Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/18/2003 08:01 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 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION Number 0068 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was 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 0109 REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, told the committee HJR 4 would limit the legislative session from 120 to 90 days and would be placed before voters in 2004, the year of the next statewide general election. He said he feels strongly that 90 days is more than enough time in which the legislature can finish its business. He said limiting the session would also promote more citizen [legislators], which Alaskans want; with a shorter session, more people can participate. Representative Samuels said although the fiscal note shows a savings of approximately $1 million, he thinks it would [save] more than that. He said having more laws isn't necessarily a better thing. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted one argument against [HJR 4]: it would give the executive branch more power. He said he thinks that is true, but suggested that "we're talking about nuances." If the executive branch does something that the legislative branch finds reprehensible, the legislative branch can call itself back into session. He indicated that other arguments against the resolution are with regard to rule changes, statutory changes, the starting date, and the timeframe for giving notice of a committee hearing, for example. He said all of those can be taken care of if the voters pass the resolution. Number 0342 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS mentioned an amendment he hoped Representative Holm would offer to make the First Regular Session of the Twenty-Fourth Legislature be 120 days and the Second Regular Session be 90 days, with 90 days [for each session thereafter]. This would allow new [legislators] to "get their feet wet." REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS referred to a page ["Alaska State Legislature Session Length And Percentage Of Days With Floor Sessions, 1981-2000," in the committee packet]; in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that it shows the actual number of days [the legislature] is in session. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked how many times a resolution like HJR 4 has been introduced before. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS answered probably five or six times; one attempt may have moved through the House. Number 0460 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM observed that the legislature used to have a 90-day session. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that it used to have an unlimited session. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH concurred with Representative Holm that the legislature used to meet for fewer than 120 days. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM recalled that his father never spent 120 days [in a session while in the legislature]. He mentioned looking back into the history to the 1960s and 1970s. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out that the numbers on the handout go back to the early 1980s. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that the legislature met in June and July in the early 1980s. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to questions from Chair Weyhrauch and Representative Samuels, said he did not meet for an unlimited session [when he was a legislator previously]. He added, "There was no constitutional limit prior to that time, but the actual sessions may well have been limited." REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to a remark from Chair Weyhrauch, said he thinks the legislature can do a lot more with its time. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that it seems he's busier on the days when the legislature isn't in session because of committee meetings, constituents, and [special] interest groups, for example. Number 0719 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied that if Chair Weyhrauch "went for 300 days, then he would have 300 days of that." He said he thinks it's inherent within the system that the posturing and positioning takes place at the end, whether it's a 60-day or a 300-day session. The budget will not be addressed until the last two weeks, regardless of the length of session. However, Representative Samuels noted that advantages of HJR 4 would be saving cash "right up front" and increasing the pool of people who can run, for example. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said term limits were in fashion for a while, but he did not support them; subsequent studies have shown they've seriously upset the balance of power in those states that enacted them. He said the balance of power is difficult to measure prospectively. He said he knows that some states have significantly shorter session limitations, whereas some states have [biennial] sessions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a group called the Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) at the University of California State Berkley (UCSB). He said he wonders if research has been done on the effect of shorter legislative sessions and the balance of power in states that have enacted it. He said he has serious reservations and that the 120-day limit has turned out to be okay. He posited that the question is what is needed at this time. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has some reports. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he'd like to see them and to see if the IGS has done any [studies]. Number 0888 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM requested that [Representative Samuels] look further back historically than just the early 1980s. He said he doesn't know if restricting [the length of session] is a bad idea because he said he suspects that "work will fill all voids." He said he shares [Representative Samuels'] concern regarding how long the legislature runs. Number 0960 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to an e-mail that showed how many bills had been introduced and how many had passed. He asked Representative Samuels if he was saying that fewer bills should be considered. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS responded that there will likely be 600- 700 bills by the time the legislature is through, although perhaps 80 or 90 will pass; some will be "feel-good bills," rather than big policy changes. He reiterated that having more laws isn't necessarily a good thing. Representative Samuels said, "We're asking every department in the State of Alaska to do a little bit better job with their time and their money, and we ought to look at ourselves and ask the exact same question." He said many of the bills that get introduced are so somebody can have a press conference, with no intention of moving the bill. He said he has no issue with that being part of the nature of politics; however, he doesn't "count that in the big scheme of things as being important public policy." Number 1103 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that unless the legislature drastically changes the way bills go through the process, he thinks a 90-day session might mean that bills wouldn't actually be passed until the second session. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he thinks some bills would move faster, while others would take longer. He said if he could leave earlier, he would be willing to do it much differently than now. He mentioned night meetings. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said things have gotten a lot more complicated [in the legislature]. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, said he thinks the budget in 1972 was $294 million during; only 36 people worked for the legislature in those days, but now there are over 460. He said, "I think what Representative Samuels is trying to say is that there may be some economies of scale here, but we need to look at getting them, rather than what we're doing." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it used to be the policy that almost all bills were referred to at least two committees in each house. He added, "Frankly, that was a check on the majority, because most bills that move are majority bills." He also said it was in vogue for a while to consider a unicameral legislature. Number 1287 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 23- LS0178\A.1, Cook, 3/10/03, which read: Page 1, line 1: Delete "an amendment" Insert "amendments" Page 1, following line 14: Insert a new resolution section to read: "* Sec. 2. Article XV, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended by adding a new section to read: Section 30. Transition; Regular Legislative Session Duration. The 2004 amendment to Section 8 of Article II first applies to the Second Regular Session of the Twenty-Fourth Legislature and applies thereafter. During the First Regular Session of the Twenty-Fourth Legislature, Section 8 of Article II applies as it read on January 1, 2004." Renumber the following resolution section accordingly. Page 1, line 15: Delete "amendment" Insert "amendments" REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested that members could consider [other numbers less than 120] if they didn't like the 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [language proposed to be deleted on page 1] line 9, which read, "[FROM THE DATE IT CONVENES]". He explained that because of the word "FROM", the session is actually 121 days, rather than 120 days; therefore, HJR 4 would shorten it by 31 days, rather than 30. Number 1510 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1548 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that he has been busy and thinks the 90-day session would be difficult. Notwithstanding that, he agreed that maybe some reduction would be a good thing. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS maintained that if session were 300 days, legislators would still be busy every day. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the second session is a lot different from the first. He said the current session is unusual because there is largely a new legislative body as well as a new governor, and because of "the unusual fiscal situation we find ourselves in." He said he thinks things are moving much more slowly this year than in his recollection. Number 1675 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, referred to a handout showing the limits on legislative session length in other states. He read random samples showing that some states meet for a different number of days in odd years than in even years, for example. He said Alaska isn't out of the norm, but isn't on the low end. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that a publication called "Alaska Legislature Roster of Members 1913-2002" lists the dates that the legislature has convened and adjourned. Number 1824 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he'd like to get a copy of the portion of the [Alaska] Constitutional Convention minutes where the issue was considered of whether to impose a state constitutional legislative session limit. He said he'd also like the legislative history of the current constitutional amendment. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS responded, "We did read the minutes [from] when they limited the session from unlimited to 120 days." He said he thinks HJR 4 is good public policy. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is trying to figure out the previous philosophy. He surmised that the number of legislative days excludes weekends. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related his belief that if the legislature doesn't meet in floor session, it isn't counted as a legislative day. Number 1949 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he was in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth [Alaska] State Legislatures. He said there was a significant difference in the number of days that the bodies met; the Senate had a policy, which the House didn't have, that on many days it would gavel itself in and then out again, and that would count as a day in session. Thus [the Senate] didn't have to get permission to not meet, for example. [HJR 4 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|