Ethics bill faces another hurdle in Legislature

The evolution of proposed executive ethics legislation provides a good lesson in how the wheels of government turn in the halls of the Legislature. In the case of Senate Bill 186, those wheels have not turned in an especially favorable way for the people of Alaska.

Spawned by the scandal involving former attorney general Gregg Renkes, the proposed bill is sponsored by Sen. Ralph Seekins, a Fairbanks Republican and Renkes defender. The proposal was controversial from its inception last session because of a provision that made it a criminal offense, possibly punishable by jail time, for talking about an ethics complaint before the complaint was ruled viable by the state personnel board.

The nearly universal condemnation of the proposal did not stop the Senate from blessing the bill with a party-line vote in May. House lawmakers had other ideas, though, and basically declared SB 186 dead on arrival.

Undaunted, Seekins went back to work and changed the criminal provision to a civil penalty - a fine - and the bill had new life. Seekins followed it through two House committees, testifying passionately about his belief in the bill and need for the confidentiality clause to keep someone from filing an ethics complaint for political gain.

Nonetheless, the House State Affairs Committee stripped out the penalty portion of the bill, along with a provision that would have allowed a state official to avoid a conflict of interest like Renkes' by putting his or her assets in a blind trust. The House Judiciary Committee concurred and sent the bill to the Rules Committee to be scheduled for a vote on the House floor.

Rules chair Norm Rokeberg, R-Anchorage, had other ideas. No doubt influenced by the relentless lobbying of Seekins, Rokeberg scheduled the bill for a hearing instead, where, presumably, Seekins will again attempt to have the widely reviled provisions reinserted in his bill.

Capitol watchers likely will not be surprised. Rokeberg, after all, is the legislator whose record on ethics-related matters includes entrenching the closed-door caucus as an acceptable means for the majority to do the people's business. Anyone not bothered by this singularly undemocratic maneuver should realize that while minority lawmakers, the press and members of the public are not allowed to participate in these sessions, invited lobbyists are.

The new hearing on SB 186 is scheduled for Tuesday. The committee, whose members include longtime Valley Rep. Vic Kohring and Speaker of the House John Harris, who also represents a tiny portion of borough voters, will hear Seekins expound again on his belief that his bill is about equality and holding ethics-complaint filers to the same standard that government officials are held to.

In principle, Seekins is right. In a perfect world, that sort of equality should rule the day. But this is not a perfect world, and the reality is that in an effort to protect against politically motivated complaints, Seekins has actually made it easier for unethical behavior to go unchecked.

His insistence that probable cause be adjudicated by a government panel, itself susceptible to political machinations, is an unacceptable erosion of democracy and fundamental notions of government of, by and for the people.

Folks who are concerned about open, accountable government and the chilling effect these provisions could have on citizens' rights should contact Rokeberg, Kohring and Harris. Encourage them to heed the wisdom of their colleagues on the Judiciary and State Affairs committees and not allow the controversial provisions to be reinserted in SB 186.