Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/20/2001 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HCR 5-UNIFORM RULES 20(A), 37, AND 49(A)(4)
DENISE HENDERSON, staff for Representative Kott, said that HCR 5
adopts three changes. Section 1 consolidates departments and deals
with department name changes and places the Department of
Corrections under the purview of the Judiciary Committee. Rule 37
in Section 2 deletes the carbon copy rule because it no longer
applies. Section 3, Rule 49(a)(4) deals with special concurrent
resolutions when disapproval of an executive order of the Governor
is considered. Wording changes on page 3 line 15 & 16 are as
follows with new text underlined and deleted text bracketed: "This
resolution must be considered by a standing (JOINT) committee of
each house and may be…"
SENATOR PEARCE offered amendment #1 on page 3 line 16 adding
"meeting jointly" after the word "house".
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT objected to the amendment for purposes of
discussion then removed his objection.
SENATOR HALFORD observed that the amendment makes it more difficult
to accomplish the goal and said that adding "meeting jointly"
weakens the legislative branch.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that his concern is that, depending on the
majorities in the houses and the governor's party affiliation,
changing the language might empower a single chairman to thwart the
intention of the legislature and the executive order would be
adopted.
SENATOR PEARCE didn't agree.
TOM WRIGHT, staff to Representative Porter, understood the concerns
but said that there are a number of things that could stop the
action other than the committee chairs. The make up of a committee
could also lend itself to stopping the action. Tam Cook,
Legislative Legal Counsel, said that, in the past, rather than
having a joint committee meet, a standing committee met jointly
with a standing committee in the other body to consider the special
concurrent resolution. Thus, adding "meeting jointly" makes sense
and conforms to past practices.
SENATOR HALFORD said amendment #1 makes it a bit more difficult
while the house version, as sent, is easier and makes it stronger
for the legislative branch.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it is past practice because the word joint
is included. As worded, the two standing committees could meet
jointly but they aren't required to do so.
MR. WRIGHT agreed and said he and Ms. Cook believe it simplifies
the process.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether Mr. Wright thought adding the
words "meeting jointly" would short circuit the five day notice and
the entire time process.
MR. WRIGHT didn't believe so, that the requirement to have the
previous Thursday and five day notice would still be in effect.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that if that is so, he isn't sure there is
any efficiency if the second house must still adhere to the notice
requirements.
MR. WRIGHT agreed saying the process would have to be followed.
SENATOR PEARCE said no, it would be read across in each house and
referred by the presiding officers; it would then be noticed and
there is a joint meeting. "It doesn't pass each house and then go
to a joint session, it would come to the floor and be recommended
to the joint session. It doesn't have to pass the house before it
comes there."
SENATOR HALFORD said that language in The Alaska Constitution
decides whether provisions are effective or not. This is a simple
provision and such provisions are waived by simple majority action.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT agreed with Senator Pearce.
SENATOR HALFORD said that the problem is that if a rule says it
must be heard in joint committee then it is raised as a point of
order and the point of order must be answered. "If it says it has
to be considered by a committee in each house then it doesn't
matter if it is joint or separate and "the point of order is
clearly out of order when it is raised but it's a motion to defeat
the executive order."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said adding the amendment reduces the
flexibility of the legislature.
Amendment #1, adding the two words "meeting jointly", is offered
and there is objection to it. He asked for a roll call vote.
SENATOR PEARCE withdrew her amendment after Senator Davis asked for
more discussion before the roll call vote.
She then raised the question of placing the Department of
Corrections under the purview of the State Affairs Committee rather
than the Judiciary Committee, as proposed, saying that there isn't
much judiciary business in housing prisoners. She asked whether
this discussion was raised in House committees.
MR. WRIGHT said no, there wasn't that discussion, but he believes
that the assignment to Judiciary is because of parole and
probation.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked where the suggestion originated.
Number 108
MR. WRIGHT said that there was discussion with the drafter and the
Speaker who thought Judiciary was appropriate and Ms. Cook
concurred.
SENATOR PHILLIPS agreed with Senator Pearce's argument.
SENATOR PEARCE said that it could be useful to have the department
assigned to the Judiciary Committee and when projects such as
building jails were proposed there could be a referral to State
Affairs. This would give the presiding officers a bit more
latitude.
SENATOR PEARCE made a motion that Department of Corrections move
from Judiciary Committee to State Affairs Committee.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there were objections to the
amendment to change the oversight of Department of Corrections to
the State Affairs Committees.
Amendment #2 passed with no objections.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion that SCS HCR 5 (STA) move from
committee with individual recommendations.
SCS HCR 5 (STA) moved from committee with no objections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|