Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/19/1999 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 30 - CONST. AM: REPEAL BUDGET RESERVE FUND
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HJR 30,
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
repealing provisions relating to the constitutional budget reserve
fund and providing that the balance in the fund be deposited into
the budget reserve fund established by statute.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Jeannette James, sponsor of
the resolution.
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that ever since she has been in the
legislature she has been aware of the constitutional budget reserve
fund and the problems that it has created for legislators. It
didn't turn out like it was intended. It was there to collect
taxes. It has done that, but testimony from the Administration has
indicated that the state can only expect back $1.6 million per year
from back taxes. She thinks it has outlived its usefulness and
should go away and in its place there should be a long-term plan.
Where the money should go she doesn't know, however. When she
wrote the resolution, she suggested that it should go into the
statutory budget reserve. That's where funds were building before.
It has been empty for a long time and has quite a few restrictions
on it, so maybe, that's not a good place. She suggested putting it
in the earnings reserve of the permanent fund or the general fund.
Wherever it is put, the deposit needs to get the highest rate of
return as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES further stated the constitutional budget
reserve fund has been a burden between the majority and the
minority with the three-fourth vote requirement. It has caused a
lot of distress over the years, and it is time to put that behind.
The biggest problem is that any money borrowed has to be paid back,
and as long as it is there even if it's empty every year the
legislature has to "scarf off" everything at the end of the year
that's available for appropriation and pay it back creating a sweep
provision in the budget. That is a problem and as long as it's on
the books the legislature will continue to have to deal with it.
Number 0263
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative James what would happen to the
monies that the legislature owes to the fund. Does it go away? Is
the legislature no longer obligated to repay it? Does that
obligation revert to where ever the legislature decides to deposit
the remaining monies from the constitutional budget reserve?
Number 0315
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied, she assumes, if the fund goes away
that any debt to it would go away. Maybe the constitutional
amendment needs to be clearer to indicate that any debt would be
extinguished. She suggested getting a legal opinion.
Number 0355
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the constitutional amendment would need to be
clear to the voters. "I'm sure there'd be some motivation out
there within the public that would decry that we borrowed money
from this fund and now this is a roundabout way to at least prevent
us from paying it back."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, it is her personal opinion, the people
do not understand that it has to be paid back. It's not even an
issue. They just think it's a place to put money.
Number 0393
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he completely agrees with Representative
James. He's not sure that he would want to put that in language in
the constitutional amendment, unless it was not clear from a legal
standpoint of the legislature's obligation. If a legal opinion
says that the obligation goes away with the fund and that the money
is transferred to another account that would be fine. The more
included in a constitutional amendment, the more confused the voter
would be.
Number 0435
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, if the constitutional budget reserve
fund is repealed, everything that is currently in it would go away.
The payback is in the existing language in the constitution.
Number 0455
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative James whether she
thinks that the money deposited from the closure of the fund should
be defined in the constitutional amendment, so that people know
where it will go, or whether there is something that can be done
afterwards.
Number 0513
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied it seems that part of repealing a
constitutional fund would include what would be done to the money
in there. There could be language that says, "at the will of the
legislature" or "subject to legislative appropriation" or "put it
in the earnings of the permanent fund to be managed with the rest
of it" or "the statutory budget reserve fund."
Number 0580
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that much of the public debate is
emotional in regards to the funds that the legislature has access
to, which is why the constitutional budget reserve came about in
the first place. The legislature, therefore, has to be cautious in
terms of how this is presented, so that it's not perceived as one
more way that the legislature want's to take a person's money and
spend it "willy-nilly."
Number 0630
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested informing the newer legislators of
the history of the constitutional budget reserve fund. She
explained it was passed in 1990. At that time, there was a dispute
between the legislature and former-Governor Hickel of what
constituted a back-tax settlement. Where did the process start?
Were administrative appeals included or did it mean going to court
for a settlement? Money came in 1991 and 1992, and the governor
and the administration took the position that the money did not
have to go into the constitutional budget reserve fund. Another
issue was, when can it be used with a majority vote? The
constitution says that if the incoming money is less than the
amount used in the previous year's budget, then it can be accessed
with a majority vote. But, for any other time or reason money is
taken out of the constitutional budget reserve fund, a
three-fourths vote is needed. Beyond that, any money used out of
the constitutional budget reserve fund has to be paid back. Thus,
at June 30 of every year, any money that has not been appropriated
is "scarfed off" to pay back the money that has been borrowed.
Consequently, the little funds like the marine highway fund gets
swept in and eventually swept out under the "sweep provision." She
noted the sweep provision says that any money swept in to pay back
the constitutional budget reserve fund gets swept back to where it
was because the sate can't afford to short the money. The court
said, in 1993, that the money available for appropriations, when
comparing it to last year's budget, includes the permanent fund
earnings, but it doesn't count when it comes to the sweep
provision. The court also said that once money was collected from
a tax appeal it needs to go into the constitutional budget reserve
fund. She noted that there has been over $7 billion collected and
put into the fund, and over one-half has been used. The state has
never had the ability to pay it back, and she doesn't see any real
ability to pay it back in the future. She reiterated the
constitutional budget reserve fund is not working, like the
election pamphlet said it would work, when she voted for it.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated it doesn't work because the state never
gets to the point where appropriations are greater than the amount
available for appropriations. There is always an amount left over
after paying for dividends and providing for inflation-proofing,
which he thinks are appropriations. There is always an amount left
standing in the earnings reserve of the permanent fund. That
amount clearly means that there isn't a deficit in terms of
accounting. The court decision was correct. The state has never
spent more than what was available for appropriations. It's not so
much of a weird court decision, but weird accounting. But, because
the state has never been in a position of deficit, the state has
not had the constitutional authority to truly get into the
constitutional budget reserve fund. The state has only had
three-fourth authority to borrow from it creating an oddity.
Number 1020
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative James why she is ending
the constitutional budget reserve fund rather than amending it, and
whether she means to deposit the money into the earnings reserve of
the permanent fund or some other statutory fund that would need to
be created.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied it is up to the committee. She
reiterated she selected the statutory budget reserve account
because it is already on the books and is empty.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES further stated she agrees with not counting
the earnings reserve money that's available for appropriation, but
it is counted in the beginning, so why isn't it counted in the
payback. That's the problem. As long as the state is short of
funds, it will never get paid back.
Number 1086
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated it counts in both places because money
available for appropriation is everything that the state has coming
in.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, according to the court decision, it
doesn't count in the sweep provision.
Number 1102
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the state is forced to sweep it back
because it has always had more money available for appropriation
than what has been appropriated.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the money doesn't sweep out of the
earnings reserve of the permanent fund, only the other funds.
Number 1116
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that that money was never appropriated.
He cited, as an example, if the state earns $1.5 billion, it will
need another $900 million for dividends and $300 million for
inflation-proofing resulting in $300 million left. If the
legislature acts like it has for the past five years, it will leave
that sit in the earnings reserve of the permanent fund, and proper
accounting would say that there was never more appropriated than
available.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that is true. If it made sense, the
$300 million would be swept back into the fund to pay back what has
been borrowed at June 30 of every year, but that's not the way it
works.
Number 1176
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied, "Because it doesn't sit in the
general fund."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understands that.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said his point is, the court's decision is a
rationale interpretation of a quickly drafted constitutional
amendment that may not accomplish all that it was intended to.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she agrees with the court's decision.
The constitutional amendment to create the constitutional budget
reserve fund was poorly written.
Number 1193
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, whatever is done for the long-term
planning, the legislature needs to be sure that all of the money is
earning as much as it can. The proper place, it seems, would be to
put the balance in the earnings reserve of the permanent fund, or
under the pile of money that is being managed by the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation. Small amounts of money in different
places limits the types of investments that can be made compared to
a larger fund and a larger rate of return. It seems that the state
should "put all its eggs in one basket" in this case.
Number 1258
CHAIRMAN KOTT said "we" certainly want to get the best return for
our investments.
Number 1262
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested a bill to deposit the balance into
the earnings reserve of the permanent fund with a three-quarters
vote. The advantage of that approach is because the constitutional
budget reserve fund would still be alive for money from
settlements. The approach of the constitutional amendment is for
the settlements to go to the general fund because "we" don't expect
the "big whopper settlements"...
Number 1294
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected and stated: "Just the ordinary
course of doing business like a hundred...They're estimating $106
million a year just a--a small percentage of the taxes that we
collect will be administratively appealed. You know, it's just a
part of doing business."
Number 1306
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what would happen to the debt of $3.4 or
$3.8.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied it would go away. According to Tamara Cook
[Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency], by creating a new area for this money to be
deposited, the prior debt terminates with the end of the fund.
Number 1331
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether there is a problem with changing
something that requires a three-quarters vote with a two-thirds
vote. He wondered whether there is a principal based on modifying
a rule with what it takes to effectuate it.
Number 1355
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied she doesn't have the answer to that
question. She declared that she hopes to get unanimous
consideration, however.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated if this went before the voters it would just
require a simple majority of the voters to repeal it.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested calling Tamara Cook for an
answer.
Number 1381
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested getting a written legal opinion
for a record to travel with the bill. He thinks the other members
will have the same questions. He declared he intends to be a
cosponsor. He agrees that the use of the constitutional budget
reserve fund is problematic, and this committee needs to look at
where the balance in the fund should be deposited. He shares the
concern regarding the sweep language, which is why the
constitutional amendment needs to be absolutely clear. He also
shares the concern of a greater return on a stand-alone fund, a
smaller corpus, and a shorter time horizon for the utilization of
those funds. Testimony from the Department of Revenue has
indicated that it is much less than expected.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that Tamara Cook is online now. He asked
her to comment on the trailing debt that the legislature owes to
the constitutional budget reserve fund.
Number 1465
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, testified via a telephone. She stated
that there is no debt.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, so under the termination of the
constitutional budget reserve fund there would be no debt.
MS. COOK replied Article IX, Section 17(d) of the constitution says
that if there is money left in certain places at the end of each
fiscal year, it has to go into the constitutional budget reserve
fund automatically to pay off the debt. But, that subsection would
be repealed.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Cook whether repealing the sweep
provision repeals the debt.
MS. COOK replied there is no obligation to repay because subsection
(d) would be repealed.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered whether there would be a theoretical
debt.
Number 1501
MS. COOK stated it's not even a theoretical debt. The obligation
to repay only exists in subsection (d), and once that is gone there
is no obligation or sweep.
Number 1518
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Cook whether there is a problem with
the fact that this has a three-quarters vote requirement and with
what is needed to change it. Some rules that establish super
majorities can only be changed by that super majority.
MS. COOK replied no because it amends the constitution. If the
people choose to repeal Section 17, all of it is repealed. It's
the people voting, not a super majority or majority of the
legislature. The only thing the legislature can do is propose the
amendment.
Number 1557
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Cook whether there is a reason that
this would have to stay in the constitution, or can it drop out
once it does what it was intended to do.
MS. COOK replied it won't drop out on its own. The way it is
written now, it would continue to operate indefinitely.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it would operate as one action. He asked
Ms. Cook whether sunsets are ever placed in the constitution.
MS. COOK replied she can't think of anything like that in the
constitution. There have been provisions that ask for a question
to be placed before the voters on a certain date again, but those
are in the transitional sections.
Number 1599
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said: "The transitional sections didn't pop
out. There were--are stuff at the end talking about how it's going
to be..."
MS. COOK stated there are a few odd provisional sections that exist
with respect to other constitutional amendments.
Number 1623
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Cook to forward a written opinion on the
trailing debt to the committee.
Number 1678
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated there are two ways to go - wait and
see if something new results from this legislature, or let the
legislature deposit it at its direction back in the earnings
reserve of the permanent fund. This doesn't have to pass until the
next session because it is a constitutional amendment. He is
concerned that letting the balance in the fund be deposited at the
direction of the legislature the people wouldn't have quite the
faith in it otherwise if they knew exactly where it was going.
Number 1730
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he realizes that there are other things
occurring outside this room and legislature, but whether or not any
of that comes to fruition remains to be seen. This has a House
Finance Standing Committee referral. He is sure that everything
would be married there, if there is conflict with other issues.
Number 1748
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that the public would support putting the
balance in the earnings reserve of the permanent fund. It would
probably be the favorite place.
Number 1766
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, by leaving the constitutional budget
reserve fund in place now, that might tend to be looked upon as
favoring one proposal over another. He knows that there is one
proposal that talks about bringing life back into the statutory
budget reserve fund. He also cited the All-Alaskan Plan as an
example.
Number 1806
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the other place that might be the most
popular, from a public perspective, is the principal of the
permanent fund.
Number 1826
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that certainly would encourage the
legislature to make a decision on where to fill the budget gap this
year. She noted, however, that this wouldn't be effective until
after next year's election.
Number 1846
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated, in listening to this discussion,
it seems that this would be more appropriately resolved at the
House Finance Standing Committee level. The House Judiciary
Standing Committee is charged with getting a legal opinion
regarding the deposit of the money. Perhaps, it doesn't need to be
specified where the money would be deposited.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she has had a lot of phone calls
regarding depositing the balance into the statutory budget reserve
fund. It is a term that hasn't been around for a very long time.
She reiterated she choose that fund because it is empty and there
are restrictions, but she would prefer putting it somewhere else
that the people understand a little bit better.
Number 1894
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he is trying to decide which is better - the
earnings reserve of the permanent fund or the corpus of the
permanent fund. There are pros and cons for both. The bill should
leave this committee going into either one. The House Finance
Standing Committee can sort it out based on whatever else it needs
to be married up with it. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate to
leave it go to the statutory budget reserve fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted she does not have any objection to that.
Number 1914
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested the committee members consider
the discretion of the legislature at this juncture. That's not
entirely inappropriate, but it's not the most popular politically.
Number 1980
CHAIRMAN KOTT said, if this is the only vehicle that goes forward,
he would like to have some comfort in having set a policy that
would go to the entire House. "We don't know what's going to
happen up in Finance, and you know we got one crack at this. And,
they can undue it up there, untie the knot. But, I'd rather I
think forward something on that's a little more definitive."
Number 2029
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete the language, "budget
reserve fund established by statute", on page 1, line 11, and to
insert the language, "principal of the permanent fund (art. IX,
sec. 15)". [Amendment 1]
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES AND REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she's not a financial whiz like some
people, but after thirty years of accounting work she can calculate
figures in her head. She believes, no matter what plan is put on
the table, short of getting more oil down the pipeline or some
other method of meeting the needs of the people that taxes won't
even fill the gap. There is a minimal amount of money available
outside the corpus of the permanent fund for the next...She is
comfortable with putting it into the earnings reserve of the
permanent fund for its maximum return, but she is not comfortable
with putting it off-limits. She didn't support dumping more money
back into the permanent fund last year because of emergencies. She
said, "If we have any kinds of emergencies in our state, which
we're prone to do, we could be in 'deep doo doo' if we don't have
enough money available to make those decisions."
Number 2186
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES further noted that the legislature still plans
to downsize the amount of money being spent. The All-Alaska Plan
suggests reducing spending for another five years. Representative
Rokeberg has a piece of legislation that reduces the percentage of
oil revenues that are put into the corpus of the permanent fund
from 25 percent to what is demanded in the constitution. She
thinks that is wise. The state ought not to put all of the money
out of touch, but there needs to be some kind of control on how to
do the budget, which is a whole different issue. She reiterated
she would like to see some money sitting in the earnings reserve of
the permanent fund for emergencies.
Number 2229
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested the language, "the general funds'
earnings reserve of the permanent fund". It is not an amendment.
He noted that the earnings reserve of the permanent fund are
general funds, except by statute.
Number 2275
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said this resolution has puzzled him because
the effect of it can be done just by talking and getting
three-quarters votes. Given the dynamics of the makeup of the
legislature, this resolution is a way of not talking to the
minority. The difference is only three votes. It takes 27 votes
to put this on the ballot and 30 votes to just do it. He doesn't
see the point of going around the minority. This could be a
component of a long-range plan. It would probably be the component
that follows almost any plan to get rid of the constitutional
budget reserve fund. Representative Davies has said that some
reformation of this constitutional provision needs to happen, but
this is a way to go around the minority. There has been talk about
changing the vote from a three-quarters to a simple majority. The
minority has been very open and willing to discuss that, but it
hasn't happened. It surprises him because he has worked well with
the sponsor of the resolution on a lot of other issues. If that is
the approach, then let's just put it in the principal where
everybody feels safe.
Number 2397
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she agrees with Representative Croft.
She has never seen the working relationship between the majority
and the minority as good as it is this year. She doesn't blame
that on the majority; it has been the minority who is more willing
to work. The intent of the resolution, however, has nothing to do
with the three-quarters vote; it has to do with the payback. The
payback is a burden on the legislature, and to get a three-quarters
vote to un-sweep the money is absurd. It is important to work
together, but the legislators in the majority and minority might
not be the same next year. The minority might be the majority, and
the majority might be the minority.
TAPE 99-34, SIDE B
Number 0003
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated Representative James is right. It
is the payback. In his life, a business agreement/contract is put
together to service the parties to that agreement/contract. The
current system might be considered idyllic, but it has been his
experience to the contrary. He has resented it greatly. There has
been a substantial amount of spending and log rolling. In
understanding the political history of why the two-thirds vote
became three-quarters, this constitutional amendment has been a
disservice to the people. They don't understand it. It's hard
enough for experienced people to understand it. It needs to be
changed. He hopes that something can be done along these lines.
He is confident that there will be a plan to satisfy everybody, and
that this resolution could be part of it. He agrees, with the
sponsor, that clearly the earnings reserve of the permanent fund
would be the most ideal location at this juncture.
Number 0097
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative Croft whether he said
that he could support this if it is part of a bigger plan.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied absolutely. This resolution, however,
is the "cart before the horse." What plan would be implemented by
ending the constitutional budget reserve fund? It seems that the
only change is from a three-quarters vote to a simple majority,
which is only a power deal. He is also worried that the opposite
is true. In other words, it would become an obligation to keep a
balance of that $3 billion. It would be disingenuous to pass the
resolution then spend it down twice.
Number 0193
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT further stated, in response to Representative
Rokeberg's last comment, he doesn't think that the constitutional
budget reserve fund has been negative for the people. It is the
time when legislators are consulted. "Obviously, it depends on
whose ox is being gored whether it's good government or log rolling
or some combination. But, this can and probably has to be an
important component of what we do, but asking us to vote to do it
before we know what we're doing is too much."
Number 0232
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced for the record that all the committee
members are present.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a roll call vote. Representatives Green,
James, Rokeberg, Murkowski and Kott voted against the motion.
Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in favor of the motion.
The motion failed by a vote of 5 to 2.
Number 0289
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative James whether she
prefers an amendment including the words "general fund" or
"earnings reserve of the permanent fund."
Number 0302
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied she would like to have the money
deposited into the permanent fund. She would like to change it
before going to the House Finance Standing Committee, even though
it might change as part of an overall plan. It might not even pass
this year, but she has the entire interim to talk to folks about
it. She would prefer that it didn't go into the statutory budget
reserve fund. She reiterated any place else is fine with her,
except for putting it into the corpus of the permanent fund or
leaving it to the discretion of the legislature.
Number 0349
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a conceptual amendment to read,
"general funds' earnings reserve of the permanent fund", after the
word "the" on page 1, line 11. The idea is to tell the public that
the earnings reserve of the permanent fund is part of the general
fund.
Number 0380
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted it would be better to leave that for
the language in the explanation. The earnings reserve of the
permanent fund really isn't part of the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is part of the general fund. It
says so in the constitution. It has just been statutorily
redefined. That's what has caused so much confusion. The people
do not understand that the earnings reserve of the permanent fund
is part of the general fund. As long as it is going into the
earnings reserve, the people need to understand that it is
available for appropriation.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted it is available for appropriation.
Number 0418
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether that should be included in
the constitutional amendment or as part of the explanation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the only trouble is the people don't
know that...
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether it's the job of the
legislature to educate them.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied it is the job of the legislature to
educate them, but maybe not in this constitutional amendment. He
reiterated it was just a suggestion and deferred to the sponsor on
whether or not she wants to use the language, "general fund."
Number 0444
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, she thinks, it opens the door for
confusion. It would be better to simply have the language,
"earnings reserve of the permanent fund." She agrees that the
money is available for appropriations and the people ought to know
that, but technically it's not general fund money because it has
been statutorily changed to include money that is available for
appropriation within the permanent fund.
Number 0464
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his conceptual amendment.
Number 0473
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to insert the language,
"earnings reserve of the permanent fund", after the word "the" on
page 1, line 11.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether, "earnings reserve of the
permanent fund", is defined anywhere.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied it is in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that a change would have to be made to
the title too.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked where is it in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he has been reading the
constitution lately and it doesn't mention the earnings reserve of
the permanent fund.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he has looked at the permanent fund
corporation section and he can't find any mention to the earnings
reserve.
Number 0526
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 2:15 p.m. and called
the meeting back to order at 2:18 p.m.
Number 0531
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to include the language,
"earnings reserve account as established by statute in the
permanent fund", after the word "the" on page 1, line 11; as well
as the technical change to the title. There being no objection, it
was so moved.
Number 0565
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HJR 30, as amended,
from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHJR 30(JUD) was so
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|