JOINT HOUSE AND SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEES April 6, 1993 6:00 p.m. SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman Senator Suzanne Little Senator Dave Donley SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT Senator George Jacko HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter Representative Jeannette James Representative Pete Kott Representative Gail Phillips Representative Joe Green HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Cliff Davidson Representative Jim Nordlund OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Representative David Finkelstein COMMITTEE CALENDAR Confirmation Hearings: Public Members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics WITNESS REGISTER ED GRANGER, Nominee Select Committee on Legislative Ethics 931 Lighthouse Court Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Phone: 552-2218 Position Statement: Provided information and answered questions related to his nomination ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-55, SIDE A Number 000 The Joint Senate and House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to order at 6:14 p.m., on April 6, 1993. A quorum was present. Chairman Robin Taylor asked Mr. Ed Granger if he wished to provide an opening statement. Number 041 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN requested that he be "dismissed from the vote" since he personally knew Mr. Granger. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said, "I have not yet seen a person who declared conflict of interest escape a vote." CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR OBJECTED to Representative Green's request to be excused from voting and added, "I don't know about my jurisdiction in that matter since we are a joint committee and this is a House organization (matter)." Number 064 ED GRANGER, NOMINEE FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE ETHICS, said, "I'm glad you didn't let Representative Green get away with this because we do know each other and I have no problem at all with him asking me any questions. In fact, I look forward to it, if you have any, because I have a deep appreciation for him and what he went through - three years with the Chugach Board of Directors - and my hat's off to anybody that lasts the whole three years doing what you did." MR. GRANGER continued, "I'm really deeply honored to even be considered for this position. And I would even be more so, of course, if I was selected. I don't have high expectations with regard to what I can do because if I am selected, I'm going to be dealing in what I consider to be most unpleasant matters and very serious. I've got to read you my horoscope for today. I don't want you to think from this that I place great value in this or that I'm overly superstitious but I am a Taurus and here's what your Juneau paper says about me today." MR. GRANGER read, "`Neither you nor any person with whom you are presently involved is completely forthright with the other.' And it goes on to say, `this is a no-win situation that can only be corrected through honesty.' I didn't come down here to tell you a pack of lies anyway... He continued further, "I'm probably not what you would judge to be a good Republican, okay? I don't know whether that's good or bad, but going back to honesty, I'm going to lay it right out on the table." MR. GRANGER said, "The only political position that I've ever held, I was appointed by Governor Egan, who was a Democrat and I grew to love the man dearly. In fact, when I was approached through his lieutenants and eventually talked to him about it, I told Governor Egan, Look, I said, I didn't know what I was until I reached 38 years old and listening to both sides talk I've decided I'm a Republican and I really don't think I should take this position that he offered me. And he told me, he says, 'Ed, don't tell anybody and they won't know the difference, you know?' Now, so I did." MR. GRANGER continued, "When I was overseas the only person that ran for office that I ever sent money to was Kerttula up in Palmer. I didn't know if he was a Republican or Democrat at the time. And you can look through his records and see where I made substantial contributions to his campaigns and if you ask me why, I couldn't give you an answer. Except I had great respect for him. He used to be very tough on me in budget hearings when I was down in Juneau, made it almost unpleasant, but I respected him. And I didn't know who else to give money to so I did to him." MR. GRANGER continued further, "Representative Green will vouch for the fact that I had a Democratic sign in my yard, okay? But I am definitely a Republican, okay? In the way I think and the way I feel to the best of my knowledge. So I registered that way. Probably the toughest question that you guys can put to me would be why am I even here, why did I even submit the application. I was talking to Pete [Carran] about this before the meeting started. And I've been thinking about it a lot because there really isn't a good answer." MR. GRANGER said, "If I had the time and the patience and the, actually the wherewithal, probably, because it would cost some money if I did this, I would attempt to be in one of your positions, okay? Because I think each of us has a desire to help form the State of Alaska. And certainly you're in a position to do that and I would love to do that, if I had the time and the ability, perhaps. And I don't feel like I do. In fact, I know I don't. And perhaps this is the second best thing that I can do in trying to pay back what I consider to be a very real debt to the State of Alaska." MR. GRANGER said further, "I enjoy doing this sort of thing, I have found, since I ran for the Chugach Board. It's exasperating there and I can imagine what you folks go through. Well, I can only imagine because you never know unless you're in it, and I don't ever plan to be. I think in the interest of time, I'll let it go at that..." Number 206 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked, "Do you have anything in your personal life that would cause you a problem for getting away if, in fact, you were appointed to this Board and might have to come and be down here for weeks on end during investigations, in your personal life, as far as either your directorship on Chugach Electric Board or your family or anything like that, that would prohibit you from making this commitment if you were appointed?" Number 217 MR. GRANGER said, "Well of course, there's definitely going to be conflicts, there's no question about that. That wouldn't be a real world answer if I say there wasn't. Probably the first thing would be family and of course there's just my wife and myself and so there's no problem there. I personally don't like to be away from home that long but I travel. I have to. I spend weeks in Shemya, so Juneau don't sound too bad when you put it in those terms." MR. GRANGER said further, "As far as my work is concerned, with the Air Force, as soon as I found out this was coming up I'd have to get clearance from the Judge Advocate's Office in the headquarters of the Alaska Air Command in order to even be down here and the possibility of my being selected was very well received. Better received than with the Chugach Board actually. And I was surprised. I am in a position where we do have depth in staff where I can be gone. I can take leave without pay if I have to, or I can use my leave." MR. GRANGER continued, "So the answer to your question is yes, there will be conflicts, but I can handle them and I'm pretty confident that probably there's no answer as to how many days a year we will be gone. We don't know what we're into here, I don't believe. So I'm probably as well prepared as any working person to meet the requirements and obligations that go along with this assignment." Number 256 SENATOR SUZANNE LITTLE asked, "What is your position currently, your occupation?" MR. GRANGER said, "I'm a civil engineer by training. Actually, I'm a project manager for Air Force MILCON which is military construction program. (We) only deal in large, new projects." SENATOR LITTLE asked, "Is this a private firm?" MR. GRANGER said, "No, it is a civil service position." SENATOR LITTLE asked, "What is your association, or do you have an association with any members of the legislature?" MR. GRANGER replied, "I know some of them, of course. Alaska's very small in that respect. Up until just before I found out I was going to be asked to come down here, I sent a public opinion message to four legislators. Other than that, I don't have any contact with them. Certainly no more than the normal Alaskan. That doesn't mean I don't see them and I don't talk to them, but I haven't talked to one now for nine months, six, something like that." Number 284 SENATOR LITTLE said, "I noted that Representative Green said he had a conflict. Can you describe (it)? Or maybe I should ask Representative Green." MR. GRANGER said, "I'll be glad to answer. I'm very privileged to (have) run for the same position that Representative Green had on the Chugach Board of Electric Association. And in the process of that election, and Joe you feel free to correct me if I'm not describing this exactly right, it was a very heated campaign for being unpolitical. I didn't know Joe from Adam. I have met and talked to him since then and talked to a lot of people that know him and I don't have any bad feelings towards him and I hope the same towards me. It was just a contest." SENATOR LITTLE verified, "So you ran against each other?" MR. GRANGER replied in the affirmative. Number 304 SENATOR LITTLE continued, "Have you had any dealings in your life with press pressures?" MR. GRANGER said, "Yes, I have. I was Director of Aviation for the State of Alaska for quite a few years and, of course, back then it was anything that happened in aviation was big news. I didn't consider it pressures at the time but we were in contact with the press quite often. I don't know if that's what you're looking for, but I never had pressure that I didn't feel I couldn't stand with the press." SENATOR LITTLE proceeded, "Regarding a conflict, if Mr. Green for instance, had a complaint waged against him, would you feel in any way that you'd start out with your thoughts leaning one way or another before you even looked at the case?" MR. GRANGER said, "I hope that never happens, where I have to sit in judgment of Joe, but I consider him to be very much a gentleman. I have no reason to, and no one has ever said anything to the contrary on that. I feel like I could. I wouldn't offer to disqualify myself in his case because I think I could render a fair decision. I wouldn't have a tendency, I don't think, to either favor or disfavor any decision that would come out on him. Which is, it ain't going to happen, right?" Number 341 SENATOR LITTLE asked, "What if a complaint was waged against a person of a different party from yours?" MR. GRANGER replied, "I talked a little bit about whether I was a good Republican or not. And I have here a marked up copy of the House of Representatives and Alaska State Senate and I have to tell you that when I went down there and started marking these things, I didn't know probably 85 percent of those names, whether they were Republicans or Democrats. I don't think that's important in my view. That's just the way I feel about it." Number 358 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I wish though that you hadn't mentioned that horoscope. I'm also a Taurus and am now wondering who lied to me all day long." MR. GRANGER said, "Excuse me, the way out of that according to the horoscope is don't tell any lies to start with and the other guy's got to tell you the truth, see?" REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "With that in mind, the question that we have asked each person that has come before us: There have been, over the last couple of months, allegations in the newspapers and media about at least two, perhaps more, members of this body that one would have had to have been out of the state to not have heard something about. Have you, as a result of whatever you have heard about any one of those incidents or allegations, formed any opinions that would cause you not to be able to fairly judge whatever might come before the committee?" Number 379 MR. GRANGER said, "I've been thinking about this for a while because I figured the question would come up. It's not a difficult question to answer in my mind. I just want to make sure I put it to you exactly how I feel. I'm not Pastor Jones and I'm not Jerry Prevo. I mean, I have probably done everything that any individual in this room has done. You've already passed over a lot of good people, from what I've read. So we know right out from the start you don't want a good one, you're looking for a bad one, okay?" MR. GRANGER continued, "Maybe I'm overqualified but in any case, they say don't judge a man unless you've walked a mile in his moccasins. Well I have walked in those moccasins, okay? And I think I'm open-minded and I judge myself to be a relatively clear thinker and I think I can do the job without being biased one way or another. That's what I think." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER resumed, "Another explanation that we made to anyone that has applied is that what the committee is going to be asked to do is to evaluate the request for opinions or allegations of violations of the ethics statute. That is to say, you will be asked to interpret the ethics statute, not apply your particular individual feeling about ethics or someone else's for that matter." He then asked if this presented a problem to Mr. Granger. Number 424 MR. GRANGER replied, "No, it doesn't present any problems to me. Obviously, you're aware I'm not trained in law. I think that's probably one of the good things in our entire system. Not only judicial, but throughout, as far as judgments are rendered on the communities. I think I'm well qualified to be a juror, if you will, at large. If you question me on the nuts and bolts of what is proper, improper ethics you would probably find I'm relatively unknowledgeable. In fact, I'll take away the word relatively, okay?" MR. GRANGER continued, "But I do know what's right and wrong and I do know what's good and bad and I do know when I'm, at least in my mind, what would be a gray area. It would be my intent to give the so-called accused the full benefit of the doubt. Which I think our entire system is really predicated on. I would intend to be fair. I sure wouldn't be out to get anybody. That's not the way I feel about it." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "Have you read the ethics statute?" MR. GRANGER said, "I tried to. I got a copy of it. I took it up to the Judge Advocate's Office at Elmendorf and after he read it, I asked him what he thought about it and he said, well I'll put it in my words rather than his, he says it's difficult to read, and it is. The information's there. I would have a lot more interest in it if I'm appointed, of course. And I dare say there's very few people in Alaska that's read it except perhaps you folks." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I guess the point of my question is that (there are) difficulties, that I agree with you will be. That is the basis for judgment, not your personal knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. That, therein lies the challenge. Are you ready?" Number 461 MR. GRANGER replied, "Oh yes. Yes sir." REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked, "I just want to follow up on the first question that was asked. And that is, this particular position is going to require quite a degree of commitment. We're not talking about just involvement. We're talking about being committed, at least initially. There's a lot of things that this committee's going to have to start off and run with. If I remember correctly, the rest of the members are planning to meet on the 16th of this month and it could be expected that you could be meeting for up to a month perhaps." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT continued, "It is a very lengthy period of time and I just want to make sure that you know that there is a commitment involved here. Sort of like the old analogy between the ham and eggs when the chicken was involved and the ham was committed. You're going to have to be committed here. I know that having been in the Air Force myself for 23 years and having worked a little bit on the OTH...and this is going to be a very lengthy process I would imagine. And a lot of that is going to be just trying to determine what that ethics law is really all about." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT continued further, "The other thing I'd like to ask you is, do you perceive that there's a difference between immoral behavior, unethical behavior and just a mere violation of a law?" MR. GRANGER replied, "If it's a violation of the law, it may not come in front of the ethics committee. I would think the legal system would take over and it will probably be taken out of the committee's hands, I would anticipate that anyway. That may not work out and maybe I'm being naive, I don't know. I really don't know how to answer your question. I'm not overly religious, let me start out by saying this. But I did go to Sunday School seven years straight without missing one." MR. GRANGER continued, "The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments is not a bad thing to strive for and I venture to say there's not a soul in this room that's made it, okay? I think there's some compassion and understanding and leniency, a little bit of forgiveness, on the part of the person that transgressed. I think that there's some interpretation that (is) probably well safeguarded by the fact that you've got nine members on this committee, okay? There isn't going to be one wild horse that will run off with it." MR. GRANGER continued further, "That's because the democratic system, when you put that many people together, is a safeguard against it. So, I can only say that, come time to cast the vote, I would measure and cast it based on my best judgment. Now with regards to my commitment, if I'm selected. I take my commitment pretty seriously and the record will show in the two years that I've been on the Chugach Board, I have missed less meetings than anyone else. I missed one and I was very sorry about that, okay? I should have been there." MR. GRANGER said, "I don't intend to miss any meetings of this committee, if I'm selected for it. And I would do whatever I had to do to be there. I do recognize it as a very, very important appointment and it's critical to the state. I think it gets a lot of attention out in the community and I would be very pleased to be a part of doing these things if it has to be out in the open and laid to rest and hopefully go out about our business, or make it possible for the legislature to do it. I've talked a long time and I may not have answered your question because it's a difficult one but I've done the best I can." Number 545 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said, "The reason why I asked the committal question is I know, having been there before, you're a project manager and you mention that you were apart from your loved ones at times, that in various positions, especially working with the Alaskan Air Command and all the exercises that seem to come about at various times, that you can be gone for a week or two at times, and that should be a consideration. ...I think it was earlier it was asked by Senator Little if you had any involvement or activities, in relationship with speaking to the media." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, "Can you elaborate on that? Or perhaps have the media contacted you regarding this particular appointment?" MR. GRANGER replied, "I've only had one contact, and I forget who it was. They essentially walked away with name, rank and serial number, okay? I'm not adverse to speaking to the press, but if I'm appointed to this committee, I would expect those releases to be through the chairman of the committee. Everybody on committees, when they get voted down, has the impulse to just go out and raise cain and I'm no different. Things, and Joe will know this for fact, things that have happened with the Chugach Board have not exactly gone the way I wanted them to and, except for one or two cases, I've pretty much restrained myself." MR. GRANGER continued, "I still believe that in the democratic process as far as, especially as it relates to news releases. But for instance, if I was chairman, those releases would be issued in accord with what the committee's position was. It wouldn't be a free-lance deal. Although, don't misunderstand me, I don't necessarily want to be the chairman, but whatever." Number 583 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked, "...Do you have any problem with making your personal finances public information? Because you will be requested and required to sign, to file a public financial disclosure statement." MR. GRANGER replied, "As far as I'm concerned they can have my income tax form. It's all modestly earned and rapidly spent." Number 597 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS continued, "Have you looked at any of our financial disclosure statements to see what is included? Because you do have to list all of your assets, your properties, etc., of your spouse, your family members, I mean it's a fairly involved form that you must file." MR. GRANGER said, "I really don't have anything to hide. I give my social security number out to people. I'm not one that leaves that blank. I really don't have strong feelings about it." Number 603 SENATOR LITTLE said, "You mentioned that you have a spouse. Do you and your wife have children?" MR. GRANGER replied, "Yes ma'am, but they're gone." SENATOR LITTLE then asked, "How would you define sexual harassment?" MR. GRANGER said, "Having very little experience in this field, I would say going beyond the bounds of being a gentleman, okay? Of being forceful, of being obstinate. I don't know. It would be going beyond what a reasonable person would go to, whether they be male or female. I guess that's probably the best answer I could give you." SENATOR LITTLE continued, "Have you seen or experienced sexual harassment in the work place during your lifetime?" MR. GRANGER replied, "Oh, I think we probably all have. It's a matter of definition. I think that probably in our day-to-day work sometimes you're getting on the edge yourself. It depends on the people involved, to a large degree, and what their past association and relationship has been. What might be harassment in one instance with one pair of people is not harassment with another pair." Number 627 SENATOR LITTLE asked, "Do you think it's really a problem?" MR. GRANGER said, "Well, if you judge by what you read in the newspapers, perhaps. It's a problem when it occurs, there is no question about that. Whether it be the male being the one that's doing this or the female, it doesn't make any difference, if it occurs, it's a problem. I think it's a very difficult thing to prove." SENATOR LITTLE asked, "Do you believe it occurs?" MR. GRANGER replied, "My, yes." SENATOR LITTLE continued, "How do you feel about a person who drinks alcohol?" MR. GRANGER said, "Well, I drink alcohol, okay? It makes me very sad when I see people who drink too much of it. I'm fortunate because I get deathly ill, okay, and I'm no good for about three days so I quit about 20 years ago drinking, too much. I still drink, but I sure know when to shut her off. Yeah, I feel sorry for people that have the problem and I didn't, you know as a young kid you don't realize that it is an illness." MR. GRANGER continued, "For the first 20 years when I heard it was an illness, I said that's balderdash, but it is an illness and you're talking to a guy that hasn't had a chew of snoose since July, okay, so I know what addiction is. And I used to have to have a chew of snoose in order to take a nap, okay. So I think I know what it is now to try to stop smoking and I think I know what it is now to try and stop drinking when it gets hold of you. It's a very serious problem, okay, because I had it, but it wasn't, it was chewing tobacco, okay." Number 657 SENATOR LITTLE asked, "Do you believe that a person who does something under the influence of alcohol should be held less responsible because of that influence?" MR. GRANGER replied, "Well, no, I don't ma'am, probably the best thing that ever happened in my view is that Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It's opened everybody's eyes and it has pretty much established that those people are responsible that cause injuries. I guess that answers your question." SENATOR LITTLE asked, "Do you understand that much of the testimony, if you are appointed to this committee, most of the testimony will likely be taken confidentially? So you will be in a position where you will not be able to divulge information brought forward to you. Have you ever had experiences with confidential matters in your business or certainly on the Board of Chugach Electric?" MR. GRANGER said, "Not so much with Chugach but certainly with the State of Alaska in personnel matters. I've been involved in contract work, large substantial contracts overseas where confidentiality was required by foreign counterparts. Never had any problem with breeches of those confidences. Always remained, in my view, even when I was outside the jurisdiction of the United States, all remained, in my mind, perfectly legal, okay? I've never had any problem with people that I've worked with understanding where I'm coming from, as far as being ethical is concerned. I don't think I have any problems in that area." Number 688 SENATOR LITTLE asked, "So if a vote, for instance, on the committee didn't go quite your way, you wouldn't have any problems holding all that, whatever you felt, inside and not divulging it to anyone." MR. GRANGER said, "That is correct." REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said, "You're doing something I wouldn't want to do. But you did say that you would like to be where we are and that you might, if the time was right and the opportunity was in your favor, that you might like to have this position. I just wanted to ask you what do you think the public's opinion is of legislators? Are they a different kind of people? Or what kind of people do you think the people think we are?" Number 699 MR. GRANGER replied, "Well there's, first let me say please if I may, that I do not envy your position. And I hope I didn't say I would like to have it because I wouldn't. The public perception of the legislature is not as good as it should be. Let me say that. And it disturbs me when the people that complain about it probably are not even voting. The more involved you get in trying to help the State of Alaska, would it be Chugach Electric or whatever, you find that those that are complaining the most are not the ones that voted." MR. GRANGER continued, "I can't answer you about what it is out in the hinterlands that the people think of the legislature. I wouldn't believe necessarily what I read in the paper, I know that, necessarily. And I know that oftentimes individuals within the legislature are unfairly attacked and repeatedly attacked and without given all the information that's available those attacks are unwarranted, in my opinion." MR. GRANGER continued further, "I know that and this is a perfect example as far as I'm concerned: I lived in South Africa for almost five years and every time I'd come home I'd read these headlines about South Africa. I just came from there. I'm reading about a different place. And it's still happening, that my ties are still very firm back there with good friends. And it's the same situation with the legislature." MR. GRANGER added, "Unfortunately, and I apologize to members of the press that's here, but I really feel that the whole story's not being told and some of the things that's being discussed really shouldn't until the whole story's available, and it's unfairly shaking people's opinions of the legislature." Number 732 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "Do you think that people should hold the legislators to a higher standard than other people?" MR. GRANGER replied, "They would certainly like to ma'am, I believe. Everybody wants the best possible person that they can get to be watching over their funds and their real estate, which is what you guys are doing. You wouldn't want somebody less than you doing it and so, yeah, you betcha they would hold you to a higher standard, I would think. They would desire to." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "What about you? What do you think if you were judging someone who was a legislator as opposed to judging someone who is in some other occupation? Would you think they should have a higher standard of behavior than someone who is, for example a construction manager or someone who is just a carpenter or meat processor or something, a fisherman?" Number 744 MR. GRANGER said, "You know, the older a person gets, the more you realize that people are people. It doesn't really matter, you know, how you've been anointed. Who is sprinkling with holy water doesn't have anything to do with it, he's still people, or she's still people. In my mind, I would probably, not probably but I would, I would probably cast that aside in my mind about what positions they're in or what position he is in and try to judge him on standards of conduct that would be reasonable for a prudent person." REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said, "Just to qualify that last question, the question Representative James was putting forward was rather a theoretical question. In practice the law does apply higher standards to legislators than to members of the public. There's just a variety of disclosures and expectations on treatment of income and other things, disclosures of (inaudible) that, of course, the public doesn't have to do and someone in a private business venture doesn't have to do. So, in that context, I'd assume you would answer differently that we would hold legislators to a higher standard than the ordinary public." MR. GRANGER said, "Is that a statement, sir?" REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said, "You said on the record that you don't believe legislators should be held to a higher standard, that's your view. Since the law requires that (they) be held to a higher standard, I'm just trying to make sure that, recognize that you would hold them to a higher standard. That's good. Your answer was to a theoretical question, I was trying to apply it to the practical question of what the job of the ethics committee is, which is to enforce the ethics law." Number 773 MR. GRANGER said, "Well, I think it's rather clear that the obligation would be to measure the accused actions, if you will, against the requirements of the ethics law. I think that's a foregone conclusion, you would have to, in fact, you know, make that determination based on the facts and information that's laid out in front of you." MR. GRANGER continued, "My feeling is, a person is still a person and if, in fact, he had no malice, and if he just made a mistake, and if he's an honest person, which most people are that ran for the legislature, surely, and you know, I would exercise my judgment in casting my vote against or for this person. I think I better leave it that way." REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued, "I may just misunderstand what you're saying, but if the law says legislators shall do 'X' and there's a case before you, and based on the evidence a legislator hasn't done that or somehow not completed that part of it, is what you're saying then that if there was no malice intended, and they were a good person of heart, that you would (not) find a violation? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying here." MR. GRANGER replied, "Yeah, I understand. If it's black or it's white, there's no gray areas in there, well of course, you know, he's obviously violated the ethical standards as required, you have no choice. If it's so blatant, so clear, so positive that there's no doubt, why of course you would. But I think the word 'doubt' is a pretty strong word. I think if there is doubt in there, well then other parameters start moving in on you, as far as the decision making process is concerned." MR. GRANGER added "I don't know how to better answer your question on that, but if it's definitely black...it's got to be definitely black." Number 806 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, "Ed, you currently possess a security clearance?" MR. GRANGER said, "Yes, sir." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT continued, "Can you convey just what, at what level?" MR. GRANGER said, "It's secret." (Laughter ensued.) TAPE 93-55, SIDE B Number 011 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, "(Inaudible) under the influence of alcohol and committed an ethics violation, would you consider under the influence of being inebriated or intoxicated a mitigating factor in the decision making process?" MR. GRANGER replied, "You asked me if I would consider it and the answer to that question is pretty easy in my mind. Of course, you'd consider it. Of course you would, but I'm not going to sit here and give you an answer to a question that really we don't have the time to get into the details. I'm not going to do that. But, of course, you'd consider how drunk was he, you know, how drunk is drunk, okay. Maybe the guy did know what he was doing, but even if he didn't, he's still responsible, you know, like we talked about." MR. GRANGER added, "I don't know, I don't expect any clear- cut cases to be brought in front of this committee. I just don't expect it. I expect every one of them to be tough decisions. And hopefully, with nine good people sitting there, they'll be good decisions that come from the committee and they'll be well argued. And I will probably argue as strong as anybody, either for or against whatever I believe in, but yes, you would consider whether he was drunk or not. Of course you would. How could you not?" Number 040 SENATOR LITTLE asked, "If a complaint was filed against a legislator and the complaint was filed by someone you knew to be a, well let's say a scum-bag, in those terms, would you..." MR. GRANGER interrupted, "A fellow legislator?" SENATOR LITTLE said, "No, the complaint, the person who files the complaint was someone you knew to be of questionable character. Let's put it that way. Would you take that complaint less seriously?" Number 058 MR. GRANGER replied, "I would think that any complaints that come in front of the committee...if it's formally sworn or however it's to be decided that it's to be submitted, would be considered on its merits. On its merits would be: how serious it was and who filed it, whether there's a probability that the accusation had any semblance of truth behind it. I don't expect a firestorm of accusations but I could be unpleasantly surprised. I hope not. My expectations are that we won't be dealing with as many of these things." MR. GRANGER continued, "We all know scum-balls and we all know people who follow folks around and like to complain about government or organizations or whatever. They're still taxpayers and we've all had to deal with them and I think that, in fact, I deal with them in Chugach to a degree. That's part of the Board action, we don't have any problem. We act as if we're human and you have to stand together that way. That's the way we deal with things like this." MR. GRANGER added, "I can anticipate that we get a letter complaining, we'd answer the letter and if there isn't anything to it the answer would be very short." Number 096 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said, "Thank you very much for your great candid answers. It's been a privilege just to sit and listen to you. I wonder if you would do one thing for me. Will you read what that article says about Aquarians?" MR. GRANGER said, "My wife is a Pisces and I am not going to read that one to you." He added, reading, "Objectives can be achieved provided you persevere and prepare yourself for making reasonable sacrifices. There aren't apt to be any free rides on this railroad today." CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said, "That's the truth," and asked if there was anything further. Number 120 MR. GRANGER added, "I very much appreciate the opportunity. Like I said, it has been an honor to even be considered and I mean that very sincerely. And if I am selected, it will be even more so of an honor. This is sort of a win-win situation as far as I'm concerned. It's a hell of a deal if I'm selected and it has been wonderful just being here, even if I'm not, okay? I would promise to do the best job that I possibly can and I consider myself to be a pretty hard worker and the people I work for have verified that through the years and stuff." MR. GRANGER continued, "I wouldn't do any different if I am selected for this. It's rather an exciting deal because it's so unknown, if you will and it almost makes you anxious to succeed in because it's so difficult. You know you've had some awful good people here and I don't know how they tripped and fell. Some of them I know. Frankly, I consider some of them are better qualified and certainly some of them are better men than myself." MR. GRANGER concluded, "But in any case, however it falls out, I wish that the procedure doesn't go on too much longer. Whether I win, pass or fail. Again I thank you for the opportunity." Number 155 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Just for the record, a question that I frequently ask other applicants that I didn't ask Ed that I know the answer so I didn't have to is generally: What would be a situation if you had the decision that was contrary to the majority, would you have a tendency to fall in with the majority or would you hold to your guns? And I can say that Ed has a virtue of sticking by on what he feels." MR. GRANGER said, "That's one of my worst traits actually." CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mr. Granger again. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m.