Alaska Legislature: HETH-260626-0900

Okay, I would like to call a meeting to order for the House Subcommittee on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. Today's date is June 26th, Friday, 2026. The time looks like it's maybe 9:03, and thank you all for being Timely. Appreciate it. And with that, we would move to the next item and ask Kevin to take the roll, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Galvin. Present. Representative McCabe.

Here. Skip Cook. Here. Joyce Anderson. Here.

Carl White. Here. Ms. Deb Feincher. Here. Mr.

Chair. Here. Mr. Chair, we have a quorum. Okay.

Thank you. With that, we are moving on to the next item, which is approval of the agenda. I would ask for a motion to approve or revise, depending on your pleasure.

I move to approve the agenda. Any objections? Hearing none, the agenda is approved. Before we move into the next item, which is public comment, I want to make a couple of comments. I want to inform the subcommittee, if you don't already know, that our long-term assistant to the committee, Jackie Yagle, is retiring, and we want to thank you.

I know she's really embarrassed that I'm mentioning this, but at any rate, We appreciate all the work that you've done and thank you so much for the time that you've given the committee and for taking care of our travel authorizations and making sure the packet gets out. So—. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And in the same vein, I would also like to welcome our new member who is sitting beside Jackie, which is Keeley Hawley, if I'm saying it—. Holler. Holler. Okay. Keeley Holler.

And so I'd like to welcome you to the committee. Hope that you find it engaging. So thank you, and to both of you. All right. With that, we will move on to the next item, which is public comment.

Are there people of the public that would like to comment prior to moving on with the meeting? Mr. Chair, I show that we have 4 members that would like to make public comment. I would request that the public commenters remember that you are limited to 3-minute comments. I will be keeping times for you, Mr.

Chair. And also, as we go into the public comment, for the commenters, please ensure that you state your name for the record. Prior to your public comment. So with that, Mr. Chair, with your concurrence, uh, Miss Catherine Carso, if you would state your name and make your comment.

Thank you. This is Catherine Carso in Homer, Alaska. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today, uh, speaking first to the ethics complaint against Representative Vance. To have the facts before you, what you may not be fully aware of is the damage her misuse of her office did to her constituents, the Homer community, and the state. The impact of her unethical wielding of a weight of her public office to come down on a young reporter who grew up in our community was callous and flew in the face of the values of our small town and our pride in guiding and nurturing talent of our homegrown professionals.

She could have handled her dissatisfaction with the with the reporter's article so much more constructively.

If she had only cared. The impact was that the— excuse me, can you turn the volume down, please? The impact was that this young journalist and two other reporters left the paper. I'm moving to a quieter spot, just a moment. I quote an October 3rd, 2025 article in the New York Times.

The publication in Alaska lost significant staffing after the owners made changes to an article that had drawn criticism for a Republican state lawmaker. Her letter suggested that advertisers were planning to boycott the publication, constituting a threat to the financial well-being of our local newspaper's owner. Second, in the interest of integrity of your proceedings regarding this ethics violation, I respectfully ask that you act in accordance with AS 24-606010 by recognizing the conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest by recusing Representative McCabe. Representative Bass is the Alaska State Chair of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. Representative McCabe is the Alaska State Vice Chair of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers.

Appearance of a conflict of interest arises one out of their relationship with one another as leaders of this organization, and by the importance to the National Association of Christian Lawmakers of the particular subject matter of the news article to which Representative Vance publicly objected through the misuse of her legislative resources, as pointed out on that organization's website. That's the Christian Lawmakers www.charliekirkfoundation.com/inmemoryofcharliekirk. Thanks so much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Miss Carso, if you would state or spell your name for the record, please.

Catherine, K-A-T-H-R-Y-N Carso, C-A-R-S-S-O-W. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would take us to our next Public commenter, Miss Judy Miller, would you please spell your name, state your name for the record, and you have 3 minutes.

Hello, this is Judith Miller, and I'm wanting to testify in regards to the Chair Vance ethics hearing. Miss Miller, would you spell your name please for the record? Oh yes, Miller, M-I-L-L-E-R.

Thank you.

Okay, um, I, I, I want to concur with the earlier testimony, but I also feel that the, um, the questions being raised about Representative Vance in the Ethics Committee's notice don't seem to really hit at the heart. I mean, there's the judgment that, uh, Sarah Vance's judgment that it was an opinion piece and that it was some kind of race-baiting, and then she used her office, regardless of what mechanism it happened to be, letterhead, but in any case, she used her office to pressure the Carpenter Media Group to change that article. And that is subject to my First Amendment rights that she's infringing on, because her comment and her rationale for requiring the changes— she called it race-based baiting, she called it inaccurate. I would like to say that it's not inaccurate to call Charlie Kirk a racist. I looked up the Webster dictionary definition.

Nor is it racist or inaccurate or race-baiting to say he was a Christian nationalist. We've already heard numerous times that Representative Vance is on the board of the largest Christian— I don't know if largest or not, but anyway, Christian Nationalist Legislators. Her rationale is zero for causing that media group to change that story, using her office to pressure them to deny my rights to read that story, which was factual, not opinion. It was factual. There are many cases where we can find racist statements over and over again, Christian Nationalist statements over and over and again from Mr. Kirk, I object to the fact that this— I, I question— I hope this committee has taken into consideration the grievousness of what she did.

On top of using her position to pressure that media group, she was denying me my rights through that action. Her job is to protect my rights, my First Amendment rights. She does not have a right, much less a job, to be stomping on my ability to read an objective piece of reporting in the Homer newspaper. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

All right, Mr. Chair, uh, with your, your concurrence, we'll move to the next public commenter, Miss Shirley Evans. If you would state your name, spell your name for the record, and you are on the record.

Um, good morning, my name is Shirley Evans, S-H-I-R-L-E-Y-E-V as in Victor, I'm also from Homer, and I would just support the two earlier speakers and suggest that, um, in addition to their concerns, I really felt that the separation of church and state was problematic with the use of Representative Vance's letterhead for her opinion. I also concur that the original article was very factual and substantiated by any sort of preliminary research in terms of quotations from Charlie Kirk and his platform. I also concur that I feel, um, Mr. McCabe should recuse himself because of his close association with Representative Vance in an outside, uh, religious organization. I just feel very strongly about the separation of church and state and feel that this was an ethical violation of my, uh, my representative. And I'm sorry to say that.

And with that, I'll conclude my remarks. Thank you so much for hearing my statements. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chair, with your concurrence, we'll move to the last public commenter that I have showing, Ms. Kate Finn.

If you would please state and spell your name for the record, and you are on the record. Okay, my name is Kate Finn.

K-A-T-E, F as in Frank, I-N-N. And I have a long litany here of things that I was going to say, but I'm going to let that go and say that Kathy, Judy, and Shirley have very clearly summed up the ethics complaint that we have against Sarah Vance in this case. Um, I just don't see how she could have made the decision to use her office to pressure the Carpenter Group. It's unconscionable, and I I know that she knows that. I know a little bit about Sarah. She's been a representative from over for quite a while, and I just don't understand how she could possibly have made that grievous error.

It's a breach of the most basic principle of human democracy, human American democracy, that the free press must be free of government influence and coercion. Ms. Sands had no right to use her leverage as a a sitting elected official in this way. And I know that she knows that. So I'm even more grieved and wondering why she would go against something that she knows is so basic. Freedom of the press isn't a negotiable thing.

It's not contingent on whether or not a legislator or a federal agency approves of a message. It exists precisely to hold the powerful accountable, all of them. And I'm very grieved when I went checking just a couple days ago to see whether Mr. McCabe was still on the Ethics Committee, it was very clear that he should be recused. He should recuse himself from this position. And my guess is he also knows that that's true, and yet has continued to stay on this committee.

If we allow politicians from any side to dictate what our newspapers, our broadcasters, or whatever platform As some can say, we have surrendered far more than one article in a small town, and the consequences and fallout from that have been very clearly stated already. We've handed over the cornerstone of democracy, and my question to you as an ethics committee is, are you willing to do that? I hope not. Let's hold Sarah accountable for her actions. And reinforce what she knows is correct.

Thank you. That's what I have to say today. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chair, at this point I do not see any other public commenters listed. Okay, let me, uh, one more time offer any members of the public the opportunity to make a statement here before the committee. I see nobody in the room. Evidently there is nobody online.

Okay, with that, the public comment section is closed. I would like to thank all those who took the time to come out relatively early in the morning to make your opinions known with respect to the issue that's before the committee. So that's, that's the way it's kind of supposed to work, and we appreciate you you exercising your rights to do so. So with that, we'll move on to the next item. We're going to get into the complaint, which is the real reason that we're here, or the number of complaints, which is complaints— House Subcommittee 2502 through House Subcommittee 2519, which has been referenced earlier, are complaints against Sarah Vance.

I'm going to— I've prepared a summary that outlines the allegations in the complaint, which I'm going to go over. I'm then going to go over shortly, briefly, items that are in the packet before we move on to the next part of it. So with that, addressing the complaints, as I said, our complaints, House Subcommittee 2502 through House Subcommittee 2519 concerning Representative Sarah Vance. The summary is as follows: in response to a Homer News article related to the vigil in Homer after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Representative Vance transmitted a letter on official letterhead to the Carpenter Media Group, owners of the Homer News. Um, Carper Media Group is the owner of the Homer News.

The letter expressed Representative Vance's displeasure with one, the content of the article; two, the betrayal of Charlie Clerk; and three, her perception of the Homer News bias. In the letter, Representative Vance offered her opinion on the community's potential courses of action, including one, being aware of a growing movement to boycott Homer News advertising; two, that the consequences of continuing partisan spin— excuse me— in their reporting will be financial as well as reputational; Representative Vance urged corrective action including: 1, review of editorial standards; 2, review of the reporter's body of work; 3, making it clear that Sound Publishing will no longer tolerate agenda-driven reporting. Carper—. In response to this, Carpenter Media Group removed the article from its website after receipt of Representative Vance's letter. The article was revised and reissued.

The revised article removed the byline of the original reporter and deleted the language identified in the Vance letter as objectionable. Representative Vance posted the letter on official letterhead on her official Facebook page. She also posted additional comments on her official Facebook page thanking Carpenter Media Group after it removed and revised the article. In addition, she defended her right to comment on the media reporting. Representative Vance's use of her official letterhead and Facebook page to express her concerns about the article to the Carper Media Group generated numerous complaints, as evidenced by the number— 18 complaints that we've referenced earlier.

All accepted complaints the committee has reviewed, each has its own unique number. Uh, and for those of us on the committee, there's a spreadsheet that includes and identifies all the allegations in each complaint. The common, uh, and most consistent allegation in all the complaints alleges a violation of Alaska Statute 2460.030, which states as follows: a legislator or legislative employee may not to sub— subterfuge Subsection 2, use public funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for a non-legislative purpose, for the involvement in or support of or opposition to partisan political activity, or for the private benefit of the legislator or legislative employee or another person.

The situation that we're in now is the— there's been a determination that the allegations, if true, would constitute a violation. We're now at the stage of the process where the subcommittee will deliberate later in the meeting and consider whether or not there's probable cause determination or whether or not the matter should be dismissed. So that will happen later in this meeting. The deliberations take place in executive session. So that's what we're here for today.

In the packet that the committee has are a number of things. One is a confidentiality waiver that actually covers both— all the complaints. Just for members of the public, in a proceeding such as this where there was no confidentiality waiver, you would not have heard what I just read. The complaint and the allegations in the complaint are confidential until there is a finding of probable cause, if there is one. So that's before the committee members.

The other thing that's been referenced here is we received 9 different letters from public members with respect to a recusal request concerning Representative McCabe, and those are also in the packet. I would just point out for members of the public and others that the committee's responsibility or ability to act in this area is limited to a large extent by the statute itself. I'm going to read the relevant part of it, which is— 24.6130, uh, states as follows: A member is disqualified from participating as a member in any proceeding before the committee involving a complaint against the member or an employee whose work is supervised by the member or an advisory opinion requested by the member. If a regular legislative member of the committee is disqualified under this subsection from participating in a proceeding involving a complaint The member's alternate shall be designated under Alaska Statute 2460.131. So the committee is obligated, of course, to follow the provision as just referenced, which to some extent is limited by its own language.

The other items that are included in the packet is a response from Representative Vance to the scope of that investigation.

As normally in a proceeding like this, Representative Vance, of course, is given the opportunity to present her— any statements that she might have or any additional documents that she may want the committee to to consider. She's elected not to do that. In order just to make it clear kind of what her position is, I'm going to read into the record her, her response to our Administrator, Kevin Reeve. She states as follows. This is a letter dated, or an email dated February 10, 2026.

She states, Mr. Reeve, thank you for forwarding the committee's response. For your continued decisions in this matter. Uh, I believe, uh, the committee has before it all the information necessary to make its determination regarding my request for dismissal. My written submission provided all the legal context needed for consideration. Even taking the allegations as true for purposes of the review, none rise to the level of a violation of Alaska's legislative ethics statute.

For that reason, dismissal is appropriate on the face of the complaints. While I reserve the right to supplement the record if circumstances warrant, I do not intend to participate further in the scope of investigation process unless and until the committee reaches the stage where it is prepared to consider my request for dismissal. I would also like to clarify that my request for a stay of the scope of investigation was made solely so that the motion to dismiss could be considered first. The intent was to avoid unnecessary expenditure of my time, staff time, committee resources if dismissal is warranted. It was not intended to challenge the committee's procedures, but rather to promote efficiency in addressing the threshold issues already presented.

I appreciate the committee's attention to this matter and look forward to hearing its determination on my request for outright dismissal of all the complaints. So with that, Representative Vance, as indicated that at least as far as today's proceedings, she does not intend to do anything more than what she's already done, which as referenced in her letter, she did submit to the committee a request to dismiss along with some attachments, which I'll reference here in just a minute. Also in the packet are examples provided by Representative Vance of of— there are 8 letters from various legislators over the years that reference— that are on letterhead that reference various topics that she considers relevant to the issue that's before the committee now. So those are before us with documents that she submitted. She also submitted for consideration by the committee a number of advisory opinions.

These are available to people online. The opinions that she references are AO, which is shorthand for advisory opinion, AO 84-04, 2007-02, 2008-03, '97-02, and '98-02. So those, all those referenced opinions are included with the— with the packet that the subcommittee has. The other item concerns the scope of investigation, which the committee— subcommittee generated after a determination that we were going to move into the investigative stage of the— of the complaint. So with that, that's what we have.

That's where we are. The next items, the next action—. Sir.

I have a question if you don't mind. So I'd like to clarify that there is nothing in our packet, nothing that has been submitted by Carpenter Media Group explaining why they fired people, why they let people go, why those people quit, or even why they changed the article.

That would seem to be relevant if we're going to go forward with a case like this. Carpenter Media is not— they actually took the action that everybody's complaining about. They didn't have to. They could have said no. Vance has no authority over them.

She has no way to affect them as one legislator out of 60 in this body. So they could have just told her to pound sand and just done what they did. They changed it, so they should have a response, or we should have an investigation, or we should— if we're going to do that, or at least ask them why they changed it. Okay, you're correct. There's nothing in there.

Okay, thank you. With that, we're going to move on to the deliberation stage, which should be done— will be done in executive session. So with that, I would entertain a motion to move into executive session to discuss matters which by law must remain confidential under Alaska Texas Statute 2460.160, Uniform Rule 22B regarding executive sessions, and Rules of Procedure Section 5. Executive sessions and discussion of matters of the immediate knowledge of would adversely affect the finances of a governmental unit and discussion of subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of a— House Subcommittee on Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is back in session after executive session. The time is— looks like 1:16.

Today's date— The date, once again, is June 26, 2026. The committee, after deliberation, has determined— there was a number of complaints all involving the same legislature, complaints number H2502 through H2519. The committee has found probable cause by a majority vote.

Written determination will follow. So with that, uh, entertain a motion to adjourn. This is Joyce. I move to adjourn. Any objections?

Hearing none, uh, the House Subcommittee is adjourned at, uh, 1:17. Thank you.