Anchorage Daily News

JUNEAU -- Memories at the Alaska Capitol go back decades. No one seems to remember a legislator ever being excused from voting because of a conflict of interest. That's just how it's always been done.

Another tradition at the Capitol has been to bash the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the state's campaign finance watchdog agency.

But times have changed in the Legislature, courtesy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Three former Alaska legislators are headed to federal prison and the word ethics is on everyone's lips at the Capitol.

There is a growing debate over whether, and how, to ban legislators from voting on an issue in which they have a financial stake. And a bill appears to be fast-tracked to boost the power and funding of that old whipping boy the Alaska Public Offices Commission, or APOC.

The Legislature gave APOC a single investigator last year. Now House Bill 281 aims to give APOC a second investigator and a paralegal.

The measure would also increase APOC's statute of limitations on imposing civil penalties from the current one-year limit up to five years.

Rep. Bob Lynn, sponsor of the APOC bill and chair of the House State Affairs Committee, said ethics bills will be a priority for his committee this year.

"Insofar as practical, so far as possible, I'm going to put ethics bills at the front of the line," said the Anchorage Republican. "We have to build the public trust."

CATCH-22

House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula said trust includes tackling the issue of legislators voting with a conflict of interest.

"We've got to deal with it. I think the public expects us to deal with it and I think we have a real moral obligation to deal with it," said the Democrat from Juneau.

State legislators with potential conflicts of interest regularly ask their fellow legislators to excuse them from voting. But it's just a show.

All it takes is one other legislator to say, "I object," in order to force the conflicted lawmaker to vote. And there's always at least one objection.

Alaska is one of 13 states with no requirement that a member of the House or the Senate should ever abstain from voting because of a conflict, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Alaska appears to be the only state where all it takes is a single objection to forbid conflicted legislators from not voting if they want to.

Alaska law is somewhat of a Catch-22. It says legislators with a conflict must not vote "unless required by the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature." And the uniform rules say all legislators must vote unless their colleagues unanimously agree to let them abstain.

The issue got hot during the recent special session on raising oil taxes. Kodiak Republican Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux tried without success to prevent legislators with ties to the oil industry from voting.

There's far from universal agreement in the Legislature that lawmakers with conflicts should be forbidden from voting. There are essentially professional legislators, but it's supposed to be a part-time citizen Legislature.

It's not so easy as it might seem to sort out what is a conflict and what the Legislature should do about it, said Anchorage Democratic Rep. Mike Doogan.

Doogan said that disqualifying a representative leaves the 15,000 or so constituents of that representative without a voice on the issue.

"If you're an attorney and you have a conflict, you say, 'I can't represent this client'; the client can go out and get another attorney. If a reporter has got a conflict, 'I can't do this story'; the editor can get another reporter,' " he said.

"We can't just reach out and get another member of the House of Representatives from House District 25 if I say I've got a conflict," Doogan said.

House Speaker John Harris said it's not fair for the Legislature to rob those constituents of a vote.

"Is it right for me to determine if some other member really has a conflict?" the Valdez Republican said. "It's not really my job, it's not really my responsibility. It's the voters of the district."

Harris said he does think Alaska law should be changed, though, to allow a conflicted legislator to be excused from voting if he or she wants.

Lawmakers sometimes avoid voting by just not showing up on the House or Senate floor. But any lawmaker can place a "call" on fellow legislators, forcing them to come to the floor and take a vote.

SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT

Sen. Bill Wielechowski thinks constituents would understand if their representative can't vote on an issue in which he or she has a direct financial stake.

"If there is an obvious conflict of interest, you should not vote," the Anchorage Democrat said.

Wielechowski's SB 203 would forbid legislators from voting on an issue if they, their employer or an immediate family member with whom they live would benefit directly and substantially from the matter.

Kodiak Rep. LeDoux has filed a similar bill in the state House.

How to define what exactly constitutes a "substantial" benefit will be an issue.

It could be left up to the legislative ethics committee on a case-by-case basis, or lawmakers might define it themselves. There's even some talk in the Capitol of having the majority and minority leaders be the judges.

Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer has floated the idea of having legislators vote to decide whether their colleague has a conflict on a given issue. But even Meyer harbors doubts about that approach.

He said it could become too political. Legislators might use it as a weapon to keep a political opponent from voting and to allow an ally to vote. Meyer said the bottom line is for the voters to elect honest people.

"If they're not honest people, then get rid of them," he said. "And if the public won't get rid of them, then the FBI will, if they're totally not honest."

Read Sean Cockerham on our Alaska Politics blog at adn.com/alaskapolitics.

ADVERTISEMENT