|
Legal, ethics training may not be enough State legislators say Alaska’s ethical standards for conduct offer too much wiggle room for lawmakers inclined to cross line Rose Ragsdale For Petroleum News
When newly elected Alaska legislators get to Juneau, one of their first duties is to attend an orientation workshop that prepares them for what lies ahead. The detailed grounding, which takes three to four days, includes a session on legislative ethics that lasts one to two hours.
Some lawmakers and the state employees responsible for keeping legislators informed about laws and ethics rules governing their conduct say the training, plus ongoing advice available by telephone and online, is ample for public servants committed to doing the right thing.
Others say legislators need more reliable advice, periodic refresher courses and clearer ethics laws to keep them on the straight and narrow.
“Most of the Legislature knows the rules because they made them,” said Christina Ellingson, assistant director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
Ellingson said the commission, which oversees campaign finance and contribution requirements spends considerable time and effort on mail-outs, and email advisories of changes.
“These folks get lots of handholding and advice,” even though APOC is “severely under-funded,” Ellingson said. “Without question, there’s not a one of them who does not know the limits and who they can get contributions from.
“They can plead ignorance — in fact, often they do when they are assessed penalties — but I would say those are not factual statements,” she added.
Likewise, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, a body with five public members and four legislators, puts its heart into bringing new legislators up to speed on ethical issues, said administrator Joyce Anderson.
“The statute doesn’t allow for pleading ignorance. We give each of (the legislators) a ‘Standards of Conduct Handbook’ that includes a Q&A section for each statute,” Anderson said.
The committee also makes a presentation at new lawmaker orientations that covers all disclosure requirements, opinions, advisory opinions and a question and answer session. “I tell them the fact that they are wondering if it’s something they can do is a red flag, and they should give me a call,” she said.
The committee also maintains a Web site at ethics.legis.state.ak.us that lists applicable Alaska statutes and standards of ethical conduct, and publishes a newsletter on pertinent issues as they arise.
As an example, Anderson cited the newsletter the committee published about the “crimp” or restrictions put on fundraising by lawmakers during two special sessions this summer because of rules limiting the activity.
Gut level response Some Alaska legislators believe current ethics training is adequate.
“The rules for campaign contributions are pretty clear. If there’s ever any question, I would check. To me, if there is any inkling at all, your gut will say you shouldn’t be involved in it. I think that’s a good rule of thumb,” Sen. Tom Wagoner, R- Kenai, said Oct. 4.
When asked about potential problems with accepting gifts valued at less than $250 — something permitted under Alaska ethics laws — Wagoner said a potential donor would be hard-pressed to give him such a gift without him asking why.
He said he often receives token gifts of pen and coaster sets, but a gift of significant value or cash would raise too many questions in his own mind.
Wagoner is chairman of the Senate Resources Committee in the Alaska Legislature. When he was elected four years ago, Wagoner said he attended two days of a three-day workshop, but the period was blurred by pain because he spent the third day in the hospital with kidney stones.
Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer, said he remembers attending four days of training for new legislators that included a one- to two-hour session on ethics, but his understanding was augmented two years later with a trip to the national legislative academy in Colorado Springs, Colo.
“No, I don’t think there’s a misunderstanding of the rules by the members (of the Legislature.) The problem I see most often is legalities,” Seaton said Oct. 4. “Many of us legislators see a big difference between what’s legal and what’s ethical. Our own internal moral compass should be guiding us as opposed to the letter of the law.”
Consulting raises questions Seaton said he and many of his colleagues have a problem with obtaining consulting contracts from entities that have interests before the Legislature, while some other lawmakers do not.
Seaton said only four or five state legislators have consulting contracts, and two, former state Sen. Scott Ogan, R-Wasilla, and current state Senate President Ben Stevens, R-Anchorage, have been subjected to recall attempts
The effort to recall Stevens failed because it was determined that there were no grounds in the Alaska Constitution for the complaint, Seaton said.
Stevens is among a half-dozen Alaska legislators currently being investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice. The FBI searched the offices of Stevens and at least five other Alaska legislators Aug. 31 and gathered documents relating to oil-field services company VECO Corp., which has heavily lobbied the Legislature on oil industry issues for the past decade.
FBI agents returned to Stevens’ office for a second search Sept. 18.
This time, their take included two letters that Stevens wrote to the federal Commerce Department about the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, according to a letter outlining the searches that Stevens provided to the Anchorage Daily News.
Stevens, a fishing industry consultant, has received more than $250,000 in earnings in recent years, according to disclosure documents filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
“The question is whether public disclosure eliminates the conflict,” Seaton observed. “It’s a hard thing when people talk about ethics and the law. I think there is an important distinction between them.
Room for confusion But the problem is broader and deeper than that, according to Rep. Harry Crawford, D-Anchorage.
In the six years he has served in the Alaska House of Representatives, Crawford said the lawmakers have not received very much ethics training.
“Basically it’s up to the individual legislator to find out what the laws are,” he said Oct. 4. “They will send out written materials from time to time as reminders, and people are available if you have questions. But they don’t have training classes,” Crawford said.
The Alaska Democratic Party does provide training for Democratic lawmakers and other parties presumably provide similar training for their members, he said.
The advice given in this training, however, proved to be incorrect in at least one instance, Crawford said.
“Sometimes what I’ve been told is not true,” he said. “If you read through the material, you will be fairly well-informed. It’s ‘learn by the seat of your pants.’ If you don’t know the questions to ask, you can be in the dark.”
“As time passes, it’s also difficult to remember what you were told in orientation,” Crawford said. “It would be helpful if we had refreshers. Some people seem to be treading close to the line, while others may be stepping over the line.”
Despite resources and support available, Crawford said he believes a case can be made that legislators don’t always know what is ethical and proper.
“I know I talked to Scott Ogan when he was involved with the coalbed methane people and I said this looked really bad, and I knew several people who said the same thing. But Scott was convinced that he was doing nothing wrong,” Crawford explained.
“And there was the time the Seafarers International Union wanted to give me a check written on a bank in Washington State. I called APOC and asked. They said, ‘No, that’s not allowed.’ There have been a number of times we’ve called to make sure we were clear.
“No, I haven’t had any troubles. But in 1998, I had a check come in when we were under the 24-hour rule and I didn’t report it for three days. Somehow it got overlooked.”
As for other lawmakers, Crawford said the last night of the second special session this summer was long and difficult.
Too much familiarity? “We were hitting some big issues. That’s when (House Minority Leader Rep.) Ethan (Berkowitz, D-Anchorage), made a speech about ‘this is our house, and it does not belong to all these outside influences.’ I saw lawmakers conferring with VECO’s Bill Allen and then I saw Bill Allen passing a note across the rail to a lawmaker,” Crawford recalled.
“That’s not supposed to happen. Notes are supposed to come through the double doors and be passed through our pages,” he said.
Though Crawford is confident that he and his close colleagues in both parties follow the state’s ethics rules, he said he doesn’t know about others in the Legislature.
“It’s been pretty rugged this last couple of sessions. It seems a lot tougher dealing with outside influences. Thank goodness some lawmakers are not going to be back in the House this session,” he added.
Rules need clarity Though the materials and procedure used to educate Alaska legislators about the state’s ethics laws are pretty self-explanatory, Sen. Ralph Seekins, R-Fairbanks, said the rules need some revisions.
Seekins, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and is vice chairman of Senate Resources, said certain rules are too vague, including laws governing the conduct of legislators who work as consultants in the off session.
Seekins said Oct. 4 he intends to introduce an ethics bill that would require legislators to disclose what they actually do for the money they receive under consulting contracts.
“Not having that requirement leaves it wide open for accusations. My personal opinion is that it’s an area that could be subject to abuse. Of course, if you’re working on a project that’s confidential, such as a future gold mine, there should be a log or something showing the hours you worked,” he said.
“We will be talking to consultants about how they bill and what they do,” he said. “I think it also helps if you were a consultant before you got into office. But to get elected to office and suddenly turn up working as a consultant in the off-year is suspect.
“We have a legitimate concern expressed by people about what lawmakers do for their money, and we will be addressing that in the next session,” Seekins added.
| 