Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/09/2004 01:44 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular
session.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS pointed out that HJR 4 proposes
an amendment to Alaska's Constitution that would limit
regular legislative sessions to 90 consecutive calendar
days. If the resolution passes, the proposed constitutional
amendment would be presented to the voters at the 2004
general election. Voters would decide the fate of the
proposal.
Representative Samuels stated that ninety days is more than
enough time for the Legislature to complete business. In an
era of decreasing budgets, reducing the session by thirty
days would save State funds. Shorter sessions would:
(1) Save almost $1 million in per diem and staffing
costs;
(2) Aid in candidate recruitment; and
(3) Focus the public's attention.
Representative Samuels added that other states can do their
work in 90 days or less and that Alaska should be able to
accomplish that also. Fourteen other states have
legislative sessions of 90 days or less.
He elaborated that another benefit to the shorter session
idea is that Alaskans want citizen-legislators. They feel
legislators should be able to carry on a livelihood outside
of legislative work. Shorter sessions would encourage a
larger number of people to run for office and still be able
to make a living at their everyday jobs.
Representative Samuels noted that prior to 1984, the
Legislature had no time limit on the number of days it could
remain in session. The voters approved the present 120-day
limit on November 6, 1984. Since that time, it has been
amply proven that the Alaska Legislature can operate within
a time limit.
Vice Chair Meyer asked about the history of the 120-day
session. Representative Samuels pointed out that there was
information in member's packets on what other states do.
Historically, Alaska has slowly "racketed up the number of
days". He admitted that he did not know the specifics.
Vice Chair Meyer noted that some states meet every other
year. He questioned if a 90-day session would work better
in Alaska than having a bi-annual session. Representative
Samuels thought that the biannual idea would be more
difficult because the State's finances are so dependant with
the price of oil. That price cannot be determined from year
to year.
Vice Chair Meyer noted that he supports the bill.
Representative Fate noted that the issue had been proposed a
number of years ago and had moved through the House State
Affairs Committee. He questioned how thoroughly the
complexity of the issues had been discussed regarding the
Alaskan fiscal dynamics. Representative Samuels pointed out
that the first committee of referral had been the House
State Affairs Committee and added that issues and
legislation could continue to be addressed during the
interim. Should the legislation pass, the first legislative
session would remain at 120-days in order to guarantee
adequate time to discuss the details of implementing the
plan. He advised that there had been "thorough hearings" to
address the issues brought forth in the House State Affairs
Committee.
Co-Chair Harris agreed that the idea was good. He inquired
how many states in the country have governor's that choose
all their cabinet members as well as the attorney general.
Representative Samuels replied that he had been informed
that Alaska's Executive Branch is one of the most powerful
in the country.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that it was designed that way
when the Alaska Constitution was written. He questioned if
Alaska really has the ability to operate as a State given
the current available resources and not using Permanent Fund
earnings. He voiced concern giving up legislative power in
the third branch of government. He noted that he would
support the legislation if there was some sort of guarantee
that the Legislature would have interim committees that
could operate and move legislation. He added that 90-days
would be fine if there was a process in place of working in
both bodies. If there is a situation of different parties
ruling, the budget process could be much longer and more
drawn out. He stressed that the Legislature should attempt
to avoid situations of "extending legislative sessions".
Representative Samuels reiterated that more work and
legislation could be handled during the interim.
Co-Chair Harris suggested that the sessions could be changed
starting in March when the spring forecast is available.
The Legislature could even meet in Anchorage or Fairbanks.
Representative Samuels commented that would be a better
process than what currently exists.
Co-Chair Harris added that the session could be shortened to
60-days if legislation could be moved through committee
meetings. He noted that fewer laws would be passed.
Representative Fate pointed out that in the last two years,
the Governor has flooded the market with his legislation.
He voiced concern with not enough time for the budget
process and individual legislation. The change could make
it possible to set up where the Administration dictates the
"flow of traffic" without a committee process. He warned
that the idea needs to be thoroughly discussed before making
the proposed change. Representative Samuels argued that
other than the budget, the Legislature does not "have to do
anything". If the budget information is available the first
month of the session, bills could be placed on the agenda
following that process.
Representative Fate agreed that problems could result and
that last year, the scenario with the Governor's sixty bills
did impact the flow of legislation.
Representative Stoltze commented that with a mission and
focus much could be accomplished in a limited time period.
He provided an historical reference to amending the
constitution. Representative Stoltze thought that the
government must be responsive and limited; the balance will
have to be addressed. Representative Samuels enumerated the
days not in session as outlined in the information packet.
Co-Chair Harris asked if there had been discussion given to
having a short session outside of Juneau, lasting perhaps a
week, in order to move a bill to the floor. He pointed out
that otherwise, the bills would have to wait until the
following session to be heard. Representative Samuels
replied that discussion had not yet happened. He did not
think it was a bad idea, reiterating that a shortened
session would help to spread out the workload. He added
that it could help the public process and create a better
product increasing the number of people participating.
Representative Samuels advised that he did not see the
"projected $1 million dollar savings", as it will cost
transport legislators from place to place, however,
indicated that he did not think it would cost more than the
$1 million dollars.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the Alaska Statutes call
for the Legislature to meet in Juneau and a "special
session" as determined by the Legislature can be determined.
Representative Stoltze thought that the legislation would
create a need for a comprehensive revision of the Uniform
Rules in order to allow for such a revision. Representative
Samuels agreed. He acknowledged that they would have to do
a lot of work, "looking at how business is being done,
internally", and if the same rules would continue to apply.
Representative Stoltze pointed out that any change to the
Uniform Rules would need a 2/3 vote of the entire
Legislature.
Representative Fate commented on the proposed interim
committee. He asked if there would be discussion on having
time certain discussions or if they would be more ad hoc.
Representative Samuels pointed out that recommendations had
been made to spread the workload out throughout the year.
He acknowledged that the specifics had not been discussed.
HJR 4 would only establish the framework.
Representative Fate voiced concern if legislators could be
efficient in a 90-day period. He asked if that discussion
had taken place. Representative Samuels admitted that in
detail, it had not.
Co-Chair Harris stated additional consideration would need
to be given to issues regarding the timetable for the
Governor submitting his budget and the amendments.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to report CS HJR 4 (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
TAPE HFC 04 - 55, Side B
CS HJR 4 (STA) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #3 by the Office of the
Lt. Governor and fiscal note #4 by the Legislative Affairs
Agency.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|