Jet(tison) that idea--A good friend from Petersburg was in the office today. He was in town with his daughter, one of the athletes at a multi-school high school track meet Juneau's hosting. He wanted to talk about the governor's continued quest for a state jet. To put his dismay in perspective, he noted he and his daughter boarded a ferry in Petersburg Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. and arrived in Juneau at 3 a.m. this morning, Friday. On the ferry milk run he had plenty of free time to think about the guv's need for a jet. Needless to say, he wasn't too sympathetic with the governor's notion that it took the guv too long to fly places in the state's prop plane and that, sometimes, commercial flights are inconvenient.

Stuff it--When I showed up early this morning, Friday, there were cardboard boxes and rolls of plastic packing materials in front of Senate leadership offices--but no place else in the building. In the last couple days of the session, legislative staff usually are busy stuffing office files and equipment into the boxes for transport back to home offices--but everyone gets their boxes all at the same time. Rumor Friday was Senate leaders are upset that the House Finance Committee had the temerity at this point in the session to send one of their must-have bills, the PERS/TRS dismemberment package, to a working group that didn't look friendly. The packing material gambit apparently is a get-tough message that they'll just go home if the House disses them--but, really, who's afraid of bubble wrap?

Whew!--Sen. Ralph Seekins, testifying before the Senate State Affairs Committee this week in support of his ethics legislation told the committee chair: "if someone asked me, 'off the top of your head, name three people you can trust', I'd say Sen. Elton, Sen. Wagoner, Sen. Huggins. I'd also include Sen. Davis." Gotta say I'm glad I made the list but I wonder if it's coincidental that the list included the names of all the committee members present--committee members who had to decide whether or not to pass out his ethics bills. I'm grateful for his kind words, pandering or not. I hope the senator from Fairbanks will continue to say good things about me after I voted against his bill, which makes it more difficult for the Legislative Ethics Committee to fulfill its ethics-policing role. I want an ethics committee that trends toward  pit bull--not lapdog.

A Prince of an idea?--In House floor debate on a bill that allows expansion of the role of Native entities to provide services to needy families (building on existing programs run by Native organizations at significant cost savings to the state), a touchy subject was raised. Some conservative legislators are tender about codifying the word 'tribal' in state law--saying use of the word could diminish state powers in some way or another. Rep. Eric Croft quipped, in response to suggestions to remove the 'T' word from various sections of the bill, that the House could just adopt a symbol for the word, an idea popularized when singer Prince gave up his name for an unpronounceable symbol. Folks called him "the artist formerly known as Prince".

     We're on the verge of proving that many legislators are no more interested in strict ethical standards than our neighbors are in the relevance of the central tenets of the Pythagorean theory of numbers.
     When it comes to numbers, our neighbors mostly hope they add up in the checkbook. When it comes to legislative ethics, our neighbors mostly hope we have 'em and if we don't that there are consequences.
     Let me get something straight right now. I believe most legislators do have high ethical standards. I also believe: we need a clear ethics recipe that guides us in our daily behavior; we need a legislative ethics committee strong enough to withstand political pressure and enforce, in those cases where enforcement is necessary, the ethical rules Alaskans expect us to live by; and the public needs to know if a legislator or legislative staffer has been found guilty of a violation.
     But we're trending toward retreat from principles that discomfit those with power. Some want uncodified "legislative traditions", long-time "precedent", and other wink-and-nod euphemisms to trump the ethical expectations of those being governed. We're edging toward rearranging our ethics laws and rules so we're judged through a lens held by the political elite instead of a lens held by an independent ethics commission.
     Some legislators want legislators to be the final arbiters of legislative ethics and are chipping away at ethics rules to make that happen. But that's like suggesting the addicted-to-prescription-medicine Mr. Rush Limbaugh guard our medicine cabinets. It can't give the public a great deal of confidence if we begin placing limits on the ethics committee.
     The commission, in fulfilling its public duties, inevitably steps on the toes of the politically powerful. Unfortunately, those politicos' toes now are the leading edge of feet aimed at the backsides of those who serve on the ethics commission. 
     SB187 delivers the kick in the backside.
     SB187 also provides for up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine for someone who says they've filed an ethics complaint or even who says they're going to file a complaint. Think of this: a year in jail and a big fine for telling your spouse you're going to file an ethics complaint. Talk about a way to limit the number of complaints filed against legislators or legislative staff. Tell your partner what you're going to do then show up to file a complaint and find out that you get a free ticket to jail if you do file it. 
     But the sponsor doesn't stop there. I could get fined and spend a year in the big house if I even tell my wife an allegation has been made against me. Guess the sponsor doesn't believe you should tell your spouse everything that's going on in your life.
     But wait! That's not all! (As the late night TV hawkers of Ginsu knives say.) This bill tries to set aside a recent ethics committee advisory opinion that found legislative leaders violated the intent of the public notice requirements when they: 1) brought up a dormant, unneeded budget bill heard more about a year ago in a previous session; 2) stripped the bill and substituted a controversial education funding package never before discussed; 3) passed it out of the committee in minutes with no public testimony; and 4) delivered it to the floor of the senate for a vote that same morning.
     Unsurprisingly, the ethics committee found in an advisory opinion that any possible construction of the term "public notice" was violated by ramming the bill through. Imagine that, an ethics committee with the temerity to suggest that a bill can't pass the Senate with no opportunity for the public to weigh in on a bill that affects them. SB187 in effect says: "We don't need no stinkin' advice like that! We'll do what we want and if we can't we'll change the laws."
     Then, the sponsor of SB187 really twists the knife. SB187 gratuitously redefines the kind of public members who serve on the committee. And, surprise, most of those who voted against a practice that allows a bill to scream through the senate would have to be replaced.
     The trajectory and the elements of SB187 bring to mind HB563. Last year, HB563 popped up in the waning hours of the session because the ethics committee seemed on the verge of adopting rules that would open most political caucuses to the light of day. Those let-the-sunshine-in rules were being studied by the ethics committee because a legislative attorney opined that, after more than a decade, the legislature had taken too long to adopt open meeting principles so the ethics committee had a duty to define them. 
     Oops, can't have real openness defined by Alaskans outside the capitol. So HB563 (that allows politicians to keep their caucuses closed when they talk about the public's business) was introduced in the final week of last year's session. It was heard and passed from two House committees, passed out of the House, passed through two Senate committees and then Senate.
     Gee whilikers, Triple Crown winner Seattle Slew couldn't have run through the capital as fast as that bill did. Somebody musta really wanted that bill. Actually, quite a few somebodies wanted that bill. They did not want Alaskans eavesdropping on their discussions of legislation that will affect Alaskans.
     But here we are again this session. After talking very generally about the "need" for changes in the laws that govern legislative ethics for months, the sponsor of SB187 waited until the last minute of this session, just like the sponsor of HB563 did last session. By pushing the bill out this late, I suspect they hope nobody notices they're rolling back ethics protections.
     Again, I believe most legislators serve for all the right reasons. Bur ethics code shouldn't codify exemptions for the political elite. When Moses went up the mountain he didn't return with the Ten Commandments and a list of exemptions for those who have power.