Opinion ID: 2584102
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: A substantial compliance standard is supported by Alaska Public Offices Commission regulations.

Text: We also note that APOC regulations support the adoption of a substantial compliance standard. Given the lack of statutory specificity discussed above, APOC regulations serve as a useful interpretive aid. APOC's [p]rocedures for incomplete statements from candidates for state elective office specify that the lieutenant governor may not certify the election of a candidate who has not supplied required information on a major source of income, interest in real property, business interest, loan, or trust. [35] (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, 2 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 50.127(d) states that if information discovered after the withdrawal-of-candidacy deadline indicates that a candidate ... has failed to comply substantially with the requirements of AS 39.50 ... the staff of the commission shall undertake a preliminary investigation. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, 2 AAC 50.110(c)(1) states that APOC staff may recommend a ten dollar per day fine if the filer failed to comply substantially with AS 39.50... by failing to report in the filer's statement a major source of income, interest in real property, business interest, loan, trust, or other substantial financial interest. (Emphasis added.) Agency interpretations are not binding on our interpretation of a statute, [36] but APOC's regulations provide useful guidance here. In the analogous context of administrative appeals, when a question of law involves agency expertise we will defer to [an] agency's interpretation of a law unless it is unreasonable. [37] APOC's adoption of a substantial compliance standard implies that APOC has interpreted its enabling statute to require that standard or at least to be consistent with that standard. Further, it would seem incongruous to impose a forfeiture sanction if there is substantial but not strict compliance, when substantial compliance is the standard APOC has adopted in deciding whether to undertake an investigation or impose a civil penalty. Moreover, both the regulations and AS 39.50 contemplate a graduated response for disclosure violations. Under 2 AAC 50.110 the civil penalty for incomplete disclosures increases after fifteen days of lateness, and the maximum per diem fine is available for continuous failures, or failures to comply substantially with the disclosure requirements. [38] Alaska Statute 39.50.060(a) provides criminal penalties for officials who refuse[ ] or knowingly fail[ ] to comply, and sections .070 and.080 prevent confirmation of executive officials and commissioners until they comply. The opportunity to cure disclosure defects in sections .070 and .080 for officials subject to subsection .060(b), and the criminal penalties of subsection .060(a), indicate a measured approach to disclosure violations. [39] Context implies that forfeiture of office is only available for more serious offenses. Imposing a forfeiture sanction for failing to strictly comply would produce disproportionate results under this enforcement regime. Grimm and McGahan argue that applying a substantial compliance standard would very likely create more, rather than fewer, conflicts in the enforcement of election filing deadlines. But applying a strict compliance standard for the forfeiture penalty is not consistent with the enforcement regime. We also think that reserving the post-election forfeiture penalty for failures to substantially comply with the disclosure requirements will not unduly burden APOC or the courts in enforcing the disclosure law. For the reasons we discuss in Parts III. E.1-5, we conclude that substantial compliance is the appropriate standard for imposing the forfeiture remedy of AS 39.50.060(b).