Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/02/1998 03:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 2, 1998
3:00 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 87, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 98 - 87, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative J. Davies Representative Grussendorf
Representative G. Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Martin was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Sean Parnell; Richard Vitale, Staff, Senator Sean
Parnell; Virgil Umphenour, (Testified via Teleconference),
Fairbanks; Col. John Glass, (Testified via Teleconference),
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and
Game, Anchorage; James Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law; Jack Fargnoli, Senior Policy Analyst,
Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor.
SUMMARY
HB 364 An Act requiring nonresident hunters to be
accompanied when hunting moose; and providing for
an effective date.
HB 364 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 76 An Act relating to long-term plans of certain
state agencies and recommendations regarding
elimination of duplication in state agency
functions.
CSSB 76 (RLS) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 76
"An Act relating to long-term plans of certain state
agencies and recommendations regarding elimination of
duplication in state agency functions."
SENATOR SEAN PARNELL stated that SB 76 would enact Results
Based Government to help better serve Alaskans. SB 76
would revise the Executive Budget Act to require the
Legislative and Executive branches to more clearly focus on
results through policies established by the Legislature and
executed by the Governor.
The Legislature would establish policy by issuing mission
statements and indicating the desired results for state
agencies to achieve. Senator Parnell advised that to
accomplish this, the Legislature would need to identify
desired results and establish priorities for each agency,
assign accountability, and require methods for measuring,
reporting and evaluating these results. The results would
be reported quarterly to the Legislature to ensure
continued oversight.
Senator Parnell spoke to how the legislation would work.
He noted that the Legislature establishes policy by
enacting it into law. The mission statement for most
agencies is enacted by statute, and that mission statements
could be enacted by passing laws. The language of the
legislation stipulates to be "open enough" to allow and set
forth the mission statement. He emphasized that the
mission statement must be consistent with the Alaska
Statutes.
Co-Chair Therriault inquired if this legislation would fit
with the process which the House had implemented this year
in working with agencies to determine their mission.
Senator Parnell stated that the bill would track the
current process and then with the legislation in place,
there could be flexibility so that the Legislature would
not be locked into the same process and measures each year.
Senator Parnell recommended that this issue could occur
through implementation of statute or through the intent
language of the budget bill. That language would allow the
purpose not currently in statute to be considered.
Representative J. Davies agreed with the intent of the
proposed legislation. He voiced concern with the timing
and tone. He noted that the effect of this process had
just begun and recommended that it would be better to wait
until there was history of how efficiently it had worked.
He added, the tone has the effect of "jamming something
down someone's throat". He proposed that is not an option
in trying to create a cooperative process.
Senator Parnell stated that this was his third attempt in
trying to pass the legislation. This proposal differs from
the other two, as it is more focused on results rather than
planning while also providing flexibility. He defended the
legislation's tone, noting that he had tried to work
cooperatively with the Administration while preparing it.
Representative Grussendorf suggested that the legislation
could work with a two-term governor, which he predicted
would happen this year. Senator Parnell replied that
micro-management of any budget system makes it become
unworkable.
Representative J. Davies spoke again to the tone of the
proposed legislation. He pointed out that the legislative
branch establishes policy while the executive branch is
elected by the entire state. He suggested that there is an
overlap of responsibilities in developing the agency's
mission. The legislative branch does not have a tremendous
amount of experience in how agencies work. There is a
certain understanding of that which is required to
correctly characterize the way a mission statement ought to
be phrased. He stressed that the legislation does not
invite the executive branch to participate in a balanced
manner .
Representative J. Davies submitted that there is a
tremendous amount of work to be done in order to determine
the appropriate measures to create "effectiveness". He was
concerned that if this legislation was passed, the next
budget would require that every effectiveness measure be in
place. Representative J. Davies requested that this
measure move more slowly through the Committee.
Senator Parnell replied that there is a definite role for
the Governor in this proposed process. He stressed that
the process had been established as an invite to
participate.
RICHARD VITALE, STAFF, SENATOR SEAN PARNELL, commented that
the legislation would not be binding to any specific number
of measures set forward, nor would they be carried forward
to the next year. He noted that the missions had been
established and that the legislation should now go forward.
Mr. Vitale pointed out that the first vetoed legislation
had been designed to request the Governor to work with the
Legislature before submitting the budget. He pointed out
that to date, the Legislature has come forward with the
mission measures.
Representative J. Davies noted that on Page 3, Line 20, it
was stated that: "The budget must be accompanied by the
information required under..."; Page 5, Line 27, states
that: "Each agency shall". He elaborated, this language
expects that every agency will develop all missions and
measures and that the Governor "must" submit that
information in the next budget cycle.
Senator Parnell responded that the agencies agree that they
already provide that work and do collaborate on the budget
summary book. He advised that this would not be new work.
Representative J. Davies believed that there is a
difference between what the legislation requires and what
currently is being done. He voiced concern that there is
not enough time allowed for implementation of this
legislation.
Representative Kelly asked how this legislation was
different from that passed two years ago. Senator Parnell
replied that the past legislation focused more on planning
and requiring a five-year long range plan in addition to
performance based budgeting. The proposed legislation
strictly focuses on the result-side, removing the five-year
planning requirement.
JIM BALDWIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
offered the following comments regarding CSSB 76(RLS).
1. Proposed section 37.07.014(a), set out in Section 1 of
the bill, provides that it will be the responsibility of
the Legislature to "issue" a mission statement for each
agency. That description of legislation activity is
ambiguous and should have further clarification. The power
of the Legislature is to set policy through exercise of its
law-making power. That power is exercised by enacting
bills into law. It is not clear from the bill how the
Legislature would establish a mission statement for an
agency.
Mr. Baldwin foresaw disputes arising between the executive
and legislative branches of state government if the
Legislature attempts to establish mission statements as a
rider to a general appropriation bill. According to the
Alaska Constitution, "bills for appropriations shall be
confined to appropriations". Provisions inserted in the
appropriation bills to establish mission statements would
violate the confinement provision.
He continued, to a certain extent, the enabling act for
each agency determines its mission. The Legislature has
plenary power to change enabling acts to direct the
activity of agencies. This is the manner in which the
Legislature sets policy. However, the Legislature departs
from its lawmaking role when it attempts to execute the
law. The establishment of a mission statement represents
an executive responsibility. To the extent that the
Legislature does not agree with a mission statement, the
Legislature would amend the enabling act to either
authorize or prohibit the conduct associated with the
performance of a mission. If general law does not
authorize a mission, the agency's enabling act cannot be
supplemented by something included in an appropriation
bill.
2. Proposed section 37.07.016, implies that the mission
statement will "guide" the governor in his execution of
law. As mentioned above, the binding nature of the
guidance would be questionable if the mission statements
are not enacted in general law. The governor is guided
first by the Alaska Constitution and second by statute in
the exercise of his executive powers.
3. The repeal of AS 37.07.080(g)(2) set out in Section 9
of the bill appears consistent with State v. Fairbanks N.
Star Borough.
Mr. Baldwin recommended checking legislation in other
states and then creating something more cohesive.
JACK FARGNOLI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, questioned how the
legislation would be put in place and made to work. He
agreed that "performance based budgeting" is a good
direction to go in, although, he recommended that it should
be done without putting a burden on an already overstrained
process.
Mr. Fargnoli suggested that the meaning of the word "issue"
in the mission statement could narrow that which is already
established in law. He noted it had been left unsettled in
the bill, pointing out that on Page 4, Line 20 & 26 with
reference to "established". He asked if that was intended
to coincide with the work "issue". If it was the same as
already established in law, it would imply the entirety of
the agency's mission would require a larger body of
information to accompany it. Mr. Fargnoli stressed that
there is a fundamental ambiguity regarding how much
information was being required.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 87, Side 2).
Mr. Fargnoli continued, another issue which falls into the
same category as mechanical problems, would be the concern
with separation of powers. He advised that in reviewing
past history of intent language, it would seem a better
choice to first address the mechanical problems. He agreed
that the intent of the legislation was a good process and
that he did not want to see it fail.
Mr. Fargnoli suggested that the "kinks" could be worked out
if the Legislature does not act too quickly and that
perhaps a working group could be formed to address the
concerns.
Representative J. Davies noted that there was a zero fiscal
note prepared by the Senate Finance Committee. He asked if
the other departments had prepared fiscal notes. Mr.
Fargnoli commented that there were a number of fiscal notes
developed by the departments in the original version of the
bill. When the bill got changed to it's current form,
moving away from the five-year process, the departments
revisited the question of fiscal impact. A subsequent
fiscal note was submitted, accompanied by a memo from the
Director of OMB specifying that the magnitude and
composition of the impacts would depend on how the
legislation was implemented, and that the fiscal impact
would presumably be large, although, impossible to predict.
Representative Grussendorf reiterated that the mechanical
workings of the legislation appeared to be cumbersome and
vague. He pointed out that Page 4, Section 4, would
require quarterly reports specifying the measures. He
addressed the amount of agency energy required to prepare,
analyze and provide the quarterly information. Mr.
Fargnoli acknowledged that there is some degree of budget
development effort which would be supplanted through
current legislation, although, the Administration believes
that the effort required would be substantial.
CS SB 76 (RLS) was HELD for further consideration.
HB 364
HOUSE BILL NO. 364
"An Act requiring nonresident hunters to be
accompanied when hunting moose; and providing for an
effective date."
TELECONFERENCE TESTIMONY ONLY
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
FAIRBANKS, testified in full support for HB 364 which he
felt would help to solve proposed moose hunting problems.
He voiced concern regarding the non-resident moose hunters
orientation program. He recommended that the course be
patterned in a similar manner as the bear-baiting course
provided by the Department of Fish and Game and the
Department of Public Safety. A course like this could help
in identifying the appropriate moose to be taken and then
how to deal with the meat of an animal which weighs over
2,000 pounds.
COL. JOHN GLASS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIVISION
OF WILDLIFE, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, commented that
the Division is in support of the bill and the accompanying
amendment submitted by Representative Ivan. [Copy on
File].
HB 364 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 76
"An Act relating to long-term plans of certain state
agencies and recommendations regarding elimination of
duplication in state agency functions."
Representative Grussendorf requested that a fiscal note be
provided by the Administration before the bill is moved
from Committee.
Senator Parnell noted concern with a statement made by
Assistant Attorney General Baldwin regarding the
legislation trying to manage the executive branch powers,
when in fact the legislation establishes the Governor's
primary duty to carry out the executive power under Article
3 of the Alaska Constitution. The Legislature's role is
merely to set the policy and overall mission. He felt that
the legislation could supplant work required of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), changing the way business
currently is being done. Senator Parnell advised that to
date, OMB has submitted no amendments. He emphasized that
he is open to recommendations to make the legislation more
effective.
Representative Grussendorf asked if it would work for an
agency to submit reports biannually instead of quarterly.
Senator Parnell stated that he would have no problem making
the report due twice a year. He stressed that the key
intention would be to receive some reporting during the
interim, whereas, having only an annual process removes a
large part of the accountability.
Senator Parnell offered to work with member's amendments on
the floor, requesting that the bill keep moving through
Committee. Representative Grussendorf discussed that it
would not be in the best interest of the Committee for the
legislation to pass from the House Finance Committee
without the appropriate fiscal note accompanying it. Co-
Chair Therriault noted that the bill would not be able to
move from Committee at this time without the Minority
member's support.
Representative G. Davis voiced concern with the quantity of
unread reports descending upon the Legislature. He
recommended that the reports be submitted to the
Legislative Finance Division and available upon request to
interested parties.
CS SB 76 (RLS) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 P.M.
H.F.C. 9 4/02/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|