Legislature(2003 - 2004)
01/20/2004 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 167-INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SCR 8-AMENDING UNIFORM RULES 37 AND 44
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 167 and SCR 8 to be up for
consideration. He stated that he did not intend to move the
bills from committee that day, but he wanted to begin the
discussion and take testimony. He asked Senator Guess to present
the bill.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, sponsor, advised that she would talk
about the bills simultaneously.
She said it is interesting to learn how transparent or not
transparent the system in the capitol is to the outside public.
In combination, SB 167 and SCR 8 move toward a more transparent
system for the Legislature. These bills do two things. They do
away with committee bills and they add authority for the
governor to introduce bills directly. Although legislators and
others working in the capitol know what a committee bill means,
the public doesn't necessarily have that same understanding.
It's confusing to look at a bill and know who sponsors and
believes in the bill. If a legislator sits on the Rules
Committee, every governor's bill has their name on it whether
they agree with the bill or not. She said that sixty legislators
and one governor are elected officials and all should have the
authority to introduce legislation.
She said she decided to introduce this legislation after it came
to her attention that it is unclear to the public who supports
certain bills. The confusion wasn't intended, but she thought it
is time to revisit the process and become more transparent to
the public.
She asked for questions.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked about Rule 44 that says a legislator
may not introduce bills after the 35th day of the session.
Because many bills do come after that time, he wondered what the
impact might be if committee bills were no longer allowed.
SENATOR GUESS pointed out that on page 2, line 3 of SCR 8 Rule
44, which is specifically about committees and committee bills,
is repealed. With this legislation, there wouldn't be committee
bills, but any member of the Legislature could put in bills
until the end of the session.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped and said that in removing Rule 44,
any legislator could introduce legislation right up until the
end.
SENATOR GUESS agreed and said that it would be the prerogative
of the chair to hear the bills or not.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY noted that by the end of this session there
would be close to 1,000 bills that were introduced, but less
than 80 would become law and that isn't necessarily bad.
He referred to the sponsor statement that said that committee
bills may have had a purpose at one time, but it is time to
reevaluate the process. He asked what she believes the purpose
to have been originally.
SENATOR GUESS said she would look to him as the more experienced
member, but she understands that it is from when a committee, in
it's entirety, worked on an issue and presented it in front of
the Legislature. She acknowledged that is a positive and
important part of the process and although she hasn't
experienced that, her bill wouldn't prohibit it either. The
difference is that the chair would put the bill in rather than
the committee as a whole. She opined that a committee could work
on and support a bill without it being a committee bill.
SENATOR COWDERY said that in her tenure she has probably seen
many bills that were referred to a subcommittee because they had
problems. It's not uncommon for the subcommittee to be composed
of both minority and majority members and still they return an
unacceptable product to the full committee and the bill doesn't
go forward.
He asked Senator Guess what she believes has changed in the
process.
SENATOR GUESS first stated that this bill would not affect
committee substitutes. Committee substitutes that come from the
subcommittee negotiation is a very good part of the process. She
continued to say that government is becoming more transparent,
particularly with respect to the Internet. People review bills
more frequently and they have an increased desire to know and
understand what legislators are doing. Gavel-to-Gavel is a very
positive step and having all bills available on the Internet is
another. There was less confusion years ago because the process
was less transparent.
SENATOR COWDERY related his experience in giving people copies
of a bill saying they don't understand what bracketed language
means or what the bolded language means. "If you read it as a
whole, without the bracket, it's confusing, but that's our
system and those that do understand probably are fewer than
those that don't..." He asked when the process changed and why
this is necessary.
SENATOR GUESS thanked Senator Cowdery for his questions and said
that as Rules Chair, perhaps the web site should be changed to
help people learn to read a bill. It's complicated and the more
the public understands, the better.
She admitted that she didn't know when the change occurred. If a
public member hadn't approached her, she might not have given it
much thought. She was asked why she supported a certain Rules
Committee bill and when she said she didn't, she began to
understand how difficult this might be to understand. She said,
"This isn't the sexiest issue out there," but the public should
be able to understand who supports a bill.
SENATOR COWDERY pointed out that she probably didn't know most
of the people that elected her and he doesn't personally know
many his constituents either, but they decided that she would
vote the way they wanted her to vote most of the time and that
is why she was elected. Understanding that, he doubts that there
will ever be a point when most people understand the system.
He then asked about issues that a constituent might bring to a
committee chair dealing with the specific task of the committee.
SENATOR GUESS said that all legislators have the responsibility
of evaluating the ideas that constituents bring in and deciding
whether or not they should be put in as a bill.
4:30 pm
TAPE 04-1, SIDE B
SENATOR GUESS referred to the point he made regarding the number
of bills introduced as compared to the number that become law.
She pointed out that people are able to look at the voting
records for the bills that become law.
SENATOR COWDERY interrupted to say that they look at how a
legislator voted, they don't necessarily look at the committee
bills where members have the option to vote do pass, do not
pass, no recommendation, or amend. The true record is how you
vote on it when it gets to the floor, if it gets to the floor.
SENATOR GUESS agreed that that's the point. Names are attached
to committee bills yet the commitment might not be there. SB 167
would allow citizens to know which legislators support which
bills. This would clarify the public record.
SENATOR COWDERY asked who should take the responsibility to
ensure that the public's ideas are represented through the
committee process. He continued to say that the committee
process weeds out weak bills. He took issue with her charge that
when a committee bill is introduced that all committee members
are co-sponsors. He pointed out that there is a space on the
bill for co-sponsors and there is a committee voting record on
the bill. If the bill gets to the floor there is also a voting
record.
He referred to the sponsor statement that said this is a good
first step and asked what her second step might be.
SENATOR GUESS thanked him for clarifying that. She said she is
always open to suggestions and there isn't a second step.
SENATOR COWDERY then asked how the court system would introduce
a bill if this were passed.
SENATOR GUESS said they would go to the Judiciary Committee or
to the governor. Under SB 167 they could introduce a bill
through the governor or any of the 60 legislators.
SENATOR COWDERY outlined the steps a bill goes through to become
law.
SENATOR GUESS said that under this bill, the governor could send
a bill directly to the clerk.
SENATOR COWDERY disagreed with that idea wholeheartedly.
SENATOR GUESS asked why because she thought that, as the Rules
Chair, he would support that change.
SENATOR COWDERY said he supports maintaining the separation of
powers.
SENATOR GUESS replied that she believes the people elect the
governor and he or she should be able to submit bills directly.
SENATOR COWDERY said our constitution is a model and there is no
need for change.
SENATOR GUESS pointed out that this bill wouldn't change the
constitution; it's an interpretation.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that members had a copy of a fax from
Mike McBride in their packets. He then asked Mr. Arnold to
testify.
WILLIAM T. ARNOLD from Sterling testified via teleconference in
support of both bills. He would like the sponsor to receive
credit for their bill. He said this would help citizens know
what's going on in their government and it's called full
disclosure and transparency.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Mr. Arnold and repeated that he would
not move the bill that day.
MR. ARNOLD then asked whether the committee would vote on the
bill some other time.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS assured Mr. Arnold that the committee would
look at the bill carefully and decide whether any changes were
needed.
SENATOR COWDERY stated his intention to amend the bill.
MR. ARNOLD repeated his position with regard to tying a name to
a bill.
SENATOR COWDERY said bills are tied to a name when they move
from committee because the member's recommendations are a matter
of public record.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Mr. Arnold for his testimony and
asked Senator Guess if she had additional comments.
SENATOR GUESS said Senator Cowdery provided good debate on the
subject. She restated her position that she always welcomes
amendments to improve the bill as long as her intent is not
changed. She voiced the opinion that although this subject isn't
on par with fiscal plans or education, it is important. It's
always worthwhile to look at ways to make the system work better
for the people.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN asked for an explanation of the retroactive
date.
SENATOR GUESS explained that the date on SCR 8 is tied to SB 167
because statutes and rules wouldn't mesh if one were to pass
without the other. In reviewing the bill she determined that it
isn't necessary to have an effective date on SB 167.
SENATOR STEDMAN admitted he hasn't experienced the end of a
session but he understands that it is fast moving. With that in
mind, he asked what affect this bill might have on the end of a
session.
SENATOR GUESS replied this bill isn't intended to change
anything that happens once the budget goes into effect. This
would remove the deadline for personal bills and would allow
legislators the opportunity to put bills in at any time. She
acknowledged that this might have the unintended consequence of
cluttering first readings, but what Senator Cowdery, as Rules
Committee chair, must balance is what needs to get to the floor.
Because issues do arise after February, there must be a process
to address those issues. However, the work entailed in
introducing a bill acts as a natural inhibition. She thanked
Senator Stedman for the clarifying question.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Senator Guess and noted that this
makes everyone stop and think about the process. SCR 8 and SB
167 were held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|