10/29/2003 05:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
October 29, 2003
5:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm (via teleconference)
Representative Dan Ogg (via teleconference)
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Beverly Masek (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation limit and a spending limit.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 9
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/03 0102 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/03 0102 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
02/11/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/03 0687 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
04/04/03 0797 (H) W&M REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE STA
04/09/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
04/09/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/17/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
04/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/24/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/29/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/30/03 (H) W&M AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
04/30/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/30/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
05/02/03 1271 (H) W&M RPT CS(W&M) NT 3DP 2NR
2AM
05/02/03 1271 (H) DP: HEINZE, WHITAKER, HAWKER;
05/02/03 1271 (H) NR: MOSES, GRUENBERG; AM:
KOHRING,
05/02/03 1271 (H) WILSON
05/02/03 1271 (H) FN1: (GOV)
05/02/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
05/02/03 (H) Moved CSHJR 9(W&M) Out of
Committee
05/02/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
05/06/03 (H) JUD AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/06/03 (H) <Pending Referral> -- Meeting
Canceled --
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Meeting Canceled --
05/07/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed> --
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/08/03 1465 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 3NR
05/08/03 1465 (H) DP: SEATON, LYNN, DAHLSTROM;
05/08/03 1465 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, HOLM,
WEYHRAUCH
05/08/03 1466 (H) FN1: (GOV)
05/08/03 1466 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
05/08/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/08/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed> --
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/08/03 (H) Moved CSHJR 9(STA) Out of
Committee
05/08/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/09/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/09/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/09/03 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/12/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/12/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
Wed. 5/14/03>
05/14/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/14/03 (H) Heard & Held Meeting
05/14/03 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/15/03 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 120
05/15/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
10/29/03 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM Anch LIO
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SAMUELS, ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0025 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0025 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/17/03 0566 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
03/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/19/03 0593 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HOLM, ANDERSON,
MEYER,
03/19/03 0593 (H) MCGUIRE
04/24/03 1110 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/30/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/30/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
05/02/03>
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/01/03 (H) Moved CSHJR 4(STA) Out of
Committee
05/01/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/02/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/02/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard <Mtg
Postponed to 4:00 PM>
05/05/03 1307 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 1DNP
2NR
05/05/03 1307 (H) DP: HOLM, LYNN, DAHLSTROM,
WEYHRAUCH;
05/05/03 1307 (H) DNP: BERKOWITZ; NR: SEATON,
GRUENBERG
05/05/03 1308 (H) FN1: (LEG)
05/05/03 1308 (H) FN2: (GOV)
05/05/03 1308 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
05/05/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/06/03 (H) JUD AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/06/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/07/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
05/08/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/08/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
05/09/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/12/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/12/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
05/13/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/13/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/14/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/14/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/15/03 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 120
05/15/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
10/29/03 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM Anch LIO
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, presented HJR 9.
RONALD JORDAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearings on HJR 9 and HJR 4,
expressed concern about special sessions and spoke in favor of a
cap and 90-day sessions if they accomplish what a 120-day
session can.
SARA NIELSEN, Staff
to Representative Ralph Samuels
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HJR 4, offered a point of
clarification.
HUGH BROWN III
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HJR 4 and
suggested a wait-and-see approach.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-73, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Holm (via teleconference), Ogg (via
teleconference), Samuels, Gara, and Gruenberg were present at
the call to order. Other legislators present were
Representatives Weyhrauch, Hawker, and Masek (via
teleconference).
HJR 9-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
[Contains discussion pertaining to HJR 4]
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation
limit and a spending limit.
Number 019
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HJR 9, noted that there have been several
meetings already held. This bill is a tool to address the
fiscal issues facing the state, and today is the time to hear
from the public.
Number 039
CHAIR McGUIRE opened up public testimony.
Number 045
RONALD JORDAN, representing himself, noted that he has lived
here 40 years. He said, "If a 90-day session can accomplish the
same thing in 120 days without being called back into special
session like previous governors have done, I'm all for it. I am
all for [the constitutional spending limit]. Let's put a cap on
it."
CHAIR McGUIRE temporarily set aside HJR 9.
HJR 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
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 081
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt CSHJR 4(STA).
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated it was adopted.
Number 086
RONALD JORDAN, representing himself, stated concern about
special sessions. He feels that not enough production occurs in
the first session and that the cost and what is accomplished is
of concern to him. Current communication systems can allow
legislators to participate while staying in their own areas of
the state. He said he is in favor of 90-day sessions.
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed concern with the rule that allows
people to file a bill with only 24 hours' notice to the public.
These bills then move quite quickly through the process. Before
that rule applies, the public must be given five days' to a
week's notice. If there is a 90-day session, then a higher
percentage of the legislation would be debated under this 24-
hour rule. Could a provision that the public will always be
given at least 5 days notice be added?
MR. JORDAN replied that he doesn't pay attention to bills that
don't interest him, regardless of the amount of notice.
Number 156
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that there would be statutory
changes that need to be addressed before passage of this
resolution and that the details would have to be fleshed out,
but not constitutionally. He explained:
You are going to save money. I think you're going to
give more people an opportunity to serve as
legislators. That's probably the key. ... It would
increase the pool of people willing to make these
sacrifices to go to Juneau and serve their community.
We have a lot of us because we have special
circumstances. I think you'd increase the pool, you'd
save some money, and quite frankly, we can do it in 90
days. I have no doubt about that.
Number 192
CHAIR McGUIRE questioned what the initiative [1984] that changed
it to 120 days looked like.
Number 195
SARA NIELSEN, Staff to Representative Ralph Samuels, Alaska
State Legislature, noted that the initiative was general,
leaving the details up to the uniform rules in the legislature.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that it takes additional time for
a new legislature to move in during an election year. He'd
reviewed the minutes from the Constitutional Convention to look
at the thinking behind the legislation, he said; they did not
put a limit on it. He offered a quotation from the
Constitutional Convention: "In the first years of the
legislature your session may go three or four months a year but
in subsequent sessions you may have as low as 30 day sessions."
Representative Samuels noted that Utah, for example, has a 20-
day session.
Number 233
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the cost would be close to $1 million
with per diem and staffing.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed this is accurate and possibly
higher.
Number 238
CHAIR MCGUIRE noted that Representative Weyhrauch had joined the
meeting and Representative Masek had newly joined via
teleconference.
Number 242
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM questioned the lack of fiscal notes and
requested clarification that the cost is $1 million a year or
thereabouts from 2006 and beyond.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS replied, "Yes, that's correct."
Number 257
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ added that the original legislature was
faced with a gravely ill governor. The legislature historically
has dropped the number of days actually in session from the low
70s to as low as 55 percent in the 17th legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH stated that the executive branch was
designed to be the stronger branch compared with the legislative
branch. He finds that the only time the legislature has real
power is during the session. The less time it has in session,
the less time it has to exert power to effect change. He has
found it frustrating in the interim because the executive branch
is unresponsive. He wonders if having only a 90-day session
would tip the balance of power to the executive branch, causing
the people to suffer.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed that this bill would give more
power to the executive branch. The positive outcome, however,
is that more constituents would be able to participate. The
basic question is whether or not the job can be done in 90 days,
and he feels they would all admit that it could. Historically,
120 days is an arbitrary number. For example, the session prior
to 120 days was 160 days. In California the legislature is
full-time and paid accordingly. Representative Samuels said he
does not feel this is good for the state.
Number 330
REPRESENTATIVE GARA voiced concern that a 90-day session would
not attract more people to work in Juneau, since it's difficult
to take 90 days off, let alone 120, from a job. He described
his job as "120 days, then 8 months where you go back to see
your constituents, then 120 days, and then 8 months or 6 months
where you have to campaign for the next time." He added, "Most
people can't do it, and it's not going to make a difference
whether it's a 90-day session or 120-day session." Moving the
capital to Anchorage might make a difference, he suggested.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA addressed the point of regulating hearings
by statute rather than constitutionally. The people in power
want to get their legislation through and gravitate towards
giving the public less notice and less opportunity to have input
when a bill is to be heard. He argued that fair notice needs to
be built in to the constitution. Because of the 24-hour rule,
he believes "some very ugly legislation gets passed." He
remarked, "We might save $1 million in travel costs, but we
might lose $50 million in oil taxes if we give away something
that the oil industry potentially wants at the last minute. So
it might cost the state much more money, and I would like to see
guaranteed public notice and public access in the constitution."
He recognized the importance of having an emergency provision to
waive the public notice bill. He continued:
I would support the concept of hearings in all the
major towns in Alaska during the 30 days before a 90-
day session and that the legislators kept their
offices open full-time during those 30 days so they
could educate themselves [about upcoming legislation
and constituents' needs]. Without a guarantee like
that, I worry we cut it down to 90 days, we become
less educated, the less educated and involved we are
the more powerful the executive branch is, the more
powerful the lobbyists are who are educating
themselves all year, the easier it is for them to pull
the wool over our eyes. And I think without some
safeguard that says we have to work outside the 90-day
session, some safeguard that says we have to provide
for meaningful public input outside the legislative
session, without protections like that I worry that
the 90-day session will just make us less effective
and less responsive to the public. I think that those
concerns could be resolved with amendments in this
bill, many of them anyway. But without them, I guess
I'm a little worried.
Number 393
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM responded that he thinks there's a great
difference between 120- and 90-day sessions, especially for
those involved in private enterprise. He also noted that the
mechanism is already at hand to allow committees to meet outside
of the legislative session and discuss problems. He said he
isn't concerned that legislative power will be diminished.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the quality of debate had
changed for the better in this meeting from previous debates
about this resolution. If the main problem is to attract more
people to the legislature, then this is not the best way to do
it. In business, people are attracted by being offered more
money. Legislators don't want to do this because the public
does not want to spend more money on the legislature. Instead,
[this resolution] asks the public to give the legislators more
vacation and fewer workdays, less work for the same amount of
money, and this will attract more people. He said he feels this
is illogical and poor public policy.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said with regard to the balance-of-
power issue that Alaska has a strong executive branch, since it
only has two elected officials, the governor and the lieutenant
governor, and that it is also important to have a strong
legislature. He said he supports giving the legislature some
additional weight, but has no specific recommendations.
Number 485
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that a pay cut occurs because there
would be less per diem with a 90-day session. The seasonal
aspect of the legislature supports a 90-day session. A January,
February, and March session fits well with many jobs in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG discussed instituting a system of
clerkships - as the supreme court has - to attract the best and
brightest. Legislative clerkships would pay off in the next
generation, he suggested.
Number 532
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that this runs counter to the
expertise brought to the legislature by several of the members
present. He remarked, "If you are in government all the time,
then that's what you know. In the judiciary it's a little bit
different. That's all you really need to know."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG countered with the comment, "No, it's
different. You become a clerk, then you go into practice, and
then sometime later you become the judge. It's not one right
after the other."
Number 574
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, who co-sponsored this bill, said he did
so not because of the recruitment aspect, but to lessen the days
of the session to increase efficiency. People are forced to
attend meetings, take fewer trips, and reduce wasteful bills.
In a 90-day session, legislators would be zealous in their
support and pass fewer bills, he suggested.
TAPE 03-73, SIDE B
Number 002
Representative Anderson said this is a citizen legislature, and
efficiency and accountability in the shortest amount of time
comprise the reasons he supports this bill. He commented that
many states have fewer than 100-day sessions.
Number 011
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ pointed out that the reason this bill
finally made it to the ballot is that it was tied to a pay raise
increasing the base salary for the legislature of up to $46,000.
He mentioned a repeal of the pay raise and said many opponents
of the original session limit bill of 120 days rethought their
decision to oppose. He noted that he has never heard of anyone
regretting the limit.
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to his point that attracting
good people to the legislature is key. Part of the legacy that
the legislature can leave is people who choose to go into
municipal assemblies, go to law school, and enter public life -
"getting people involved who care about humanity." He noted
that raising money to run for office is discouraging and that
the image of the legislature with regard to campaign reform is
sometimes negative. He emphasized that it's important to make
it easier for citizens to run for office.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he'd spoken with members of other
state legislatures who have shorter sessions about how it works
and that the response was positive. Utah has a 20-day
legislature every other year. He offered his understanding that
there is an increase in participation in these legislatures.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he was playing the devil's advocate
when he brought up the example of Representative Meyer, who
would probably have been dissuaded to run because of family
concerns. He would have wanted his wife and children to attend
with him, Representative Anderson surmised, and if the session
ended in April, what would the family do for schooling at the
end of the school year? This bill dissuades citizens from
running if they want their family with them in Juneau, he said.
Number 085
CHAIR McGUIRE set aside HJR 4 with the comment, "We'll continue
to look at this." She listed cost, quality of life, and quality
of the government as focus points for future thinking. [Further
public testimony was taken later in the meeting.]
HJR 9-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
Number 093
CHAIR McGUIRE returned attention to HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
NO. 9, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to an appropriation limit and a spending limit.
CHAIR McGUIRE explained that HJR 9 is a potential component in a
fiscal policy. Saying there would be no further public
testimony on it, she asked for any further thoughts, noting that
this resolution would be brought back up in January. She
advised that there are many people who are skeptical about
accepting use of the permanent fund without some guarantee of
fiscal discipline on the part of the legislature. Can the
legislature be self-disciplined, or do they need a law to
provide discipline? "It's similar to the 90-day session bill in
that should we want to end in 90 days we can at any point in
time," she said. "There is certainly no constitutional
requirement that we go 120 days, and yet we seem to."
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ mentioned that the bill must be practical
and work. There's a constitutional spending limit right now.
He said he sees it as flawed, but the spending is well within
this limit. Saying he anticipates the need for technical
answers, he told members that constitutional amendments are
serious business and that the process is fluid.
CHAIR McGUIRE proposed using a case scenario to clarify the
process.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER commended Representative Stoltz for his
efforts at "crafting a truly extraordinarily difficult bill to
put to language." He said he believes in some form of a
constitutional spending limit as the cornerstone of a long-term
fiscal policy for the state. He remarked:
We've been through periods here of just having
unbridled income, and we've obviously seen our ability
to spend it as equally unbridled and, frankly, as a
result of that, my experience around the state,
particularly this summer doing the [House Special
Committee on Ways and Means] community meetings, that
we as a legislature lack credibility with the public
in their belief that we actually have any inclination
towards fiscal discipline and spending restraint.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he feels that the crafting and
language difficulties can be overcome. He told members:
Care must be taken not to create a monster that
either, frankly, serves no functional purpose, as our
current spending limit, or threatens our ability to
grow and expand the economy in this state - very, very
difficult, but this bill is a political necessity if
we are to look at creating a larger fiscal plan.
Many of us might like to believe that the community
would trust those of us who are elected officials to
make the right decisions as we encounter specific
circumstances unique to each legislative session. The
practical necessity is, we do not enjoy that
credibility with the public. And this bill is vital
to beginning to establish that credibility as we go
forward with some larger fiscal planning.
Number 182
REPRESENTATIVE GARA recalled having debate about this bill in
April or May and that he'd expressed concerns then. He said his
present major concern is the failure of the state's recent
federal review of [Alaska's] child protective system. He
continued:
The administration has said that of the ones that cost
money, we're not going to adopt any changes because we
haven't any money. And then I wonder, if we lock in
next year's spending at this year's spending level -
and the way that this actually works is that spending
has to fall behind inflation, probably, - I wonder if
that will always be the answer, that we just don't
have the money to address the problems in our child
protection system, the real problems that send more
foster children to jail than we send to college.
Certainly, I think that everyone at this table would
agree to a spending cap where if you move forward to a
point where you've solved your problems and you feel
like you have a fair budget, I think people would
agree to a spending cap from there. The question is,
do we institutionalize the poverty and failure that we
have in sections of our community like the children
who are so much in need, the foster children, the
abused children, the children in institutions who
right now we are saying we are not going to help to
the extent that it costs extra money over last year.
Do we lock in that problem?
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Representative Stoltz, "Can you
explain for us the mechanics of the existing spending cap that
we have on the books right now and what it is and why it doesn't
work?"
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ responded that the bill started at the
time the state was spending $15,000 per capita, a high
percentage of spending due to the high quantity of oil. This
was a faulty premise as to what a sustainable amount should be.
A convoluted political situation created it during a special
session, and then-Governor Hammond vetoed the capital project.
Representative Stoltz said, "It was an imperfect process that
yielded an imperfect type of constitutional amendment. When you
index things, there's always a danger of what the escalation is
going to be. In short, it has never been taken seriously as a
spending limit because we were always underneath it."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that the budget right now is about
$6 billion, but only $2 billion of that is general fund money,
with the rest spent on the dividend and coming from federal
money and other fund money. The old cap was $2.5 billion of
general fund money, with adjustment for population growth and
inflation. He asked Representative Stoltz what the state is
allowed to spend today under the spending cap.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ replied that the number is $6.4 billion
and that "we are now meeting our constitutional mandate."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that with passage of the capital
budget, HB 100, several provisions were designed to eliminate
the need for the minority's votes, and this was accomplished by
changing effective dates. These dates when certain
appropriations were made triggered the mechanism for the three-
quarters vote (indisc.) allegedly was avoided. He said he
thinks that was unconstitutional and that the present resolution
may contain the same defect. He then referred to [subsection
(b), page 2] and said:
It says that an appropriation that exceeds the limit
under (a) of this section may be made for any public
purpose upon affirmative vote of at least three-
quarters of the members of each house of the
legislature. I'm sort of talking myself out of my own
argument here. It's exactly the opposite of the other
thing, so I'm going to withdraw my comment.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Stoltz what the definition of
"public purpose" is, after referring to section (b).
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ noted, "It would have to fall within the
constitutional boundaries of what an appropriation be allowed to
be made for."
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG wondered:
If there could be no circumstance under which this
could be eliminated with less than a three-quarter
vote of the legislature, in other words, only certain
types of expenditures can be made with a three-quarter
vote in violation of subsection (a). But under no
circumstance could you get around the limit in
subsection (a) with less than a three-quarter vote.
Am I correct in that interpretation?
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to page 1, Section 1, of the bill, which
would amend Section 16 [of Article IX] of the state
constitution. She pointed out that it outlines a series of nine
exemptions, including an appropriation to meet a state of
disaster as declared by the governor and an appropriation to the
Alaska permanent fund. This subsection does not apply to these
exemptions, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated:
This is something that creative legislators and people
who want to bust the cap will study for years,
decades, maybe longer, so that what we have to do, if
we are going to pass this thing in its present form,
is see how a tricky, clever, conniving budget analyst
could come up with a way, with or without a friendly
lawyer, of getting around this. That's where the
game's going to be played, I'm afraid.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she wanted to clarify that Representative
Hawker echoed her prior comment. She said:
There's a certain amount of pressure that's being put
on this committee from other members of the
legislature. We all have a responsibility in our
different committees, and we all serve at the will of
our various caucuses. I'd like us to be prepared over
the interim to focus on this particular resolution in
some detail when we get back, and I'd like to do it
early on so that we can be efficient and end in 90
days, but really so that we can get going on it before
the budget and some of those other things come down.
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated for the record that he urges a
deliberative process because this is a constitutional amendment
and he is not applying any pressure.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posed a question to Representative Stoltz:
The way this spending cap is written - and the devil
is always in the details - the amount of spending can
only go up, on average, 1 percent a year, even if
inflation is 3 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent. Or,
back in the eighties when it was 10 percent, the
amount can only go up 1 percent a year unless you've
got three-fourths of both houses to agree, which would
very rarely ever happen.
So the way this one is designed, the amount of
spending for our schools, for child protection
services, will go down every year. And I look at
schools, for example, and the school funding has gone
down, in comparison with inflation, by about 5 percent
over the last six years, and it went down another $10
million last year. And I'm wondering if this just
requires that we keep spending less in real dollars on
our schools if we adopt this. The amount of spending
has to essentially to go up at a lower rate than the
rate of inflation provision, and you can't even take
into account new population increases. I'm wondering,
do you believe that this will have a detrimental
effect on our schools, or is there a way around that
that is fair?
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ responded that he's not against schools;
this legislation forces prioritization. He noted that during
the economic downturn of the 1980s, education was not cut
because the legislature prioritized a definition of full funding
of education. They cut employees, but education was not reduced
and, in fact, in his recollection, there was an increase.
CHAIR McGUIRE promoted using scenarios for clarification. She
closed public testimony on HJR 9 and set it aside until January.
[HJR 9 was held over.]
HJR 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
CHAIR McGUIRE reopened public testimony on 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 420
HUGH BROWN III testified as follows:
I appreciate your efforts to cut the session. Some
states have a shorter session than ours. They seem to
get their work done, and I think by cutting the
session it would save some money. I do have some
concerns about it. The public process may be hurt.
When I go to Juneau, I talk to legislators and, it is
a short window to do that. I work full-time, so I
just think that maybe we should hold off on that for a
little while, maybe talk it over a little while, and
see what the session will look like in 90 days.
As we propose things in the community to supplement
what agencies are doing, whether it's helping children
and education, we need to be able to access the
legislators to make this happen. That's really all I
have to say. I'm not really opposed to it, but I
think we should wait and take a wait-and-see look at
it.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON stated that he was pleased and honored
that Mr. Brown had come before the committee to testify. Prior
to this time, the turnout for testimony had been poor, he
recalled.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, to be fair, in Kodiak the turnout
for testimony was good.
MR. BROWN noted that when he was in Juneau and observing the
legislative process, he began to appreciate the process and the
decision-making. He said he encourages his friends to
participate and thinks the session would better serve this goal
if it were not set at 90 days. [HJR 4 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|