Legislature(2001 - 2002)
2001-07-20 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2001-07-20 House Journal Page 1893 HB 104 The following letter, dated June 30, 2001, was received: "Dear Speaker Porter: On this date I have signed the following bill passed by the first session of the Twenty-second Alaska State Legislature and am transmitting the engrossed and enrolled copies to the Lieutenant Governor's office for permanent filing: 2001-07-20 House Journal Page 1894 CONFERENCE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 104 "An Act making appropriations for the operating and capital expenses of the state's integrated comprehensive mental health program; and providing for an effective date." Chapter No. 62, SLA 2001 [Effective Date: July 1, 2001] The FY2002 budget will continue improvements in services to Alaska's mental health trust beneficiaries. One of the most significant achievements for beneficiaries is actually in the capital budget bill and separate legislation: approval of bonds for construction of a new Alaska Psychiatric Institute. Many people have worked tirelessly to resolve this long-standing issue in an enormously positive way. I have made no changes to the dollar amounts in the comprehensive mental heath budget bill passed by the Legislature. I would note that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles, 21 P.3d 367 (Alaska 2001), does not permit vetoes of intent or other language even if that language is unconstitutional. However, I remain obligated to follow the laws as enacted properly by the legislature and interpreted by the state courts. As a result, two legislative additions to the bill require comment even though I am not permitted to veto the language. There is a major constitutional issue relating to the language with which the legislature attempts to limit expenditures for abortions. The executive branch is already under court order in State of Alaska, Dept. of Health & Social Services v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska to operate the Medicaid program in a constitutional manner by paying for therapeutic or medically necessary abortions. Planned Parenthood has already filed a request that the court clarify that the constitutional protections extend to the FY2002 budget despite the language added in an effort to avoid such payment. I will abide by the decision of the court as to whether these abortions must be paid for in FY2002. The other issue relates to language inserted at Conference Committee which says that funds appropriated may not be used to pay personal services costs due to reclassification of job classes during next fiscal year unless those reclassifications were specifically budgeted. Job 2001-07-20 House Journal Page 1895 classification - the process of determining which jobs are grouped together based on duties, responsibilities and other factors - is an integral part of the responsibility assigned by AS 39.25.150 to the division of personnel. The executive branch must fulfill this responsibility in a manner consistent with the constitutionally established merit principle. An attempt to prohibit implementation of changes in job classification in this manner is not consistent with the constitutional merit principle or the limitation on combining substantive law with appropriations bills. In addition to the legal difficulties with the bill's approach, there are practical problems as well. The state's ability to recruit and retain essential employees in the current job market depends on a classification system that can appropriately adjust to external factors beyond our control such as changes in technology, professional licensing requirements, federal program requirements, and the nature of the work. The timing of our need to make these adjustments does not always conveniently track the budget cycle. Waiting several months for a supplemental or the next year's budget appropriation could significantly impair the ability of our agencies to deliver essential services to the public. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor"