Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/03/1998 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 1 - LIMIT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO 90 DAYS Number 0117 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HJR 1, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session. Chair James mentioned Representative Rokeberg is here to present his amendment. Number 0120 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 1 saying it provides for a 90-day session due to fiscal constraints and we need to look at our own house. He indicated this is the most important bill he has introduced and mentioned he believes it's consistent with HCR 9, which is an amendment to the Uniform Rules which allows interim committee activities and electronic votes to be cast by committee members if they are on teleconference. He reiterated that these bills are companion bills because, if we shorten the session, we should be able to do some interim work to make sure the state's business is done. Number 0132 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained the fiscal note would save $1.5 million based on the estimate of $50,000 a day to run the legislature, this is a significant savings to the state. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "I think the area of candidate recruitment for running for public office is something we need to keep in mind. It's very difficult to have a truly political legislature when we have to spend of a third of the year down here." He said he had to give up his type of business because real estate requires the servicing of clients on a year-round basis. Number 0142 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out there is approximately 24 states that have sessions shorter than our existing 120 days, which was amended in 1984. Historically, some sessions have run far into July. About nine states have either biannual sessions or abbreviated second sessions in their two-year sitting period. For example, Arkansas has a 60-day session one year and has no session the next, Oregon meets for about 165 days and then no days the following year. In 1996 and 1997 the Washington State Legislature met for 105 days and then 60 days. So, both states have an average of 82.5 days in which to conduct their business. Other states that have shorter sessions include Virginia-45 days, Vermont-45 days, Wyoming-55, New Mexico-60, West Virginia-60, Florida-60, Georgia- 75, and Hawaii-120 days or less. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said members and their staffs are forced to pack up and come to Juneau after the holiday seasons. He said, "So there's a lot of very tired people suffering from the holiday doldrums -- when we have to come down here as many times. I know my birthday's on the fourth of January and I've been forced at least two years to be down here on my birthday for organizational meetings and such, and therefore, and it comes right directly after the holidays." He mentioned he has an amendment that speaks to that particular issue. Number 0172 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG also referenced the Book of the States, 1996-97 edition, Volume 31, which references the history of our session and the fact that, in our constitution presently, the convening day is the fourth Monday of January, except the Legislature has the ability to change that. He noted the amendment would start the session on the "first Monday of February" to avoid starting up after the holidays and suggested not starting later than that. He said he believes the Legislature can perform its function most sufficiently, save money for the state. Number 0185 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated he is interested in the 90-day limit. However, he pointed out that he has visited with folks in Oregon and some of the other states that meet every other year. He said that is misleading because they have an executive committee, and the people are very much removed from the decisions. So it's healthy for us to meet once a year, but believes limiting the sessions is appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "I do note in the fiscal note back here that they show quite a decrease and I would venture to suggest, that if we do go to a 90-day session, that probably the committees would be more active during the interim and there may not be the savings that we portend here. But I think there would be a savings and it's certainly worth our attention and our support in pushing this." Number 0195 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated when we say we've got the tradeoff, one of the biggest arguments for this is the money that we save, so we have to see at what cost we're saving that money. He said it seems a 90-day session would preclude the opportunity that many legislators have, for example attending the Energy Conference which is appropriate and important for the state of Alaska. If you limit the session, you're also limiting the ability of what legislators can do during those 90-day, it might be one of the things that you lose. Number 0203 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON mentioned another that he has is, and this year is maybe the best example of that, that in the era of plummeting oil prices, and at a time in which we're not going to get the spring revenue forecast until probably 60 or 65 days into the session, you're effectively saying that once we know how much money we've got to spend, we've got 25 days in which to decide how to spend it. Number 0207 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said other thing that we have to remember is that the more we prescribe the time that we have to focus on state business the more we empower the Governor. If we compact the session into 90 days that means we are going to be very busy. It also means that we're going to have less time to scrutinize agency activities and that seems to come with a cost also that's not reflected in perhaps the savings shown in the fiscal note. Number 0215 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he agrees with Representative Elton's comments on the spring price forecast and the timing. He noted he wouldn't object to moving back the starting date. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "As a member of the Energy Council, I'm aware that there's 13 states that are members. And I would say of 24 states that have less than 120-day sessions that eight of them are members of the Energy Council. So I don't think that really creates a major problem." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, in terms of granting the Governor more power is something we need to consider. However, in reference to not having adequate time to look into the agencies, he said he thinks, if we're not in session, we may have more time to do oversight type activities. Number 0235 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he believes, some times when you use an example, we forget there are other examples out there. Another example would be the committee trip that Representative Ivan took with the Community and Regional Affairs Committee to review the impact of the financial disaster in Bristol Bay. That kind of trip also can be constrained. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted Representative Rokeberg's comment on the additional time out of session to review agency operations gets back to the point that Representative Hodgins made that we may be just cost-shifting from session cost to off-session cost. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he couldn't agree more. It would also require that we pass further legislation which he would author to allow an interim committee to be able to operate with more authority. He concluded that he agrees, but it's hard to quantify that in terms of how much of a trade off it would be. He indicated he still thinks there would be substantial savings. Number 0246 CHAIR JAMES said she tends to agree that we could get done in 90 days and doesn't like us to be compared to other states because we have different concerns. She said other states have different ways of meeting their goals. It's more than just laying out the numbers to do that. CHAIR JAMES noted she also had to give up her accounting and tax business in 1994 and currently runs a motel in the summertime. She said she has participated in committee meetings via teleconference, more for listening than actually doing the studying that she would need to be able to make good decisions. Chair James said she didn't know which one is going to be more interruptive for us as a citizen legislature. She said she is not saying that for a conclusion, but those are some of the things you have to measure. Number 0261 CHAIR JAMES stated the other concern she has is a special session. She said she didn't think a 90-day session is going to eliminate them. It may even cause more special sessions. CHAIR JAMES concluded to be able to make government more responsive, more effective and less costly is a good part of a plan, but it takes a lot of other fixes. For example we have proposed legislation regarding a biannual budgeting process. She said she believes we need to have a long-term plan that doesn't make us depend on oil revenues to make our decisions in the budget process. If we do shorten the length of time it may create more cooperation between the Administration and the legislature, however, it could have the opposite effect. On the face of it, HJR 1 sounds like a simple idea, but it needs a lot of consideration. Number 0284 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied you're right, it does require a lot of consideration. He indicated people in his district have always supported a shorter session. He said, "I think that we also need to look at the pitfalls, as Representative Elton points out, there are some trade offs here, and I would submit to that. But, nevertheless, I think it is a valuable public debate we have, and therefore, that's why I've requested the committee to move the bill. It has just two more referrals, even in the House so, the chances of making it all the way may not be that good, but I think it is appropriate that we do have this public debate." Number 0291 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked why do we pick 120 days and what's so special about 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded there was first an advisory vote of the people, and then there was a constitutional amendment set forth which was approved by a very substantial margin of people. He said he thinks there was a feeling there was abuse by the Legislature in their deliberation. He said he also believes that by shortening the session - we need to make an incremental approach backwards (indisc.) I'm not wedded to 90 days per say. Can we do it in 75 percent of the time allocated that we have now? Number 0300 CHAIR JAMES noted 100 days is an option, either way it needs to be discussed. Number 0304 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY offered an amendment to change it to 60 days. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected, he said he thinks one of the problems that you have when you shorten a session and when you compare us to other states, is that our state is unique in that we don't have designated funds that are essentially formula kinds of things. We don't fund our highways for example based on the gas tax and we don't fund our education system based on the amount of revenues from our timber lands, or as in Oregon, based on the amount they raise in the lottery. Representative Elton said, "Because we don't do that, and I don't think we should do that, I think that we should allow the Legislature as much latitude as possible. But because we don't do that, we are in effect lengthening our session." He said he doesn't believe legislatures in other states have an awful lot of latitude when they're funding their programs because most of their income is designated and ours isn't. He stated, "While 90 days makes the hair on the back of my neck tickle, 60 days makes it stand straight up [laughter]." Number 0317 CHAIR JAMES noted she is familiar with Oregon because that's where she grew up and also spent political time in Washington. She said, but there are some states that have as little as 15 percent of the money in their budget that has any discretion at all about it. She said Alaska really resists dedicated funds, it's specific in our constitution that we can't have them unless they're in the constitution. We had several of them at the time that we became a state of which we currently have a couple. Chair James said she believes the gas tax was done away with by an attorney general's error, but she has been trying for several years to get a connection to the money that we pay and that we are able to have it spent on our highways and byways. But it's been difficult to get dedicated funds. CHAIR JAMES reiterated the comparison of the issues in other states is not at all compared to what we have to deal with here. Even though she supports making the session shorter, she said her point is, "There are a lot of other things we have to do too, and each one of those is going to be even more controversial than this one." Chair James said she is hoping to get input because we do need to have a fair representation. Number 0337 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what's magical about 60 days. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied it is a period of time much more in keeping with the philosophy of a citizen legislature, it is also the maximum that the Alaska State Legislature ever met prior to being cursed with a surplus of $900 million in 1969. It wasn't until there was a struggle over how to spend the surplus that the Legislature ever met more than 60 days. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented there is nothing that keeps us from having a 60-day or 90-day session other than ourselves. There are two ways to attack this problem, whether its 60 or 90 days, one of them is to force ourselves to do something and the other thing is to just do it because we think it's right. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he thinks 60 days is a lot shorter than the pre-pipeline money days. Number 0350 CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote on the amendment to 60 days. Representative Vezey voted for the amendment. Representatives Hodgins, Dyson, Elton, Berkowitz and James voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-6. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he provided the committee with an amendment that moves the starting date back to the first of February. Given the discussion this morning, he suggested moving the starting date to the "fourth Monday in January" which is the constitutionally specified date. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would not object to moving the 90- days to 100 days because 100 days would allow us to get out of here in a reasonable period of time. Number 0368 CHAIR JAMES said, "What you're saying is to change the amendment and instead of deleting 'fourth Monday in January'..." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected, leave that alone. CHAIR JAMES, asked in other words, don't do the amendment, or would you... REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected, you have to do the amendment because it removes the ability of the Legislature to change that on line seven. CHAIR JAMES asked, so you take out "BUT THE MONTH AND DAY MAY BE CHANGED BY LAW." Number 0371 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "I'd leave that in the amendment, but you take out the January. Delete the first of February and (indisc.) January in brackets." It would read: The fourth Monday in January. Each regular session is limited to 100 days. Number 0379 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS suggested starting sessions on the fourth Monday in January, go for 45 days and then split for 30 days to go back to our districts with pending legislation and what's been going on, and then return. He said he believes the public would be better served because the constituents would be able to talk to us regarding bills that were presented, and you'd have the opportunity to submit bills after visiting with the public. We could actually even go to a 60-day session, or a lesser time under that scenario. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if he should move it for purposes of discussion. CHAIR JAMES replied she doesn't know what it is, when we get one. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, it's not going to be this one. CHAIR JAMES said she believes Representative Rokeberg is going to work off of this one. Number 0391 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "While we're discussing that, I have a question on logistics, not having sat through a special session. It's my understanding we can only have one special session per session." CHAIR JAMES responded, no, we can have as many special sessions as we need. She further explained we can extend it once, and then we can have a special session. It can be called by the Governor or the Legislature at any time, for any length of time. She said, "When calling a special session, the agenda starts over, unless specifically - we had a special session ... when the proclamation that calls for the special session had specific legislation that was currently in the Legislature at the time which was forwarded to the special session. Generally when you have a special session there is a subject that you need to address and you start with new legislation. Nothing that you had in the legislative session carries into a special session, it's for a special purpose. But the extension of time that you would have, you could extend the session for ten days one time. Then the agenda would go on. There would be no disruption in the agenda." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, and committee work continues. CHAIR JAMES replied, "Committee work... TAPE 98-28, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIR JAMES continued, "...special session the agenda stays but at the end it doesn't. So those are some of the things that we have to deal with." She asked Representative Rokeberg if he has something worked out. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to HJR 1, 1/13/97 line 6. He said, "You could basically leave it alone, but delete, after January, 'but the month and day may be changed by law,' and then this is a (indisc.--paper rustling) choice whether we wanted to move that which would mandate the fourth Monday in January. Then the other thing would just be to go on and change 90 to 100." CHAIR JAMES indicated she would like to do that and discuss it as a first step. Number 0012 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made the motion to amend proposed Amendment LS0090\A.1, line 7, from 90 to 100 days. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for purposes of discussion. He said one of the things we haven't talked about is the ability to recruit staff for shorter periods of time. He asked are we going to increase compensation for the expense of moving to Juneau and moving back home. Are we going to do anything to compensate them? CHAIR JAMES said that's a good issue. CHAIR JAMES referred to Representative Hodgins suggestion of breaking in the middle to go home. She said she believes the extended cost of that wouldn't be any real savings if we do that. Chair James stated we need to concentrate on having better government first and then reducing costs. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he suggests we can have our cake and eat it too. He said, "To say there's a $50,000-day plug number here, I agree with Representative Elton and that's not exactly accurate because there is going to be some trade offs. I definitely think that we know our priorities - there's going to be some cost to that." Number 0029 CHAIR JAMES noted she is frustrated with legislation that is put forward as a statement and serves no real purpose, they take a lot of time in discussion, but it seems we do a lot of political playing as opposed to being serious about what we're supposed to be here for. She said she doesn't think we can stop that, no matter how short of time we have that we might have less of it but we'll never eliminate it. Chair James said she thinks if we worked harder on the serious issues, and left the frivolous things alone, then we would certainly get through the process a lot faster. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS added, if we didn't have all this frivolous stuff, we could meet for 60 days. CHAIR JAMES said she agrees with him on that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he feels compelled to respond to the comment about show legislation and he knows it wasn't meant in regard to this legislation. CHAIR JAMES responded that she never meant to insinuate that. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON argued against the amendment, he said the way the constitution reads is that it gives the Legislature the latitude to do whatever they want, and if want to start on the fourth or first Monday in February... CHAIR JAMES said we didn't do that amendment, this is to change 90 to 100 days. Number 0065 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were objections to the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER also objected. Number 0065 CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote on the conceptual amendment changing the number of days in a session from 90 to 100 days. Representatives Berkowitz and James voted in support of the amendment. Representatives Elton, Dyson and Hodgins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-3. CHAIR JAMES announced the motion fails so we're back to 90 days. Number 0072 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move HJR 1 with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected, he said he believes we're arbitrarily setting something in the constitution that we can do right now. Several years ago this Legislature made an appropriate decision to reduce the amount of time to 120 days. He stated he is very uncomfortable moving this forward with some of the unanswered questions that we've got, how much cost for transferring, and how we can compare apples and oranges between this state and other states. It's important to have those answers before we can take an informed vote on what the net effect of this is really going to be. CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote on the motion. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked for a brief at-ease to await the arrival of Representative Vezey. Number 0084 CHAIR JAMES called the meeting back to order and announced the motion is to move HJR 1 from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey, Dyson and James voted in support of moving HJR 1 from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Representative Elton and Berkowitz voted against it. Therefore, HJR 1 moved from the House State Affairs Standing committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|