Legislative rules protect against conflicts of interest

Spectrum, by Sen. Gene Therriault

Over the past months, and in the last few weeks particularly, much has been reported about conflicts of interest in the Alaska State Legislature. The public has a right to know about potential conflicts, but it is also important to understand why they exist and what we do as an institution to make sure they do not infringe on the public interest.

Alaska's Constitutional framers decided the state would be best served by a citizen Legislature. That is, members of the Legislature would be citizens who lead lives as similar as possible to those of the general public, rather than those of full-time politicians. As a result, legislators receive a modest salary, and the state pays certain expenses related to their post. However, unless they are independently wealthy or serve the public after retirement, many legislators must have employment outside the Legislature to support their families. Such employment may sometimes create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

For example, 10 attorneys currently serve in the Legislature. These attorney/legislators have sponsored and voted on measures that potentially affect the legal community financially. The question the public asks is whether these legislators vote based on the merits of the legislation or on their own financial stake. Situations such as these are common in legislative bodies where elected officials are encouraged and expected to have outside employment (AS 24.60.010). As a result, the Legislature has adopted rules to deal with occasions where a conflict may arise.

First, all legislators are required to complete a personal financial disclosure each year so the public knows their interests in business, real estate and employment. Second, when a bill comes to the floor for a vote, members are required to disclose personal interests and may ask to be excused from voting. However, if any other member of the body objects, the legislator with the potential conflict is required to vote. In my entire tenure with the Alaska Legislature, I have never known the membership to allow an individual to abstain from voting due to a conflict or potential conflict.

As the presiding officer of the Alaska Senate, I routinely watch for potential conflicts to make sure proper steps are taken to ensure the legitimacy of bills that are enacted. This past session, House Bill 69 was introduced by Rep. Vic Kohring to implement a regulatory regime specifically for shallow gas exploration and development. The bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate for consideration. Sen. Scott Ogan, understanding the perception of conflict due to his employment with Evergreen Resources, exceeded all legislative rules related to personal interests. In fact, he took additional steps to limit his influence and input on the bill in question.

When HB 69 was referred to the Resources Committee, which Senator Ogan chairs, he turned the gavel over to the vice-chair of the committee. The vice-chair then sent the bill to a three-member subcommittee. Senator Ogan was not a member of the subcommittee and did not attend any of its meetings. After the subcommittee finished its work and reported a revised version back to the full committee, he again turned over the gavel to his vice-chair. He was not present when the committee took final action on the bill.

It is important to note that when HB 69 was before the Senate for final action, Senator Ogan declared his personal interest and then refrained from debate. There were no amendments offered to alter the bill. With 14 bipartisan cross sponsors, including both minority members of the Resources Committee, the Senate approved the measure by a vote of 19 to one.

Despite the extra steps he took and the overwhelming support for the measure, Senator Ogan has been the target of criticism because of his employment with Evergreen Resources. As a result, he has chosen to end his relationship with that company. I respect his decision as the best way to focus debate on the actual wording of the bill and the ongoing efforts to provide answers to questions that have arisen.

With a Legislature comprising fishermen, attorneys, laborers, business owners, educators and engineers, to name a few, House Bill 69 is not the first, and will not be the last, piece of legislation to experience perceptions of conflict. However, I believe Senator Ogan surpassed all required steps to isolate himself from decisions pertaining to the bill as it proceeded through the legislative process.

Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, is the Senate president.