Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/22/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB166 | |
| HB171 | |
| HB13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 166 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 171-ACCOMMODATE 90-DAY SESSION/LEG PROCEDURES 8:16:45 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act relating to the terms of legislators, the date and time for convening regular legislative sessions, adoption of uniform rules of the legislature and to certain of those rules, the date for organizing the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, and deadlines for certain matters or reports to be delivered to the legislature or filed; prohibiting bonuses for legislative employees; and providing for an effective date." 8:17:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL requested that Representative Paul Seaton be invited to speak on the matter of a proposed 30-day break within a 90-day session, a concept which Representative Coghill said Representative Seaton initiated. He mentioned that there was also a legal matter to address. 8:17:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, said his focus was to accommodate the 90-day session and meet requirements for timing of incoming and outgoing members of the legislature. He said the big question is how the legislature can eliminate 25 percent of its time in Juneau while not diminish the public's access to debate and notification of legislation as it goes forward. He urged the committee to consider splitting the session into two parts, with a 31-day break between. He stated that although the wording of the initiative calls for a continuous 90 days, there was no campaigning during the initiative process that would require such continuity. He said he has spoken to both sponsors of the initiative that are still in the legislature, and they both think that splitting the session into two parts would comport with the initiative intent. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mentioned that the committee has received a legal opinion stating that the Alaska State Constitution permits the legislature to modify an initiative to make it a workable document, provided those modifications do not violate the intent or spirit of the initiative. 8:19:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said a [31-day] break would eliminate the number of excused absences. Furthermore, legislators would have more time to meet with their constituents. Currently, he noted, legislators take time off for the annual Energy Council and Easter break; if the 31-day break was placed strategically, it could cover that time. He explained the reason for stating that the break would be 31 days rather than 30 is because the legislature would actually be changing from 121 to 90, not 120 to 90. 8:22:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding staff, said a legislative employee currently can earn a step increase related to wages after working 115 days. He said there is dispute over whether or not to allow employees a step increase after 85 days. If the 31-day break was in play, session staff could stay employed during the break, and the step increase would not be an issue. Furthermore, hiring staff through the break would address concerns that have been raised related to the difficulty in getting staff to work in Juneau for only 90 days. 8:23:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the fiscal note and pointed out that "there's hardly any savings." He explained that the difference between session per diem and long-term per diem is minimal; therefore, since most legislators would be "working a good portion of this time on their own anyway and collecting longer-term per diem," if they stayed on session per diem, he said, they could maintain their Juneau lodgings, which would not disrupt the housing market. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that the same level of engagement is not achieved when legislators are spread throughout the state participating in meetings via teleconference. 8:24:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to two of the legal opinions in committee packet, which are from Tamara Cook of Legislative Legal and Research Services. The first, he noted is dated March 16, 2007 [and shows "(Work Order 25-LS0764)" within the subject line]. He cited the first sentence of the first paragraph on the second page, which read as follows `[original punctuation provided]: If I am correct that the legislature is not bound by the statutory session limit under AS 24.05.150(b), then the legislature is legally free to adopt your proposed schedule as a compromise position designed to limit the actual number of days the legislature meets to 90 days, while allowing the legislature to wait for better revenue forecasts before it reconvenes and finalizes the budget in the spring. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the second of the two legal opinions, dated March 20, 2007, is in response to the following question: Could a statute providing for a 31-day recess during each regular session constitute the agreement required under Art. II, sec. 10 of the state constitution for a recess longer than three days? REPRESENTATIVE SEATON read part of Ms. Cook's response to that question, found in the last sentence of the second paragraph, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: However, so long as both houses cooperatively abide by the statute and neither expresses its determination to force the other house back into session, I believe that the statute will serve as acceptable evidence of the concurrence in the recess by each of the houses under art. II, sec. 10. 8:26:09 AM CHAIR LYNN recognized Representative Seaton's having addressed the needs of the staff, a consideration that is often times overlooked, he indicated. 8:26:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 171, Version 25-LS0653\E, Cook, 3/16/07, as a work draft. 8:26:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of hearing a review of Version E. 8:27:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that he will have recommendations to make regarding the bill. 8:27:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reviewed the changes made by Version E by referring to the original bill and pointing to the following language that had been deleted: Page 3, Section 5, which gave the opportunity for each house to adopt different rules; Page 4, Section 8, which would have killed any bills not passed by one house within the first session; Page 6, Section 14 - the entire section - regarding timeline issues; and Page 6, Section 15, requiring the administration's budget by January. 8:29:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Version E. There being no further objection, Version E was before the committee as a work draft. [HB 171 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|