Legislature(2003 - 2004)
10/29/2003 05:10 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 9-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT [Contains discussion pertaining to HJR 4] CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation limit and a spending limit. Number 019 REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the sponsor of HJR 9, noted that there have been several meetings already held. This bill is a tool to address the fiscal issues facing the state, and today is the time to hear from the public. Number 039 CHAIR McGUIRE opened up public testimony. Number 045 RONALD JORDAN, representing himself, noted that he has lived here 40 years. He said, "If a 90-day session can accomplish the same thing in 120 days without being called back into special session like previous governors have done, I'm all for it. I am all for [the constitutional spending limit]. Let's put a cap on it." CHAIR McGUIRE temporarily set aside HJR 9. HJR 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session. Number 081 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt CSHJR 4(STA). CHAIR McGUIRE indicated it was adopted. Number 086 RONALD JORDAN, representing himself, stated concern about special sessions. He feels that not enough production occurs in the first session and that the cost and what is accomplished is of concern to him. Current communication systems can allow legislators to participate while staying in their own areas of the state. He said he is in favor of 90-day sessions. Number 130 REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed concern with the rule that allows people to file a bill with only 24 hours' notice to the public. These bills then move quite quickly through the process. Before that rule applies, the public must be given five days' to a week's notice. If there is a 90-day session, then a higher percentage of the legislation would be debated under this 24- hour rule. Could a provision that the public will always be given at least 5 days notice be added? MR. JORDAN replied that he doesn't pay attention to bills that don't interest him, regardless of the amount of notice. Number 156 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that there would be statutory changes that need to be addressed before passage of this resolution and that the details would have to be fleshed out, but not constitutionally. He explained: You are going to save money. I think you're going to give more people an opportunity to serve as legislators. That's probably the key. ... It would increase the pool of people willing to make these sacrifices to go to Juneau and serve their community. We have a lot of us because we have special circumstances. I think you'd increase the pool, you'd save some money, and quite frankly, we can do it in 90 days. I have no doubt about that. Number 192 CHAIR McGUIRE questioned what the initiative [1984] that changed it to 120 days looked like. Number 195 SARA NIELSEN, Staff to Representative Ralph Samuels, Alaska State Legislature, noted that the initiative was general, leaving the details up to the uniform rules in the legislature. Number 210 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that it takes additional time for a new legislature to move in during an election year. He'd reviewed the minutes from the Constitutional Convention to look at the thinking behind the legislation, he said; they did not put a limit on it. He offered a quotation from the Constitutional Convention: "In the first years of the legislature your session may go three or four months a year but in subsequent sessions you may have as low as 30 day sessions." Representative Samuels noted that Utah, for example, has a 20- day session. Number 233 CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the cost would be close to $1 million with per diem and staffing. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed this is accurate and possibly higher. Number 238 CHAIR MCGUIRE noted that Representative Weyhrauch had joined the meeting and Representative Masek had newly joined via teleconference. Number 242 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM questioned the lack of fiscal notes and requested clarification that the cost is $1 million a year or thereabouts from 2006 and beyond. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied, "Yes, that's correct." Number 257 REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ added that the original legislature was faced with a gravely ill governor. The legislature historically has dropped the number of days actually in session from the low 70s to as low as 55 percent in the 17th legislature. REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH stated that the executive branch was designed to be the stronger branch compared with the legislative branch. He finds that the only time the legislature has real power is during the session. The less time it has in session, the less time it has to exert power to effect change. He has found it frustrating in the interim because the executive branch is unresponsive. He wonders if having only a 90-day session would tip the balance of power to the executive branch, causing the people to suffer. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed that this bill would give more power to the executive branch. The positive outcome, however, is that more constituents would be able to participate. The basic question is whether or not the job can be done in 90 days, and he feels they would all admit that it could. Historically, 120 days is an arbitrary number. For example, the session prior to 120 days was 160 days. In California the legislature is full-time and paid accordingly. Representative Samuels said he does not feel this is good for the state. Number 330 REPRESENTATIVE GARA voiced concern that a 90-day session would not attract more people to work in Juneau, since it's difficult to take 90 days off, let alone 120, from a job. He described his job as "120 days, then 8 months where you go back to see your constituents, then 120 days, and then 8 months or 6 months where you have to campaign for the next time." He added, "Most people can't do it, and it's not going to make a difference whether it's a 90-day session or 120-day session." Moving the capital to Anchorage might make a difference, he suggested. REPRESENTATIVE GARA addressed the point of regulating hearings by statute rather than constitutionally. The people in power want to get their legislation through and gravitate towards giving the public less notice and less opportunity to have input when a bill is to be heard. He argued that fair notice needs to be built in to the constitution. Because of the 24-hour rule, he believes "some very ugly legislation gets passed." He remarked, "We might save $1 million in travel costs, but we might lose $50 million in oil taxes if we give away something that the oil industry potentially wants at the last minute. So it might cost the state much more money, and I would like to see guaranteed public notice and public access in the constitution." He recognized the importance of having an emergency provision to waive the public notice bill. He continued: I would support the concept of hearings in all the major towns in Alaska during the 30 days before a 90- day session and that the legislators kept their offices open full-time during those 30 days so they could educate themselves [about upcoming legislation and constituents' needs]. Without a guarantee like that, I worry we cut it down to 90 days, we become less educated, the less educated and involved we are the more powerful the executive branch is, the more powerful the lobbyists are who are educating themselves all year, the easier it is for them to pull the wool over our eyes. And I think without some safeguard that says we have to work outside the 90-day session, some safeguard that says we have to provide for meaningful public input outside the legislative session, without protections like that I worry that the 90-day session will just make us less effective and less responsive to the public. I think that those concerns could be resolved with amendments in this bill, many of them anyway. But without them, I guess I'm a little worried. Number 393 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM responded that he thinks there's a great difference between 120- and 90-day sessions, especially for those involved in private enterprise. He also noted that the mechanism is already at hand to allow committees to meet outside of the legislative session and discuss problems. He said he isn't concerned that legislative power will be diminished. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the quality of debate had changed for the better in this meeting from previous debates about this resolution. If the main problem is to attract more people to the legislature, then this is not the best way to do it. In business, people are attracted by being offered more money. Legislators don't want to do this because the public does not want to spend more money on the legislature. Instead, [this resolution] asks the public to give the legislators more vacation and fewer workdays, less work for the same amount of money, and this will attract more people. He said he feels this is illogical and poor public policy. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said with regard to the balance-of- power issue that Alaska has a strong executive branch, since it only has two elected officials, the governor and the lieutenant governor, and that it is also important to have a strong legislature. He said he supports giving the legislature some additional weight, but has no specific recommendations. Number 485 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that a pay cut occurs because there would be less per diem with a 90-day session. The seasonal aspect of the legislature supports a 90-day session. A January, February, and March session fits well with many jobs in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG discussed instituting a system of clerkships - as the supreme court has - to attract the best and brightest. Legislative clerkships would pay off in the next generation, he suggested. Number 532 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that this runs counter to the expertise brought to the legislature by several of the members present. He remarked, "If you are in government all the time, then that's what you know. In the judiciary it's a little bit different. That's all you really need to know." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG countered with the comment, "No, it's different. You become a clerk, then you go into practice, and then sometime later you become the judge. It's not one right after the other." Number 574 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, who co-sponsored this bill, said he did so not because of the recruitment aspect, but to lessen the days of the session to increase efficiency. People are forced to attend meetings, take fewer trips, and reduce wasteful bills. In a 90-day session, legislators would be zealous in their support and pass fewer bills, he suggested. TAPE 03-73, SIDE B Number 002 Representative Anderson said this is a citizen legislature, and efficiency and accountability in the shortest amount of time comprise the reasons he supports this bill. He commented that many states have fewer than 100-day sessions. Number 011 REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ pointed out that the reason this bill finally made it to the ballot is that it was tied to a pay raise increasing the base salary for the legislature of up to $46,000. He mentioned a repeal of the pay raise and said many opponents of the original session limit bill of 120 days rethought their decision to oppose. He noted that he has never heard of anyone regretting the limit. Number 031 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to his point that attracting good people to the legislature is key. Part of the legacy that the legislature can leave is people who choose to go into municipal assemblies, go to law school, and enter public life - "getting people involved who care about humanity." He noted that raising money to run for office is discouraging and that the image of the legislature with regard to campaign reform is sometimes negative. He emphasized that it's important to make it easier for citizens to run for office. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he'd spoken with members of other state legislatures who have shorter sessions about how it works and that the response was positive. Utah has a 20-day legislature every other year. He offered his understanding that there is an increase in participation in these legislatures. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he was playing the devil's advocate when he brought up the example of Representative Meyer, who would probably have been dissuaded to run because of family concerns. He would have wanted his wife and children to attend with him, Representative Anderson surmised, and if the session ended in April, what would the family do for schooling at the end of the school year? This bill dissuades citizens from running if they want their family with them in Juneau, he said. Number 085 CHAIR McGUIRE set aside HJR 4 with the comment, "We'll continue to look at this." She listed cost, quality of life, and quality of the government as focus points for future thinking. [Further public testimony was taken later in the meeting.] HJR 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION CHAIR McGUIRE reopened public testimony on HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session. Number 420 HUGH BROWN III testified as follows: I appreciate your efforts to cut the session. Some states have a shorter session than ours. They seem to get their work done, and I think by cutting the session it would save some money. I do have some concerns about it. The public process may be hurt. When I go to Juneau, I talk to legislators and, it is a short window to do that. I work full-time, so I just think that maybe we should hold off on that for a little while, maybe talk it over a little while, and see what the session will look like in 90 days. As we propose things in the community to supplement what agencies are doing, whether it's helping children and education, we need to be able to access the legislators to make this happen. That's really all I have to say. I'm not really opposed to it, but I think we should wait and take a wait-and-see look at it. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON stated that he was pleased and honored that Mr. Brown had come before the committee to testify. Prior to this time, the turnout for testimony had been poor, he recalled. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, to be fair, in Kodiak the turnout for testimony was good. MR. BROWN noted that when he was in Juneau and observing the legislative process, he began to appreciate the process and the decision-making. He said he encourages his friends to participate and thinks the session would better serve this goal if it were not set at 90 days. [HJR 4 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|