas to define "ethics" in his own words and then to relate the work of the Ethics Committee to his own qualifications. Number 258 MR. THOMAS replied that to some extent, ethics had been spelled out in the law. He added that the work of the committee would be guided, to a large extent, by a historical series of debates, discussions, and legal opinions on the subject. He said the committee's work would be to build upon that base. He stated that the committee would also be dealing with new matters as they surfaced, and that the committee's judgment about those matters would depend on that historical base. Number 300 REP. JAMES asked Mr. Thomas how extensive a role investigation would play in the Ethics Committee. Number 308 MR. THOMAS responded by saying that were a complaint filed, the committee would have the authority to hire an investigator to determine facts. The committee could then study those facts and make a preliminary decision about whether the investigation should proceed further. Number 315 (Chairman Taylor noted the arrival of Senator Donley.) Number 326 REP. DAVIDSON thanked Mr. Thomas for applying to be on the committee. He asked Mr. Thomas why an impartial fact-finder would care about someone's party label. Number 350 MR. THOMAS said he couldn't imagine someone's party label making any difference, except in the event that the party label related to the question before the Ethics Committee. He added that he anticipated that most complaint situations would be totally unrelated to party affiliation. Number 360 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Thomas to characterize some of his previous impartial fact-finding missions - the situation ethics he encountered, the characteristics of the process, and how he saw his role on the committee. Number 370 MR. THOMAS spoke about his real estate work, in which he brought buyers and sellers together. His role was to search for points on which these two groups would agree, to search for a middle ground, and to work to resolve disagreements. Earlier in his career, he served as an arbitrator for labor disputes. His role in that job was something like a private judge. He would hear two sides of a labor dispute and issue an impartial, binding opinion. He mentioned that for eight years he worked on the staff of the Human Rights Commission. In that role, he supervised a staff of people whose job it was to impartially assess the merits of discrimination complaints. Number 422 REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Thomas if he perceived any differences in the job he would do on the Ethics Committee and his real estate, labor dispute, and Human Rights Commission experience. Specifically, Rep. Davidson wanted to know if there were a difference in the standard by which Mr. Thomas would judge a legislator versus someone whom he might encounter in his other lines of work. Number 435 MR. THOMAS said that many people believed that elected officials should be held to a higher standard of conduct than other people. He mentioned the code of ethics among real estate professionals and said that those standards could apply equally to the public sector. He stated that he was not convinced that public sector officials could be expected, in every case, to act according to a standard of conduct far in excess of that of everyone else. He said he would rather see all humans strive to achieve a level of fairness and honesty, rather than ascribing certain standards of conduct to certain groups of individuals. Number 463 REP. PORTER commented that he had known Mr. Thomas for many years and worked with him when Mr. Thomas worked for the Human Rights Commission. He asked Mr. Thomas to comment on recent newspaper articles about legislators and whether he had formed any opinions about the ethical conduct of the individuals named. Number 477 MR. THOMAS said that when a matter received extensive publicity, it became difficult for that matter to be judged impartially. At the same time, he added, society did not presume that people like judges would necessarily be prejudiced by what they read in the newspaper. He said that he had an open mind, and there was almost always more than one side to a story. Number 506 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Thomas to explain how he came to apply for a seat on the Ethics Committee. Number 511 MR. THOMAS answered that he saw a newspaper ad announcing vacancies on the committee. He then went to the legislative information office and picked up an announcement detailing how to apply. Number 522 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Thomas how long he had served on the Alaska Judicial Council's Committee on Judicial Retention. Number 524 Mr. Thomas said that this committee was a very short-lived, unofficial committee. It was in existence for less than a year, in 1989 or 1990. Number 535 REP. PHILLIPS questioned whether Mr. Thomas had sufficient available time to devote to the committee. Number 542 MR. THOMAS said that he was an independent contractor with a real estate agency and could set his own schedule. He added that it was frequently possible to conduct his business over long distances. He saw no conflict between his personal life and committee work. Number 556 SEN. LITTLE thanked Mr. Thomas for applying for a seat on the committee. She asked Mr. Thomas if he had dealt with media pressure before and if he had found it difficult. Number 568 MR. THOMAS replied that he was a former reporter and continued to write a real estate column for the Alaska Journal of Commerce. As the director of the Human Rights Commission, he related to the press as a public official. He added that he was comfortable in that role. Number 585 REP. KOTT expressed his appreciation for Mr. Thomas' application to serve on the committee. He asked Mr. Thomas if he had had any recent contact with any member of the legislature. Number 593 MR. THOMAS said that the only contact he had was a call from Rep. Finkelstein the week before cautioning him about dealing with the press. Number 599 REP. GREEN described a hypothetical situation in which Mr. Thomas had a sour business experience with a legislator. Rep. Green asked Mr. Thomas to explain how he would attempt to remain impartial when investigating a complaint against that same legislator. Number 618 MR. THOMAS spoke of the committee members' need to disclose close economic associations with legislators, lobbyists, and others. He said that he would have to ask himself, in that situation, whether or not he could be impartial. He added that he could envision circumstances in which a committee member would excuse her- or himself from investigating a complaint. Number 645 REP. JAMES asked Mr. Thomas to explain why the ethics law required two Republicans, two Democrats and one undeclared individual to serve on the Ethics Committee. Number 653 MR. THOMAS said that the composition could be different, given that the law merely provided that no more than two public members could be from the same party. Number 664 REP. JAMES repeated her question about why the requirement of party diversity existed in the first place. Number 684 MR. THOMAS stated that he presumed that the party limitation was put in as a check on one party dominating the committee. Number 695 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about why Rep. Finkelstein had telephoned him. Number 699 MR. THOMAS replied that Rep. Finkelstein was probably cautioning the public members against saying anything that would be inappropriate for unconfirmed public members of the Ethics Committee. Number 704 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Thomas if he knew of any reason why Rep. Finkelstein would need to call him. Number 708 MR. THOMAS said that much of the conversation centered around the mechanics of traveling to Juneau for the confirmation hearings. He added that he would not want to speculate on why Rep. Finkelstein mentioned the media. Number 712 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that a newspaper article asserted that four of the five appointees had allegedly reached some sort of conclusion regarding the Jacko incident and ethics laws. He asked Mr. Thomas if he were one of the four cited by the media. Number 718 MR. THOMAS mentioned that he had been careful not to say anything of substance when speaking to a Juneau reporter. He declined to speculate on what other committee members had said or done. He cited his past dealings with the press and said that he understood if the other appointees had said something that was misinterpreted by the press. Number 728 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that people often inadvertently made comments to the press without realizing how they might be interpreted. Number 731 MR. THOMAS commented that judging from his dealings with other appointees, he did not believe that any matters that might come before the committee had been prejudged in any way. Number 742 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Thomas if he had, in his mind, a standard of conduct that he felt would be appropriate for certain types of people. Number 754 MR. THOMAS stated that elements of an individual's past might or might not have anything to do with their suitability for engaging in a particular profession. He said no one has led a perfect life. However, at times, an individual's conduct could make it unlikely that she or he could credibly perform the public's business. Individual facts and circumstances must always be considered, he added. Conduct should not be examined in and of itself, he said, particularly if it happened a long time ago. What must be noted was a person's ability to perform his or her function. Number 781 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Thomas to tell the committee something about his background and life experiences. Number 794 MR. THOMAS noted that he was a forward-looking individual who tended not to dwell on old problems and failures. He spoke of his last years on the staff of the Human Rights Commission and how he was fired from his position. In retrospect, he felt that he could have performed better in that job. He said that he learned from that experience and was pleased with the state of his life at the present time. In that light, he said he would like to make a contribution to the state by serving on the Ethics Committee. HOUSE TAPE 93-8, SIDE B Number 000 REP. DAVIDSON spoke of how past events often came into the present for public officials. He asked Mr. Thomas to comment on this situation. Number 029 MR. THOMAS indicated that he understood how people felt when their performance had been questioned in public. At the same time, he believed that those who offered themselves up for public service knew that this could occur. Number 060 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR conveyed his appreciation for Mr. Thomas' candor. He then invited MARGIE MACNEILLE to address the committee. Number 093 MS. MARGIE MACNEILLE discussed her service on the former Ethics Committee. She said that in her experience with the former committee, the party membership of the public members had not been an issue during committee proceedings. Number 141 MS. MACNEILLE mentioned her work as a lawyer and her training in legal ethics. She added that legislators and legislative employees needed to put the public's interest ahead of their own. She spoke of having reviewed the new ethics law, and her concern that the law be very specific about what legislators and legislative employees could and could not do so that the public and the Ethics Committee could easily determine whether or not conduct was ethical. Number 186 REP. GREEN commented that he knew Ms. MacNeille from his tenure on the Chugach Electric Association's board of directors. He asked Ms. MacNeille why she wanted to serve on the new Ethics Committee. MS. MACNEILLE spoke of her upbringing in the state of Maryland, and expressed an opinion that political corruption was common there. Alaska, in comparison, had very clean government, she said, and she would like to help keep it that way. She added that she was not a political person. Number 225 REP. PORTER asked Ms. MacNeille if she had formed any opinions about recent events reported in the media about members of the legislature. Number 242 MS. MACNEILLE said that she had not yet formed any opinions, nor had she spoken to the press since the legislature convened. In her experience, she stated, she had learned that nothing was the way that it first appeared. Often, she said, there was a lot more to the story. She added that she considered herself very open-minded. Number 268 REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. MacNeille how she would be able to juggle her young family and her work on the committee. Number 276 MS. MACNEILLE said that she had considered her family demands when she applied to be on the Ethics Committee and believed that she could handle both family and committee demands. Number 304 REP. DAVIDSON thanked Ms. MacNeille for her continued willingness to serve on the Ethics Committee. He added that, given Ms. MacNeille's experience, she probably had a better concept of legislative ethics than most of the legislators present. He asked if, in her past Ethics Committee work, the thought of partisanship had ever entered into her decision making. Number 325 MS. MACNEILLE answered that she didn't believe so. Number 330 REP. NORDLUND expressed his appreciation for Ms. MacNeille's application to serve on the new Ethics Committee. He asked her how she came to be selected by Chief Justice Daniel Moore to serve on the committee. Number 342 MS. MACNEILLE responded that she submitted an application. She added that she believed that Justice Moore had screened the applicants and created a short list. He interviewed her briefly over the telephone and then spoke with her again to say that she had been selected as one of the public members of the Ethics Committee. She commented that her prior service on the Ethics Committee was probably instrumental to her selection to be on the new committee. Number 359 REP. JAMES asked Ms. MacNeille how she would find working with non-attorneys on the committee. Number 373 MS. MACNEILLE stated that every person had her or his own personal code of ethics. Then, she said, there was the ethics statute, which was separate from personal codes of ethics. She spoke of complaints which the old Ethics Committee had heard and on which they had chosen to take no action. People still disagree with what happened, she said. She added that it was her belief that the committee's actions were required by the ethics statute, and she was comfortable with those actions. Number 406 REP. JAMES commented that she liked the continuity that Ms. MacNeille would bring to the new Ethics Committee. Number 412 REP. GREEN asked Ms. MacNeille how she, as a young woman, would be able to impartially judge a male legislator who had been accused of sexual harassment. Number 427 MS. MACNEILLE thanked Rep. Green for calling her a "young woman" at age 42, and replied that she had been involved in the male legal and business world and was familiar with the range of behavior displayed between men and women. She said that she thought she could appropriately handle any matter that came before the committee. She added that she also had experience working in employment law. Number 453 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that he appreciated Ms. MacNeille's candor in discussing past decisions made by the Ethics Committee and the resulting pressure brought to bear on the committee members. He said that he shared Ms. MacNeille's belief that the old Ethics Committee had rendered an accurate decision, based on the law as it had existed. He added that he was proud of the committee's actions, because it had done what it was supposed to do and not what the public had wanted it to do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned Ms. MacNeille on whether she would be influenced by the public or the press to act in a certain way. Number 476 MS. MACNEILLE commented that those who knew her were aware that she tended not to react to outside pressures. Her motivating force was not public reaction, but serving the public interest, she said. Number 495 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about her husband's law firm's contractual relationship with the state. Number 498 MS. MACNEILLE said that she had filed a request for a nonconfidential advisory opinion about that contractual relationship. She then proceeded to outline the facts of the situation, adding that she did not believe those facts rendered her an inappropriate appointee to the Ethics Committee. However, she added that she believed the Ethics Committee was the appropriate body for making that determination. MS. MACNEILLE said that her husband's law firm had contracts with the University of Alaska. Those contracts, she said, were not competitively bid under the state purchasing code. That was because the University did not bid contracts; rather, they issued competitive RFPs. Also, on two occasions, she said, the law firm was retained by the University on a basis that was not a competitive RFP, because of the law firm's specific expertise. MS. MACNEILLE cited a third instance, in which her husband was retained by the Condon law firm to assist in the settlement of oil royalties cases. In her understanding, the Condon law firm's contract with the state was entered into in the early 1980s, before the existence of the legislative ethics act. That contract was not competitively bid and had been renewed annually on a noncompetitive basis. Her husband did not contract directly with the state, she said, but his billings to the Condon law firm flowed through to the state. These contracts, she added, had nothing to do with her. Number 579 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that he appreciated Ms. MacNeille's answer. He added that, like Ms. MacNeille, during his tenure on the old Ethics Committee, he didn't recall ever knowing which party each public member belonged to. Nor, he said, had he seen any conduct that indicated partisanship. He reiterated Rep. Finkelstein's comment that the reason for the party requirements for public members of the Ethics Committee was to prevent the committee from being loaded with members of one party. Number 599 MS. MACNEILLE mentioned that Justice Moore had told her that most of the applicants to the committee were members of the Green party. Number 600 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. MacNeille if she had anything to add. Number 611 MS. MACNEILLE said that she lived a fortunate life in that she was able to live in Alaska and could stay home with her children. At the same time, she added, her life had not been without character-building experiences, some of which had come during her tenure on the old Ethics Committee. Another difficult time in her life was the Chugach Electric Association strike in 1987 when she was employed by the company. MS. MACNEILLE stated that she believed she had the willingness, the ability, and the fairness to carry out the responsibilities of the public members of the Ethics Committee and she hoped that she would have the opportunity to do so. Number 633 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Ms. MacNeille for her candor, her prior service on the Ethics Committee, and her willingness to serve again. Number 642 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called DR. RODMAN WILSON to address the committee next. Number 644 DR. WILSON commented that he had responded to the November advertisement seeking applicants for the public member seats on the Ethics Committee. He added that he was a retired physician, having practiced internal medicine for years. In addition, he had served as the public health director for the Municipality of Anchorage. Most recently, he was a member of the legislature's Health Resources and Access Task Force. DR. WILSON said that his work as a physician lent him a great deal of insight into human behavior -- insight which would serve him well on the Ethics Committee. He mentioned his 1989-1990 tenure on the Alaska Public Offices Commission, which dealt with topics similar to those handled by the Ethics Committee. At that time, he participated in an interview with ethics expert Michael Josephson. Dr. Wilson cited his long-term interest in medical ethics and his work on the ethics committees of private hospitals. He emphasized his belief that he would be a thoughtful and fair-minded member of the Ethics Committee. Number 707 REP. GREEN asked Dr. Wilson to expand on a statement he had made in a letter about his understanding of the legislative process and the behavior of legislators. Number 717 DR. WILSON mentioned his legislative work with the Alaska State Medical Association over the last few decades. Through that work, he learned about the political process. While he was in Juneau, he observed some of the social activities of legislators, he said. Number 737 REP. PORTER indicated that he had known Dr. Wilson for many years. He asked Dr. Wilson if he had formed any opinions about recent allegations made about certain legislators. HOUSE TAPE 93-9, SIDE A Number 000 DR. WILSON said that he had been contacted by a Juneau Empire reporter on January 18. The reporter asked Dr. Wilson if he believed that the Jacko matter would come under the scope of the new ethics law. Dr. Wilson responded that he had read the law and thought that, were the allegations true, then the situation would probably come under the purview of the Ethics Committee. Number 042 REP. PORTER asked Dr. Wilson if he had formed any opinions about the allegations, based on media accounts. DR. WILSON said that he had not. Number 049 REP. DAVIDSON asked Dr. Wilson about his perception of the political "scene" today, as his comments before had addressed the "scene" in past decades. Number 062 DR. WILSON stated that he believed that all legislators were sincerely interested in doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. He added his belief that legislators were underpaid and underappreciated. He commented that legislators were human beings with strengths and weaknesses. Legislators got in trouble sometimes, he noted, but for the most part performed their functions and represented their constituents well. REP. DAVIDSON expressed his appreciation for Dr. Wilson's willingness to serve on the Ethics Committee. Number 092 REP. NORDLUND acknowledged the belief of some committee members that Dr. Wilson's political activities might somehow bias his ability to make objective judgments about legislators. He cited Dr. Wilson's political activity, including having run for office twice as a Democrat. He asked Dr. Wilson if he believed that his association with the Democratic party would bias him in his review of ethical conduct of legislators. Number 125 DR. WILSON stated that it was his belief that his Democratic affiliation would not bias him at all. He noted that he was once a Republican, changing parties in 1988. He added that he thought that the party affiliations of Ethics Committee members would not have an effect on the committee's deliberations. Number 145 REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson if he had quit his job with the Municipality of Anchorage in 1987 in order to run for office. Number 150 DR. WILSON outlined the sequence of events at that time. He said he resigned from his municipality job on December 31, 1987. Four or five months later, he said, he impetuously decided to run for the legislature. Number 169 REP. PHILLIPS commented that Dr. Wilson had only served 18 months of a three-year term on the Alaska Public Offices Commission, quitting to run for office again. If confirmed on the Ethics Committee, she asked, could Dr. Wilson be expected to serve a full term, or would he quit at the next opportunity to run for office? Number 176 DR. WILSON indicated that he did not intend to run for public office again, because of his age. Number 205 SEN. LITTLE inquired about Dr. Wilson's ability to be away from home often while working on Ethics Committee matters. Number 218 DR. WILSON said that he was retired and available. Number 232 REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson if, at the time of application, he fully understood what his role on the Ethics Committee would be. Number 243 DR. WILSON responded that he was aware of what he was getting into when he applied to be on the committee. Number 257 REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson why he had responded to a press inquiry about the allegations surrounding Senator Jacko. Number 268 DR. WILSON acknowledged that he had erred in responding to the Juneau Empire reporter. He cited his work as the public health director for the Municipality of Anchorage, and his experience in dealing with the media in that role. His pattern was to give direct and full responses to the media at that time, even when those responses reflected poorly on himself or on the municipality. He admitted falling into that mode when the reporter called him. He further admitted that he had said more than he should have. However, he stressed his belief that reporters had the right to question prospective members of the Ethics Committee. Number 310 REP. PHILLIPS asked what Dr. Wilson would do if he were on the committee, deliberating a case, and was approached by a reporter. Number 320 DR. WILSON said that he would not comment at all on cases before the committee. Number 325 REP. GREEN inquired about Dr. Wilson's probable response to an Ethics Committee investigation into behavior that involved alcohol. Number 348 DR. WILSON stated that he had seen his share of medical miseries associated with alcohol. He himself was a social drinker, he said. He added that there were proper and improper uses of alcohol. Each individual was responsible for his or her personal conduct, he noted. Being intoxicated, in and of itself, did not excuse improper or destructive behavior, he said. He added that he could impartially judge the behavior, and not necessarily the reason for that behavior. Number 388 REP. PHILLIPS asked Dr. Wilson if he had been contacted by any members of the legislature since his initial comments on the Jacko case. Number 396 DR. WILSON indicated that Rep. Finkelstein had called him about the scheduling of the confirmation hearings. During that conversation, Rep. Finkelstein mentioned that there was some concern about Dr. Wilson's comments to the Juneau Empire. Dr. Wilson said that Rep. Finkelstein was the only legislator to whom he had spoken about the Ethics Committee, with the exception of Rep. Porter and his staff, who had called him about the scheduling of the hearings. Number 423 REP. FINKELSTEIN indicated that he had not made a point of trying to speak with the nominees. Rather, a number of legislators had expressed concern to him over statements made to the press by the nominees. Rep. Finkelstein tried to get the word out to the nominees that legislators were concerned about that. He eventually got in touch with Niel Thomas and asked him to pass the word to the other nominees to exercise caution in dealing with the press. Later, however, Dr. Wilson called Rep. Finkelstein back. Number 440 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted his appreciation of Dr. Wilson's candor and his appearance before the committee. He noted that he himself often said more to the press than he should. Number 458 DR. WILSON indicated that he had no additional statements to make, other than to note his appreciation of the committee's work. Number 473 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that they would be signing off of the teleconference. He asked the committee members how they wished to proceed. Number 486 REP. NORDLUND asked if they would be signing a form, indicating "do confirm," "do not confirm," or "no recommendation." Number 490 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that was his intention. Number 499 REP. JAMES expressed concern over the procedure the committee intended to follow. Number 524 REP. PORTER noted that confirming Supreme Court nominees was a new process for the legislature. Number 539 REP. NORDLUND stated that they were just making a recommendation for floor action in their respective bodies, and the floor would be the proper arena for explaining why a nominee should be confirmed or rejected. Number 545 REP. JAMES expressed her opinion that the confirmation hearings ought to have a conclusion of some sort. Number 549 REP. DAVIDSON said that sometimes there was not a clear, articulable reason for deciding to vote against confirming someone. The Judiciary Committee members were not the judge and jury, he added, but simply facilitators. As such, they should make themselves available to other members. Number 569 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted his pleasure at the excellent attendance by the committee members during the hearings, and the quality of the questions asked during the process. He also acknowledged the participation of other members, including Rep. Finkelstein, and staff. He said that he felt it was time for the two committees to meet separately and sign the recommendation forms. Number 589 REP. NORDLUND inquired about the availability of minutes from the two days of hearings. Number 598 SEN. TAYLOR indicated that the staff would try to have the minutes available by Monday. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the joint meeting at approximately 1:00 p.m. Number 599 CHAIRMAN PORTER immediately called the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE meeting to order. Number 607 REP. PHILLIPS said that it would be appropriate for the committee to report the nominees out of committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the presence of a quorum. Number 613 REP. DAVIDSON moved that the committee move out the nominees for the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics with individual recommendations. Number 617 REP. JAMES said that she wanted to communicate with other committee members prior to making a recommendation. Number 631 REP. DAVIDSON stated that he was uncomfortable with that. Either the nominees were qualified to serve on the committee, or they were not, he said. He added that he did not understand what purpose would be served by the committee members communicating with one another about the nominees. Number 650 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he was also uncomfortable with Rep. James' suggestion. He indicated that filling out the recommendation form did not bind the committee members to a specific vote on the floor. Number 664 REP. DAVIDSON commented that it was similar to being elected, in that no one handed out explanations as to why a candidate was voted into or out of office. Number 666 Without objection, the nominees to the public member seats of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics were reported from the committee with individual recommendations. Members then signed the recommendation forms. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR immediately called the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE meeting to order. SENATOR TAYLOR listed the names of those questioned for confirmation: NIEL THOMAS, DR. RODMAN WILSON, MARGIE MACNEILLE, JACK P. CURRY, and RUTH APGAR. He asked for a motion to move the names from committee. SENATOR LITTLE moved that the committee transmit the names and recommendations from the Senate Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned.