Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1993 01:00 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 15 100 DAY SESSION LIMIT Number 456 REP. KOTT, sponsor of HJR 15, noted that the idea of a shorter legislative session was not new. He said that the resolution would reduce the session from 120 days to 100 days. He noted that from 1975 to 1984, the legislative sessions averaged 146 days. Then, he said, a constitutional amendment was passed, requiring a 120-day limit on legislative sessions. Since then, he noted, the shortest session had been 119 days. He called his resolution a moderate approach, and said that there was fairly strong support for a shorter session. REP. KOTT commented that several similar measures had been introduced since 1984. He noted that 26 states currently had shorter legislative sessions than Alaska did. He said that shortening legislative sessions would send a clear message to the public that the legislature meant business when it came to cutting the budget. He indicated his belief that the voters would approve HJR 15. Number 500 REP. DAVIDSON noted that democracy was not an efficient process. He asked that Rep. Kott provide specific reasons for shortening the legislative session, besides saving money. He also asked Rep. Kott what prevented the legislature from finishing up its business before the 120- day deadline now in place. He questioned the wisdom of placing further artificial restraints on lawmakers' ability to conduct business. He said that a shorter process might make for hasty legislation. He stated that he was not convinced that the state's business should be hurried. Number 536 REP. KOTT commented that during his campaign, voters repeatedly said that the legislative session was too long. He reiterated Rep. Davidson's point that democracy was not a swift process. He noted that prior to 1984, sessions averaged 146 days, but said that once the constitutional amendment had passed, legislators had managed to finish their business in 120 days. He noted that given 120 days, the legislature would take that long to accomplish its business. REP. KOTT mentioned the majority caucus' moderate proposal to adjourn after approximately 110 days. He cited support for a shorter session, from the Anchorage Daily News, the public, and the Governor. Number 567 REP. JAMES noted that as a freshman legislator, she had seen some processes which could be speeded up, but also noted her concern at the speed at which some things did happen. An example of hurried legislation that she cited was the constitutional budget reserve fund. She said that if that amendment had been more carefully analyzed and prepared, the legislature would not face the problems in its interpretation that now had to be faced. REP. JAMES commented that she could not honestly say that she was familiar with every bill before her. She added her belief that the legislature needed to closely deliberate legislation. She said that a 100-day session would not necessarily change the public's view that legislators took the public's money and did absolutely nothing with it. She expressed certainty that the voters would approve a measure creating a 100-day session, but said she was not convinced that the legislature should give the public that opportunity. Number 598 REP. PHILLIPS stated that her grandfather had been a member of the territorial legislature. She noted the travel hardships experienced by legislators in those days, and said that sessions then lasted no more than 60 days. Her grandfather had told her that the session did not need to last longer than 60 days, as the territory had no money to spend. REP. PHILLIPS commented that the legislature had always been comprised of citizen legislators. She said that in the 1970s people saw that lengthy sessions precluded many people from participating in the legislature, as many people were unable to be away from their jobs and other responsibilities for extended periods of time. REP. PHILLIPS said that the legislature should do all it could to ensure that it remained a citizen legislature. She commented that HJR 15 was a step in the right direction. REP. KOTT noted that computer technology had helped to speed up the legislature's job. Number 651 REP. DAVIDSON mentioned that in 45 days, the legislature had still not managed to fill all of the seats on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. He noted that some things took longer than others. He questioned the wisdom of constitutionally mandating the number of days in which the legislature was required to accomplish its business. He noted that the public had little idea of how the legislature functioned. REP. DAVIDSON commented that while the legislature was away, the executive branch played. He mentioned the checks and balances system in government. He noted that nothing now prevented the legislature from getting the job done early. He said that the legislative process was a long, slow and arduous one, and that no more artificial restrictions should be placed on it. He said that the more the legislature was confined, the more debate and deliberation and democracy would suffer. Number 707 REP. KOTT responded that if, while the legislature was away, the executive branch played, perhaps the legislature should meet for 365 days. He noted that the legislature would use as much time as the constitution allowed. Number 725 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that when he first arrived in Juneau, he felt that a shorter session was appropriate. He said that his constituents also felt that way. However, he noted that he was no longer so certain that a shorter session was a good idea. He said that he would support passing the bill out of committee, due to statements he had made prior to arriving in Juneau. He stated that the legislative process was not designed to be quick. REP. JAMES made a motion to move HJR 15 out of committee, with individual recommendations. Number 750 CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing objection, held a roll call vote. Reps. Nordlund, Phillips, Kott, James and Porter voted "yea." Rep. Davidson voted "nay." And so, HJR 15 moved out of committee with individual recommendations. Number 757 REP. DAVIDSON expressed his concern that HJR 15 was the second constitutional amendment that had been swiftly approved by the committee. He said that he would like to hear more about the 26 states that had session limitations like the one proposed in HJR 15. He said that he had hoped that the Judiciary Committee would put more effort into looking at all perspectives on an issue to ensure sufficient discussion. He mentioned the value of Judge Stewart's comments on HJR 1. He said that he feared what would have become of HJR 1 had Judge Stewart not been present to testify. REP. DAVIDSON commented that the committee should hear from citizens who thought that session limitations were a good idea, to find out what their understanding of the legislative process was. He noted that there was always a perspective that was not examined or understood. He expressed his belief that hasty constitutional amendments chipped away at the foundations upon which our government was built. He stated that he felt that the committee had not sufficiently examined HJR 15, and said that he doubted that any other committee would seriously examine the resolution either. He commented that the committee was acting irresponsibly. CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that he did not disagree with any of Rep. Davidson's comments. He noted his surprise that there were not any individuals who wanted to testify on the issue. He indicated his belief that the resolution would receive ample discussion between now and when it was voted on, on the House floor. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 100, Prosecution of Juvenile Felons, was the next item of business before the committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|