Senate Judiciary, 5/6/26, 1:30pm

Let's call this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order. It is 1:30 PM on Wednesday, May 6th, 2026. Before we begin, I want to thank Juliana Singh, the Senate Judiciary Secretary, He makes sure we have a transcript of our meeting. And Doug Bridges from the Juneau Alea who makes sure we have sound. At this time I want to remind committee members and all those in the room to please silence your cell phones.

Present today we have Senator Tilton, Senator Tobin, my vice chair Senator Keel, and myself, Senator Clayman. We have a quorum to conduct business. The first and only item on our agenda today is House Bill 298, Legislative Ethics Committee and Proceedings, sponsored by Representative Galvin. This is the first hearing of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here to present the bill are Representatives Galvin and McCabe.

And staff for Representative Gavin Monica Schwingendorf. If I guess all 3 of you are coming forward, please come forward, put yourselves on the record, and you may begin your presentation.

Thank you very much, Chair Clayman. I appreciate— and thank you to the Judiciary Committee. For hearing our bill today. For the record, my name is Elise Galvin. I represent Spinard, Rogers Park, Midtown Anchorage, and—.

We're going to take a very short pause to welcome Senator Stevens at 1:31. Please proceed. Fabulous. Thank you. And I have the privilege of presenting this bill alongside my colleague Representative McCabe and my staff Monica Schwingendorf.

I would like to start by providing a brief explanation of the purpose of the Ethics Committee and what it does. The Ethics Committee is here to help maintain the trust that we have with the public. It does this by establishing clear guidelines and consequences that legislators are expected to follow in order to act ethically and responsibly. The Ethics Act lays out the framework for what the public— what public officials should and should not do. In order to earn and maintain public trust.

They promote accountability, transparency, and ensure that there are consequences when those standards are violated. Ultimately, these laws help maintain integrity and order within the Alaska State Legislature. The Alaska Legislative Ethics Act sets the rules that apply to legislators, legislative staff, agencies under the jurisdiction of the legislature, and the public members who serve on the Ethics Committee. It's important to note that the committee does not oversee employees who work in the executive branch of Alaska state government. The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has several responsibilities.

It helps legislators and staff understand and follow the Ethics Act. It issues advisory opinions to provide guidance on how the law applies in specific situations. The committee also reviews complaints that allege possible violations of the act and maintains public records of required financial disclosure statements. What you will find in this bill, House Bill 298, the Ethics Act, there are many detailed provisions because the Ethics Committee is not a department with its own regulations. These details provide greater certainty for legislators, legislative staff, ethics committee members, ethics staff, and the public.

The primary impetus for introducing this bill came from former committee members. In fact, two are sitting there on the dais with you, Chair. I want to thank Senator Tobin for her leadership, certainly. But what was happening at the time, there was a recognition that the process allowing a complainant to remain anonymous was either unclear or not adequately addressed. They understood this was an oversight, and as a result, they, along with us, um, the current Ethics Committee, including Representative McCabe and myself, began working to revamp the ethics statutes.

We offered to take up the bill to refresh all of the statutes that were there, that were— where it applied, and in doing so, it became clear there were several additional areas that needed clarification and cleaning up. And if it's the will of the Chair, Representative McCabe will give more background and context related to putting this bill together, and then my staff, if it's the will of the Chair, Monica Schringendorf will go over sectional analysis, which will be part of the presentation. Thank you very much. I would just—. Just for the record, you and Representative McCabe are the two House members on the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics.

Who is the primary and who's the alternate? Thank you for that clarification. We are both on the committee, and then there is another additional alternate, and I'm trying to think if that's Jeremy Bynum. It is. It's Jeremy Bynum is the other alternate, and I think there may be— I know that Sarah Hannan has served and has been a part of this, but she is not currently the alternate, although I think she may be an alternate for me, and then— pardon me, I apologize for not recognizing that.

My alternate is Sarah Hannon, and then I believe Jeremy Bynum is the alternate for Representative McCabe.

And I do recognize that there are Senate members that are totally separate than the House members. Senator Stevens is one of the Senate members, and I'm— I believe I'm his alternate. And as a sign of my knowledge, are you still on the ethics? No. I'm actually not who this— not sure who the second—.

Okay. Oh, it looks like Senator Yunt is the member, and Senator Cronk is Senator Yunt's alternate. Okay, somebody's getting me tuned in. Okay, just wanted to make the record clear. Please proceed.

We may or may not take up the sectional, but go forward at least to the sectional. Okay, thanks, Chair Clayman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm Representative Kevin McCabe for House District 30, and thanks for the opportunity to present the history of Alaska's Legislative Ethics Act as part of the sponsor team for HB 298. It will be great to to get this into the record. The story begins in 1984 when the legislature enacted AS 24.60, creating the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.

At the time, our state was building standards of conduct for a part-time citizen legislature, basic rules on conflicts of interest, gifts, disclosures. Enforcement was mostly advisory, and the committee operated with limited visibility. By 1992, The act was significantly modernized with stronger rules on lobbying, nepotism, fundraising, and formal complaint procedures. The first notable public action came in 1993 when the committee censured a senator for misconduct involving a legislative page. In the late 1990s, the modern hybrid structure took shape.

A 9-member committee with 4 legislators and 5 public members appointed by the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court and confirmed by two-thirds vote of the legislature This deliberate design, public majority for independence, was a distinctly Alaskan innovation. Remarkably, this sets Alaska apart from the federal model. In Congress, the House and Senate ethics committees are composed entirely of elected members, a pure self-policing system that has drawn consistent criticism for being too lenient and protective of insiders. Alaska chose a different path early on to guard against exactly those risks. The 2023 through 2010 VECO scandal, the FBI's Corrupt Bastards Club investigation, tested that structure.

Multiple legislators were convicted of bribery tied to oil tax legislation. Public outrage led directly to the landmark 2007 Ethics Reform Act. That bipartisan package passed under Governor Palin dramatically strengthened the committee's subpoena and investigative powers. Expanded disclosures and training, and further protected the public member majority. It was a hard-fought balance.

Legislators worried about separation of powers, but the public actually demanded real accountability in that time. In the 2010s and 2020s, the committee has handled routine training, rising internal complaints, and high-profile matters such as resource misuse and disclosure violations. Yet recurring challenges have surfaced. Ambiguity and ambiguity around subpoenas, complaints timed near elections, and debates over confidentiality versus transparency. These are not unique to Alaska.

The Federal Ethics Committee faces similar criticisms of delays and weak enforcement.

Members of the committee and Mr. Chairman, HB 298 is the next logical chapter in Alaskans— in this Alaskan story. It does not abandon our hybrid independence model. In fact, it strengthens and protects it. The bill clarifies subpoena authority, which is in Sections 1 and 8, building directly on the 2007 reforms while avoiding the federal pitfalls of purely internal control. It excludes Ethics Committee public members and staff from ombudsman jurisdiction, and that's in Section 2, to preserve the committee's operational integrity.

It bolsters whistleblower protection, Section 4, and standardizes the entire complaint process—timelines, dismissals, confidentiality rules. With new guardrails, campaign period safeguards, and mandatory referrals. And that's in, uh, Sections 10 through 25. These challenges codify decades of practical experience and reduce the very ambiguities that have fueled distrust in both state and federal systems. In short, while Congress continues to rely on member-only ethics oversight, Alaska has consistently chosen a more independent hybrid approach refined after every major lesson from the 1980s through today.

HB 298 simply makes that proven Alaska model clearer, fairer, and easier to administer for everyone involved—legislators, staff, complaints, and the public. It's now before you in the Senate after passing the House 37-3 on May 1st, and I'm happy to walk through this—we're happy to walk through the sectional analysis or answer questions. And in closing, I'd like to say thank you to Senator Tobin as well as Representative Hannon and Representative Delena Johnson for their previous work on putting this together. There's been, over several years, there's been lots of effort on finding a good path forward, and we think that this is the culmination of that work. So thank you.

I'll ask if there's anyone— first, if there are questions for either of the representatives. Is there anyone on the committee who would like to hear a sectional analysis? I don't see any, so we're going to let you off on the sectional analysis. Is there further presentation? Do you want to present your slide or your— That's the Sectional Analysis.

It's good. Okay. Okay. The remaining slides are for the Sectional Analysis. We will peruse that on our own as well as the slides.

Wonderful. You should have it, Chair Clayman, in your packet. You should have a set of slides, and there's more of a consolidation of the Sectional Analysis because it's pretty heavy, and so it's just a very high overview. So if you would like to have a look at that on your time. That's available.

I know that Monica put that together so that you would all be able to see it in an easier way. We will look forward to a full review. Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to express my appreciation to all of you folks, including the staff at the Ethics Committee, all the work that's gone into this.

It's years in making, and we've needed it for a long time. This takes us a step forward. As you were speaking, Representative, I was thinking of Having lived through the VECO scandals and all the nasty situations we had here and things being done improperly and incorrectly, I think this takes us well into the future. Thank you.

All right. So seeing no other questions— oh, Senator Keele, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's kind of an in-the-weeds question about one particular subsection, if I may.

No, this is the whole purpose. So, read through the bill, I think this is a very strong work product and I appreciate all the work that's gone into it. I have a question on Section 24 and it's on page 16 of the bill. It deals with complaints against elected officials who are running during the campaign period. And for the most part, it all makes sense to me.

There's one thing that I wasn't particularly entirely clear on. If you get down to Section C, Subsection C, so it's line 23, the Ethics Committee has found probable cause. They have proceeded with the formal process, right? They didn't just say this was a nonsense complaint. They're going.

When you enter the campaign period, the committee is going to— needs to suspend public hearing until after the campaign period ends unless the person who's the subject of the complaint requests otherwise. When we look at the next subsection, D, if that hearing process has been completed before the campaign period starts but they haven't yet issued a decision, it says the committee may not issue the decision until after the campaign period ends and there's no option for the person who is the subject of the complaint. Was that a deliberate decision to treat that differently, or would the sponsors of the bill consider letting a person who is the subject of a complaint say, "Yes, I want the answer out there and on the record," because presumably because they are convinced they will be exonerated?

Through the Chair— Absolutely. Senator Kiffmeyer. We are just not sure who has the better answer, so we are looking to you to decide who is going to talk. I appreciate that. I do want to clarify comment that members of your office have met with members of mine, and then we took it to board members to better understand how this might play into an amendment.

And I think we've seen that as a friendly amendment, and I think adding words like "unless the person charged requests otherwise" seems to be reasonable language to put in there. So I do appreciate it. Again, this committee process always makes bills stronger. And I think that that would be— we haven't discussed it as a whole committee, but I have discussed it with 2 members of the board who seem very amenable and think that that makes sense. So I'll leave it at that.

And I don't know if Representative McCabe would also like to comment. Thanks, Senator Kielsa. Through the Chair, so I think that this was put in there a little bit to prevent weaponizing of the Ethics Committee during a campaign season, right? And I suspect that the reason we kind of left it not up to the person is we didn't want to really weaponize it either way. We just kind of wanted to let it lie.

We had significant discussion in committee about the looming weaponization of government offices, which you know, can be a problem, especially during campaign season. So it was specifically designed to prevent that effect, I guess. I think we gave it a name of a certain lawyer in Fairbanks at one point, but—. Well, in understanding that sometimes it can go either way— through the Chair, this is Representative Galvin. I think that the words unless the person charged requests otherwise, sometimes may be what they would prefer because they would rather clear the deck in terms of get the facts out there.

So I could see how that would be helpful, you know, in certain circumstances. So I do appreciate that language and understand how that can be helpful depending on the situation and allowing the person to make that decision may be the most fair way to approach it. Thank you. I would just note in that framework, if you, you know, say this is October 1st, and there's a rumor circulating about that candidate John Smith has an ethics complaint out there, and to the extent subsection D of of Section 24 gives John Smith the option to say, "I want to disclose the hearing and let it go forward." It presents— it presents this interesting challenge, because if in fact John Smith requests that, and then the Ethics Committee says they're no problem, then John Smith says, "I've got no problem," but then if the if there's that option to ask for the ruling, it creates this structure in which if John Smith fails to ask for the ruling release, that essentially makes the decision whether to request a release or not the weaponized situation that Representative McCabe is talking about. And to the extent that one is trying to not turn ethics investigations into campaign events, there may be some merit in— in that limit.

But thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll note that it's, it's a little inconsistent with the subsection right above it, right?

Which adds to the complexity. And I have to say, I haven't— I don't know where I sit on that. I'll have to think about it more. Chair Clayman, if I might. Representative McCabe again, for the record.

The, um, if you remember when Jerry Anderson— and we all remember Jerry when Jerry was alive He was very, very, very strict on an ethics complaint, and if you filed an ethics complaint, his first instruction were, if I hear that this complaint is out, we're going to dismiss it automatically, because the confidentiality of the complainant mattered so much to him, as well as the subject of the complaint, right? So his idea was it was to remain confidential during the investigation and all. For that. Well, it turns out that it wasn't really in the law. It wasn't really regulation.

This was just Jerry doing this, right? So, and God bless him, but we need to put it in there for this. So this was our attempt and I don't think, you know, we'll have to consider the amendment and run it by Ledge Legal and see, but I'm certain that it would be a better product. If it works out that way. Representative Galvin, you had more to add.

Chair Clayman, I just wanted to make sure— mention that we do have on the line 2 members from the board who may be able to add more context to that amendment consideration. There is—. I see only one on the line, but Joyce Anderson. Ms. Anderson, I know you've been on the Legislative Ethics Committee for longer than I've been an alternate. Your thoughts on the provisions C and D on page 16.

Okay, this is Joyce Anderson, a member of the Ethics Committee, and I did want to clarify something that Representative McCabe said. It currently is in statute that says that if the complainant releases the fact that they issued a complaint, then it's off automatically dismissed. There were not other issues that someone else did, but if it was a complaint. So I guess I just wanted to clarify that. One of the, one of the things that we're talking about in C&D is during the sampling period, and we're talking about whether the committee should move forward with the complaints.

And if they do, you know, we have to have— this would allow us to, if the person who was charged said that we could, The other part that's mentioned in here is that, you know, the committee under D on line 30 of Section 24, where it says the committee may not issue the decision until after the campaign period ends. One of the recommendations I know in talking to Senator Kiel's staff person was that we felt maybe it should say unless the subject of a complaint. Point, you know, request otherwise or remove confidentiality or whatever. And so, I'm not quite sure if the committee is saying that that's not a good idea. So, I guess I wanted to clarify that before I went any further.

Is that what the committee discussion is about, not adding that language there? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER MILLER] Ms. Anderson, the committee discussion is whether or not to add I'm somewhere in subparagraph D, the phrase that appears in subparagraph C, unless the person in charge requests otherwise. That's the discussion. Okay.

Okay. All right. Which I think your response was directed to that very question.

Okay. Basically, if I don't feel that it would weaponize the committee if the committee issues a decision, if the person charged requests otherwise. I feel that if we have not yet issued a decision and the committee would, you know, would not issue the decision until after the campaign period, I guess I'm not sure it would weaponize the committee if the subject of a complaint said that we could release your decision.

-Based on my experience in the past. We have very seldom had a campaign— I mean, excuse me, a complaint during a campaign period. And during my tenure, I think there was probably only one. And I was there from '01 to 2016 where we held until after the campaign period. So, it's, you know, I'm not saying it's not going to happen, but I don't think it would weaponize the committee.

I don't see any other questions from members of the committee, so we're going to open public testimony. Is there anyone in the room that would like to provide public testimony on House Bill 298? Turning next to online, looking at the screen, I have no one online, no one in the room, so we're going to close public testimony on House Bill 298. Any other questions from members of the committee before we set the bill aside? Hearing nothing, we're going to set this bill aside for further review.

We are going to adjourn for the day. If anyone is considering an amendment to House Bill 298, Legislative Ethics Committee and Proceedings, please let our office know and submit them electronically by tomorrow, Thursday, May 7th. That's at 5 PM. Our next meeting will be on Friday, May 8th at 1:30 PM. It is my general direction that we will be taking up this very bill on Friday and considering any amendments that may be offered.

Or potentially, depending on how we proceed, we may have a CS if there are amendments. But either way, with that, we are going to adjourn for the day. The time is now 1:54 PM.