03/29/2001 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2001
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the duration of regular sessions of the legislature
and to a biennial state budget.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to terms of legislators, to meetings of legislative
committees, and to the length of regular sessions of the
legislature.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
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 2
SHORT TITLE:BIENNIAL STATE BUDGET
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MURKOWSKI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0018 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0018 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0018 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0018 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/22/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/29/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 1
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0018 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0018 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0018 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0018 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/28/01 0472 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
03/22/01 0697 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: KERTTULA
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/22/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/29/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: SESSION LIMIT/INTERIM COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HALCRO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0018 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0018 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0019 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0019 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/22/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/29/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0019 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0019 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0019 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0019 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/22/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/29/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Rokeberg, sponsor of HJR 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 408
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, James, Fate, Stevens, Wilson, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order.
HJR 1 -CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
HJR 2 - BIENNIAL STATE BUDGET
HJR 3 - CONST AM: SESSION LIMIT/INTERIM COMMITTE
HJR 5 - CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
[Contains discussion of HJR 1, HJR 2, HJR 3, and HJR 5]
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be the subcommittee report and subsequent actions on four house
joint resolutions [HJR 1, HJR 2, HJR 3, and HJR 5] relating to
the date and time of the legislative session and the biennial
budget.
Number 0122
REPRESENTATIVE FATE presented the report from the subcommittee,
which he had chaired. He noted that there had been a lively
discussion. Representatives Stevens and James were present in
addition to Representatives Crawford and Wilson, who were on the
subcommittee. Also participating were Representatives Murkowski
and Halcro and Representative Halcro's staff. Testimony was
provided by Tamara Cook, Director, Legislative Legal Services.
Representative Fate described the meeting as "tremendously
productive as far as information was concerned."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE then reported that the subcommittee
recommends dividing the four proposals into two questions, one
concerning biennial budgeting and the other concerning session
length. He noted that the division could easily be done by
creating two bills, one for biennial budgeting and the other
changing the length of session to a consensus position of 90
days. Further, he said, the subcommittee discussed whether
those two questions should be addressed as constitutional
amendments or under statutory authority. The subcommittee
suggested full committee discussion of that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that both proposals are do-able by
both mechanisms. Tam Cook had pointed out that the legislature
could always undo what it does under statutory authority. On
the other hand, when something is placed in the constitution,
"you have a fence around it that you can't change," giving that
measure an amount of certainty but less flexibility,
Representative Fate said
Number 0533
CHAIR COGHILL declared that he was separating the two issues,
the biennial budget and the 90-day session limit, as recommended
by the subcommittee. He then asked each bill sponsor to give a
brief position statement addressing the issue of a
constitutional amendment vs. statutory authority with regard to
their own bills, suggesting that the committee hear all of their
positions before beginning discussion.
Number 0675
JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska
State Legislaturecame forward to testify on behalf of
Representative Rokeberg, sponsor of HJR 1. She said
Representative Rokeberg feels more comfortable with a
constitutional amendment because it puts a more stringent
requirement on the 90-day limit. His proposal, HJR 1, includes
provision for a ten-day extension of the legislative session.
Number 0741
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as the sponsor of HJR 2. She emphasized a
point Tam Cook had made, that one can go only so far
statutorily. For example, it would be possible to prepare a
biennial budget, but unless it was embedded in the constitution,
the legislature still would have to vote on that budget
annually. She views a shortened session as an incidental
benefit of a biennial budget, possible only if the legislature
can implement budget considerations in the first year. She is
inclined to try a statutory pilot program for a biennial budget,
involving one or two departments. But she does not think the
length of the session can be shortened until a full biennial
budget process is instituted in the constitution.
Number 0880
CHAIR COGHILL said it was his intent to hold HJR 2 in committee
until she returned with a proposal for some kind of pilot
program that would be more statutorily based, and which he would
be glad to hear.
Number 0911
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thinks a biennial budget is a very
important part of the larger issue of a long-term fiscal plan
for the state. "It is going to be very difficult to do a two-
year budget when we can hardly determine how much money we're
going to have for one," she said. "We have to have some steady
flow of money." She added, "I think piecemealing [a long-term
plan] is not a way to go."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the legislature's original
constitutional amendment on the Permanent Fund, while making the
Permanent Fund permanent, put the earnings of the Permanent Fund
into a separate, accessible account called the Earnings Reserve.
Money in the Earnings Reserve can be put into the general fund
or spent as determined by the legislature. There now is enough
money in the earnings reserve and the constitutional budget
reserve to fund a two-year budget. "This is the only way that I
can see we could ever get enough money in the near future to do
a biennial budget," she said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Murkowski that a
constitutional amendment is needed.
Number 1092
CHAIR COGHILL said he would keep HJR 2 in committee for
continuing discussion. He noted that it "certainly sets a
direction," but thinks it would be wise to take the next step
statutorily.
Number 1134
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS added that he appreciated what
Representative Murkowski had said about a pilot project. He
wanted to hear more of her thoughts about phasing in a biennial
budget over five or six years.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she plans to consult with the
Office of Management and Budget about where to start and how to
accomplish a phase-in. She asked permission to report back to
the committee on that in the near future.
CHAIR COGHILL said that would be fine, and that HJR 2 could be
used as a framework for that discussion.
Number 1231
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as the sponsor of HJR 3. He expressed
preference for a constitutional amendment to establish the
structure for a 90-day session because that would eliminate the
existing option to stretch the session length.
Constitutionally, it now is possible to have a 90-day session
and to work on a two-year budget, and he urged that the
legislature do so voluntarily. Holding interim committee
meetings, as proposed in HJR 3, also is possible now. Doing so
would require a simple adjustment to the Uniform Rules, which
does not require constitutional amendment. He closed by
pointing out that today is the 80th day of the session and there
is nothing on the calendar but citations.
Number 1363
CHAIR COGHILL recommended using HJR 1 as the vehicle for
movement of the 90-day issue because HJR 1 deals simply and
primarily with the length of the session and limits the length
through a constitutional amendment. He thought an amendment
would preclude convoluted discussions every legislative session
about that session's length.
Number 1466
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that HB 3 envisioned that the
interim would be much more active. In the subcommittee
discussion, the question arose about potential difficulties of
all members' participation. Representative Fate viewed that as
a "huge consideration" if the session is shortened. He
recommended against embedding the 90-day limit in the
constitution before it had been tried. The statutory authority
gives more flexibility if things don't work, and he thinks the
idea of a pilot program has real merit.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Representative Fate if he had in mind going
ahead and getting a statutory provision through both bodies of
the legislature to see if a session could be conducted in 90
days.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the suggestion came up in the
subcommittee that the legislature try pilot programs under
statutory authority on both biennial budgeting and the 90-day
session. However, as Representative James suggested, "this
whole thing may have a lot to do with the fiscal policies that
come out of the so-called caucus and whether or not we have a
long-range fiscal policy," he said.
Number 1631
CHAIR COGHILL stated that he was dividing the question because
he thought it would be wisest to drop the subject of the
biennial budget for the time being and focus on the 90-day
issue. He said he was going to entertain the idea of statutory
authority, but cautioned, "We have four caucuses, two bodies,
and a lot of different opinions as to how that might happen," He
thought that proposal of a 90-day session pilot project would
probably bring the discussion to the forefront.
Number 1701
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented, "This may be only the 90th
working day and there might not be ... [anything on the floor of
the session] except citations, but all of the committees are
very actively working very hard, and so we have to look at not
just what's happening in session but what's happening behind the
scenes."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thinks there are not enough
committee meetings. Many bills have only one committee of
referral. Although the minutes are available on the record and
once can listen to testimony on Gavel-to-Gavel, "there's not
enough hours in the day for each one of us to know what's
happening all over the place," she said. She prefers more
committee meetings so that more people, including the public,
can participate. She emphasized, "I think that whatever we do,
... the goal is to do a better job of what we're doing...,
involve the public more, [and] have a more successful outcome.
If that takes more or less time, that is a different issue. The
outcome is what we want."
Number 1828
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said:
I couldn't agree with Representative James' last
statement more.... I want to see us do the best job
that we can and I don't know that we'll be able to
give the bills that come before us the proper study
and the proper thought that we should if we cut
...[the session] down to 90 days. I'd like to see us
shorten it. I'd like to see that we were doing more
substantive work on the 80th day. But I have ... some
real qualms about embedding this into the constitution
without having seen that it can work. I'd like to
give it a try through statute to see if 90 days really
is an improvement over what we do today.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS spoke in opposition to making a
constitutional change because that would not allow "any wiggle
room." If it turns out that 90 days is not enough time, it is
going to be virtually impossible to go back and change a
constitutional amendment. He would prefer to reduce the length
of the session by statute and thereby retain the option of
expanding the time if needed.
CHAIR COGHILL urged caution. He pointed out that the
legislature has to have enough time to go through a discovery
process with the administration to be updated on what is going
on in state government and to allow the public to participate in
the discussion. He expressed concern about shortening to 90
days the amount of time the public could visit the legislature.
Another dynamic that needs to be considered is the interaction
between the House and the Senate after each has gone through its
budget process, he said.
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES recalled the difficulty the legislature had
when it tried to complete its business in fewer days last year.
He opposed shortening the session either constitutionally or
statutorily because leadership already has the authority to end
the session in 90 days, and he does not want to see the
legislature shorten the session and then find that it is not
possible to get the work done in that time.
CHAIR COGHILL said it is a significant thing to shorten the
session by 30 days. Referring to Representative Halcro's idea
of holding committee meetings during the interim, he said he had
encountered difficulty in attempting to schedule committee work
between the time of election and the beginning of session
because committee assignments were in the process of being
finalized, legislators were busy getting personal business in
order so they could get away for the session, and it was the
holiday season.
Number 2283
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO recalled that the majority caucus had
organized and committee assignments were made within 72 hours
after the election. However, he acknowledged Chair Coghill's
concerns and said he is starting to think "a constitutional
amendment right out of the chute isn't the way to go." He
expressed hope that leadership of both bodies would be willing
to experiment, to put forth a concerted effort to see if the
work could be accomplished in 90 days. That would retain the
flexibility to go to 120 days if necessary. Also, he noted,
there have been several times in recent years when the
legislature has gone into special session beyond 120 days.
Number 2439
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Representative Halcro if he had
thought about the process by which bills could go to committees
before first being read across the floor and how those bills
could move from committee to committee without the required
reading in between.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he envisioned legislators being sworn
into office in December and committees meeting in the first 30
days to address pre-filed bills. There would be no movement of
bills from one committee to the next, "but you would at least
get a jump start on addressing those pieces of legislation that
are already in your committee."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it is possible to do that now. She
asked if he envisioned legislators coming to the capitol and
opening session in December to swear in all members and have the
first reading of pre-filed bills, then taking a recess and
reconvening the next year.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he did not think they would need to
come to the capitol to be sworn in the second Monday in
December.
CHAIR COGHILL said he thought the Senate had not organized until
the day they gaveled in, and that there can be a lot of
political dynamics associated with that organization in either
house.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO did not think the entire body would need
to assemble in one place, but could hold regional swearing-in
ceremonies. He thought legislators could simply move into their
home district offices and begin work there. Committee chairmen
could schedule meetings by teleconference between then and mid-
February, when the session would convene in the capital and "we
could hit the ground running."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed appreciation for Representative
Halcro's enthusiasm, saying it reminds her of when she first
came to the legislature nine years ago. "I came here as an
accountant and tax preparer and thought I really knew a lot
about organization and management skills, and I had all these
big ...[things] that I was going to do when I got down here; and
halfway through the session, I found out if I wanted to do all
those things, I'd have to be governor."
Number 2705
REPRESENTATIVE FATE suggested trying a pilot program under a
statute with a sunset date, which would allow the option of
either extending the sunset or allowing the legislation to
expire. He noted that legislative leadership is an avenue that
has not been explored, and that the leadership of both bodies
will have to concur in the desire to shorten the session. "And
to that end, if ... [those who want] the session shortened went
to the leadership and had a good discussion on this thing at
length, it might bear the fruits that we're all trying to
achieve here," he said. "But as it stands now, Mr. Chairman,
it's kind of like deadlock."
Number 2831
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES recalled several attempts to shorten the
session in recent years. "I think work with leadership is the
way to go, but I think you're going to have a very hard time
getting to 90 days," he said.
Number 2866
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that the discussion had brought up
several things she had not thought about. One was how the
public could take part if committees were meeting all over the
state without Gavel-to-Gavel television coverage. Another was
the difficulty of freshmen legislators getting settled in.
Number 2923
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed appreciation for Representative
Halcro's "thinking outside the box" and stimulating serious
consideration of changes. He expressed concern about group
dynamics if committees met by teleconference, especially if the
committee had not previously met face to face.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said unless legislators continue to
discuss these issues and involve the public in doing so, "We're
going to allow the public [via the initiative process] to make
decisions that we really should be ... making."
CHAIR COGHILL noted, "We're always examining the structure of
our government, and I think that's wise." He said there still
is question about whether 90 days is a good number. He
emphasized that the deliberative process within committees is
very important, as is including the public in the discussion.
He proposed holding committee meetings to hear constituents on
the 90-day issue during the interim. He also noted the
importance of being able to call on legal counsel for the kind
of information provided to the subcommittee, and cautioned that
doing so outside the session "could be problematic."
Number 2765
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she had no problem with bringing these
issues forward and having this discussion. "My ears are open,
but so's my mouth," she said. She emphasized that the real
activities of the legislature are accomplished through the
deliberative process in the committees, where the public can
chime in. She reiterated that anything the legislature does
must improve the public process, not necessarily shorten its
time.
Number 2660
REPRESENTATIVE FATE expressed appreciation for help provided to
the subcommittee by Rynnieva Moss, Staff to Chair Coghill, and
for the valuable contributions of all involved.
CHAIR COGHILL declared that the committee would hold over the
90-day issue for further discussion. [HJR 1, HJR 2, HJR 3, and
HJR 5 were Heard and Held].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:04
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|