Debate on over proposed ethics bills

February 3, 2006

MARK KELSEY\Frontiersman managing editor

A controversial executive ethics bill made its debut in a state House committee this week, but the reception it received was less than warm.

Senate Bill 186, sponsored by Ralph Seekins, R-Fairbanks, went before the House State Affairs Committee on Tuesday after being approved by the Senate last May. Rep. Carl Gatto, R-Mat-Su, who serves as the committee's vice chair, said he didn't think members were inclined to give it wholesale support.

&#8220The bill may have some good points in it, but I did not hear anything said that would convince me that this is the right thing to do,” he said.

Dubbed by some critics as the &#8220executive protection bill,” SB 186 was a response to the Gregg Renkes scandal. Renkes, who served as Gov. Murkowski's first attorney general, resigned in 2004 under heavy fire for his negotiations of a state business deal that stood to bring him personal profit because of his stock holdings in a company that could have benefited from the deal.

Among the provisions of the bill raising concerns with Gatto and other members of the State Affairs Committee was a much-hyped and widely criticized call for a $5,000 fine imposed on anyone who takes their complaint public before an investigation has shown the complaint has merit.

Seekins maintains critics have it all wrong and that his bill has been &#8220totally misconstrued.” Confidentiality clauses are already built into the law, they're just not enforced. The fine, he said, will give the law some teeth and prevent people from using an ethics charge for an illegitimate purpose.

&#8220The media have irresponsibly reported this. You can still go talk about a person all you want to. But you can't go out and break confidentiality until there's been a finding of probable cause,” said Seekins, who is widely rumored to have gubernatorial aspirations. &#8220We want anyone who violates ethics laws to be prosecuted. And we want people to not file false complaints.”

Critics of the bill point to the Renkes case and the ruling that the former attorney general did not violate any laws. Under the restrictions of Seekins' bill, had the case been pressed further, a fine could have been imposed on those who filed the complaint - former Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin and Anchorage Rep. Eric Croft.

Palin, a Republican candidate for governor, questioned Seekins' intent in pushing the bill, saying laws addressing frivolous ethics complaints are already on the books.

&#8220I just don't hear the public asking for this type of bill that still burdens the people. I hear a politician asking for it. That's backwards,” she said. &#8220The first article in our state constitution says all political power is inherent in the people.”

Former Republican legislator Andrew Halcro, who is running for governor as an independent, was less diplomatic. Seekins, he pointed out, was one of Renkes' biggest defenders. His motives for proposing the legislation had nothing to do with genuine ethics reform.

&#8220These folks are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to ethics complaints. For the last 10 years, they have tailored the ethics laws to their way of doing business. If anyone is going to have the audacity to try and justify what Renkes did, that is proof in and of itself that we need an iron fist, not a velvet glove, when it comes to ethical standards for public officials,” Halcro said. &#8220Seekins' bill is nothing more than borrowing trouble. He isn't concerned about protecting the public's voice, he's concerned with protecting his political cronies.”

Halcro said preserving the public's full right to voice complaints is especially important considering that ethics laws are crafted by the people who must adhere to them.

&#8220It's like wolves setting the rules for predator control,” he said. &#8220The last time I checked, the concept was still government of the people, by the people and for the people - not for the people, by the people in charge. It's no wonder people don't trust government.”

Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, whose competing executive ethics bill is awaiting a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee after sailing through State Affairs last week, also questioned the need for the confidentiality clause.

&#8220If someone gets cheated in their business, they get to tell the whole world about it immediately. But if a member of the public gets cheated by a politician, they're not allowed to say anything about it until the government says it's OK,” he said. &#8220How is that fair?”

Gara's proposed legislation, House Bill 194, does not contain a confidentiality clause or a penalty for public disclosure of a complaint. It values a financial conflict of interest at $10,000 and does not exempt a public official who puts any conflicting financial interest in a blind trust, as Seekins' bill does.

Gatto said he plans to ask that the penalty provision of the bill be stripped out when the committee takes it up again Feb. 14. Committee Chair Paul Seaton, R-Homer, said he does not believe there is committee support for either the penalty or the blind trust exemption.

&#8220A blind trust goes in the direction of allowing a significant investment to be held and not be declared as a conflict of interest,” Seaton said. &#8220That's troublesome to me.”

Contact Mark Kelsey at

352-2268 or mark.kelsey@

frontiersman.com.