Legislative Council limits which offices legislative employees may hold, keeps resignation rule for campaigns

The Legislative Council on Thursday voted to prohibit legislative employees from holding federal, state, county or municipal elected offices while preserving exceptions for tribal offices and many small local bodies, and it retained the existing rule that staff who file for or accept nomination to those prohibited offices must resign.

Shauna, speaking for the district office working group, told the council the question was divided into two parts: which offices should be off-limits and what employees must do if they begin campaigning. “The first question is what elected offices are legislative employees prohibited from holding? The working group has put forth 4 options,” she said, laying out a blanket prohibition, a tribal carve-out, a “big 4” ban (federal, state, county, municipal) and a partisan-only approach.

The discussion focused on tradeoffs for rural districts and on conflict-of-interest risks. Representative Martinez said she opposed reopening rules adopted earlier in the year, arguing it was unfair to change conditions for staff already hired: “I don't understand why we're now going back and changing all the stuff… I just do not feel comfortable with all these changes happening 11 months into this program.” Others, including Senator Wirth and Senator Sher, urged a clear, simple rule that avoids the perception of conflict when staff hold other public offices.

Mister Speaker argued for flexibility in rural communities and noted the program’s startup funding, saying, “this was gonna be a process of growth and evolution…and I'm glad we're having [these conversations],” and that the DLA program’s scale and purpose differ across the state.

After debate, the council first adopted the working-group proposal that bans legislative employees from holding the four broad types of offices (federal, state, county and municipal) while excluding tribal offices and smaller local subdivisions. Later, on the related question of how staff must proceed when they begin campaigning, the council voted to retain the current language requiring resignation upon filing or accepting a nomination. The resignation requirement was described to the council as the current policy in the code of conduct.

Votes were recorded by roll call. The motion defining prohibited offices (the “big 4” approach) carried in the first ballot; the later motion to keep the resignation trigger likewise passed in a recorded vote.

Council members asked staff to return proposed clean policy language reflecting the two decisions so the code of conduct can be updated and applied consistently across Legislative Council Service, DLA positions and other legislative staff. Shauna and counsel said they would draft the revised code language and bring it back for implementation and editorial review.

The council’s decisions do not prevent individuals from running for office; they change only the employment condition for those who choose to campaign for the specified prohibited offices.

What happens next: staff will prepare revised code-of-conduct language and present it for formal adoption and implementation. The council indicated the issue will continue to be revisited as the program evolves.