Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/21/2000 01:37 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
January 21, 2000
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator John Torgerson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to revisions of the state constitution and providing that
a court may not change language of a proposed constitutional
amendment or revision.
-MOVED SJR 27 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the appropriation limit.
-MOVED SJR 28 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to terms of legislators and to the time of convening and
length of regular sessions of the legislature.
-MOVED SJR 29 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 27 - No previous action.
SJR 28 - See Judiciary Committee minutes dated 5/23/99 and
5/24/99.
SJR 29 - No previous action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Sean Parnell
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 29
Mr. Rick Urion
319 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 29
Mr. Scott Calder
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 29
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-1, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:37 p.m. and brought up SJR 27 as the first order of
business.
SJR 27-CONST. AM: REVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION
SENATOR DONLEY explained that SJR 27 is an attempt to return the
meaning of the state constitution to what it was before the Supreme
Court ruled in Bess vs Ulmer. Bess vs Ulmer brought a challenge
against three proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot.
The court argued because the amendments were presented as a package
and because they caused such significant changes, they constituted
a "revision" and not an amendment. There had never been a
definition of "revision," and Bess vs Ulmer made the distinction by
saying a "revision," as defined by the court, cannot be proposed to
the people through the amendment process. Therefore, the people
of Alaska cannot amend their own constitution. The Alaska
Constitution placed the power to create the wording for a
constitutional amendment with the elected legislature. No where
does it imply that the Supreme Court should be able to manipulate
the wording of a proposition put before the people. The court
struck one sentence of one of the proposed amendments, causing the
entire balance to disappear from the constitution. This subject
was not briefed, it was not well studied, and there was no
precedent presented. This decision calls into question past
amendments that have been approved. Senator Donley sees no way
that people can defend the right to privacy, as amended into the
constitution--under the court's criteria. Future proposals would
also be impacted because of the decision. The decision gives the
courts tremendous leeway and vague authority over the people of
Alaska, rather than the people having control over the system. SJR
27 would restore the people's constitutional right to amend their
own constitution.
Number 780
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR echoed Senator Donley's concerns and agreed the
legislation was worthwhile.
SENATOR DONLEY moved SJR 27 out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
SJR 28-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION LIMIT
SENATOR DONLEY stated that in article 9, section 16, of the
constitution, an appropriation limit, that applies to the operation
of government, has never worked because the initial dollar amount
was high--$2.5 billion in 1981. The constitution also includes a
provision for an escalator clause to raise the limit based on
population and inflation. That calculation would equal a limit in
excess of $6 billion today. There are several reasons for changing
the existing appropriation limit. First, the lay person cannot
understand the reading in the constitution. Second, it has never
worked, and third, it would be a useful tool in reducing or
restraining state spending. SJR 28 proposes to change and simplify
the existing appropriation limit so it would be more effective and
could be understood by the average person.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern about what would be an
appropriate number to allow for emergencies, expansions, the
population base, etc.
SENATOR TORGERSON acknowledged he would recommend a do pass, but
the proposal must hold restraints on spending.
Number 1080
SENATOR DONLEY stated there were hearings last summer in an attempt
to establish a spreadsheet, so the problem could be better
identified.
One proposed change added a section that mandatorily brings the
matter up for consideration in the year 2010. If the voters do not
re-approve the resolution in 2010, the matter will go away. This
would be an automatic "sunset" vote.
SENATOR TORGERSON commented that "sunsets" are not put into the
constitution, they are done through temporary law.
SENATOR DONLEY agreed.
Number 1315
SENATOR DONLEY stated if the legislature appropriated more money
than was allowed or there was a miscalculation, clear guidelines
are provided for the Governor to correct the problem. It would be
the duty of the Governor to reduce expenditures of each state
department, equally, to meet the limit.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there is a limit on the Governor's
authority to spend.
SENATOR TORGERSON said it sounds like SJR 28 changes authority from
the legislative branch to the administrative branch. He questioned
whether the Governor should call a special session for the
legislature to handle the budget--the constitution does not give
the Governor the right to manipulate the budget.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that different governors have handled
this situation differently and the issue should be clarified in
the constitution.
SENATOR DONLEY said the status of the Alaska railroad was also a
concern. He asked whether the railroad is within or outside the
appropriation limit. Committee members felt that language for the
railroad and other trusts needed to be clarified.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the deletion of the trust language impacts
fish and game and tobacco revenues.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that legislative finance has done an
analysis on which funds were affected and the total amounts.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked for the analysis.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that the totals in the original bill are
affected by the definition of general fund. With the language of
the CS, the general fund expenditure for last year was a little
over $2.9 billion. He suggested the following solutions: expand
the dollar amount, change the year or limit the growth calculation.
Number 1776
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern that if a spending limitation was
forced on state government, the only way to maintain that
limitation would be to shift costs and services to communities
that could afford them. If the spending limitation was too
arbitrary, there would be no effect, or too much of an effect.
SENATOR DONLEY asked for some guidance from the committee in
crafting the committee substitute. One problem of using a new base
number is that the public will perceive a dollar amount increase
so updating the base year to 2001 may be preferable.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated he was not comfortable in giving a
recommendation at this time, but the consensus was that a special
session may be needed. The bill meets the judicial purview by
adhering to legal requirements and Chairman Taylor would defer to
the Finance Committee because the specific wording would depend on
the numbers coming from that committee.
SENATOR DONLEY moved SJR 28 from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objection, the bill moved from committee.
SJR 29-DURATION OF REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Number 2131
SENATOR PARNELL stated that SJR 29 would place a constitutional
amendment on the 2000 ballot limiting the Alaska legislature to
annual sessions of 75 days, beginning on the fourth Monday of
February. A shorter session would save the state at least $1.2
million. This legislation would help foster a citizen legislature
and help legislators to focus their priorities. 32 states now have
session limits shorter than 120 days and 22 states have session
limits shorter than 75 days.
SENATOR TORGERSON was not sure a constitutional amendment was
necessary.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR responded he had proposed a 90 day limit several
years ago by statute, but existing constitutional limitations would
override and he felt an amendment may be necessary. Also, the
Chairman felt this legislation would enhance a greater involvement
from citizen legislators.
SENATOR TORGERSON felt the legislation was workable, but because
the proposed budget is published December 15, work should start
sometime in January. Work on the budget is difficult to accomplish
within the time limit now.
Tape 00-1, Side B
SENATOR PARNELL asked the committee if 75 days seemed workable.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR responded that certain members in the legislature,
especially finance committee members, would need more time. He
would have left the starting date in January and ended the session
earlier, because winter is when people have more time off. A
January start date would also keep the session closer to the budget
cycle.
SENATOR PARNELL responded he had considered this option but had
based his calender on oil revenues.
SENATOR PARNELL requested that the committee move SJR 29 with his
amendment of 75 consecutive calendar days.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved SJR 29, as amended, from committee.
MR. RICK URION, representing himself, spoke in favor of this
legislation as a person who had served in the legislature prior to
the 120 day limit when the sessions went on with no end in sight.
The 120 day limit has proven work can be accomplished within a set
time and could probably be accomplished in less time. He also
feels this legislation will encourage a citizen legislature.
SCOTT CALDER, representing himself, supports SJR 29 from a
citizen's standpoint. He feels this proposal would give
legislators more time to work with constituents and improve public
perception.
SENATOR TORGERSON was concerned about the February 1 start date
because of the trip to Washington D.C. every year in March. The
legislature would be taking a five day break almost immediately
after opening. Starting February 1 would only give the legislature
31 days, after having the revenue forecast, to work on the budget.
He would like to see the starting date moved back to the second
Monday in February.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that the start date is set by statute,
therefore, section 1 of the resolution was unnecessary, unless
there was implied voter approval.
Number 1979
SENATOR PARNELL agreed except that terms of office would be
affected.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that legislators could take office in
January to get up to speed on the budget even if the session did
not start until February, rather than having lame duck legislators
remain in office in January.
SENATOR PARNELL agreed with this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he would like to have a debate on holding a
budget session in an off election year, passing a two year budget
and then coming back in the election year and taking up issues.
Many western states have this type of legislature.
SENATOR PARNELL responded that some sessions are 30 days one year
and 60 or 90 the next year. Some states felt that this lead to
diminished legislative power and increased executive power.
SENATOR PARNELL stated that this legislation was drafted so that
legislative power was not diminished.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved SJR 29 from committee with individual
recommendations.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|