Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/22/1996 03:32 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS
February 22, 1996
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Dave Donley
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 266
"An Act relating to the Creamer's Field Goose Classic."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 58(RES)
"An Act establishing the Chickaloon Flats Critical Habitat Area."
HOUSE BILL NO. 90 am
"An Act changing the date that the legislature convenes in the
years following a gubernatorial election; changing the date that
the term of a member of the legislature begins in the years
following a gubernatorial election."
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 22
Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the hours for convening and adjourning from
daily sessions; and providing for an effective date.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the transmittal of bills after passage, enactment of
bills without the governor's signature, to vetoes, and to
consideration by the legislature of vetoed bills.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 266 - See State Affairs minutes dated 2/13/96.
HB 58 - No previous senate committee action.
HB 90 - No previous senate committee action.
SCR 22 - No previous senate committee action.
SJR 24 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/16/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Con Bunde
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 58
Jonathan Sperber, Aide
Representative Bettye Davis
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 90
Senator Dave Donley
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SCR 22 & SJR 24
James Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300, Juneau, AK 99811-0300¶(907)465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SJR 24
ACTION NARRATIVE
SSTA - 2/22/96
SB 266 CREAMER'S FIELD GOOSE CLASSIC
TAPE 96-14, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate State Affairs Committee to order
at 3:32 p.m. and brought up SB 266 as the first order of business
before the committee. Chairman Sharp passed the gavel to the Vice-
Chairman.
SENATOR SHARP made a motion to discharge SB 266 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations and with
accompanying zero fiscal note.
VICE-CHAIRMAN RANDY PHILLIPS, hearing no objection, stated SB 266
was discharged from the Senate State Affairs Committee. The vice-
chairman turned the gavel back over to the chairman.
SSTA - 2/22/96
HB 58 CHICKALOON FLATS CRITICAL HABITAT AREA
SENATOR SHARP brought up HB 58 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and called the first witness.
Number 027
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, prime sponsor of HB 58, relayed
information contained in the sponsor's statement. The purpose of
HB 58 is to assure adequate habitat for waterfowl. A great number
of ducks and geese congregate at Chickaloon Flats in their spring
and fall migrations. It is a staging and resting area, as well as
a significant nesting area. This legislation would strike a
balance between the need to preserve the habitat for birds and
other wildlife, and the possible need to explore or use the natural
resources in the area. It carefully delineates the options for
accessing the area for outdoor recreation and traditional
activities: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, those sorts of
things.
Number 060
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Representative Bunde how many acres
are in the area.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded, 22,000 acres.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked how many acres in the state are listed
as critical habitat.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied he is not sure. There is a critical
habitat area in Redoubt Bay of 200,000 acres. There is a critical
habitat area at Fox River Flats; he doesn't have that acreage, but
it is a relatively small area.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Representative Bunde if he's had a chance to
review the proposed committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded he has, and he supports the
committee substitute.
Number 087
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked how Representative Navarre, in whose
district is Chickaloon Flats, feels about HB 58.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE thinks he recalls that Representative Navarre
is supportive of HB 58.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS noted that Representative Navarre
recommended "Do Pass" on the House Finance Committee report for HB
58.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Representative Bunde if Senator Salo
supports HB 58.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded he has not discussed the issue with
Senator Salo.
Number 115
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that the proposed committee substitute has
guarantee language which was used previously in Minto Flats Game
Refuge legislation. That language has worked really well in
ensuring public access. The department has not had any problem
working with that language, and have said that they are very
comfortable with that language.
Number 145
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt the Senate State
Affairs committee substitute for HB 58.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute had been adopted. He asked if there were any amendments
to the committee substitute. Hearing none, the chairman asked the
pleasure of the committee.
Number 170
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to discharge HB 58 from
committee.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted the department indicated that if the committee
substitute moved out as is, there would be a zero fiscal note.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS moved to also discharge the accompanying
zero fiscal note.
Number 175
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated that HB 58 with
accompanying zero fiscal note was discharged from the Senate State
Affairs Committee.
SSTA - 2/22/96
HB 90 CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV ELECTION
Number 180
SENATOR SHARP brought up HB 90 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and called the first witness.
Number 185
JONATHAN SPERBER, Aide to Representative Bettye Davis, prime
sponsor of HB 90, stated that HB 90 would shift the beginning date
of legislative sessions following gubernatorial elections by one
day, in order to avoid having the opening day of the legislative
session fall on Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday. Mr. Sperber read
the sponsor's statement.
Number 200
MR. SPERBER stated that the administration believes HB 90 will
minimally impact legislative business. In addition, the bill would
result in some minor cost savings. Certain employees would not
have to be paid overtime by working on the holiday.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked who that would be.
MR. SPERBER responded that would be support staff in the executive
branch.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS doesn't understand.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks that would be people in the executive branch
who stick around because the legislature is here, people who would
normally have a holiday.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if we want them around.
SENATOR DONLEY responded it is not up to us whether they're around.
It's up to the executive branch.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked why the executive branch can't make
that determination themselves. And actually, what can we do here
on the first day, realistically.
MR. SPERBER responded it is his understanding that it is a day of
special importance by virtue of its being the first day of the
legislative session. Even if only for ceremonial purposes,
legislative staff and legislators would expect to be present. By
simply shifting the first day of session to the following Tuesday,
those legislators and staff would have the opportunity to pay full
respect to Dr. King. Admittedly, any possible savings that might
be realized here are extremely small. The fiscal note from OMB
lists savings of $5,833.00 for FY99.
Number 245
SENATOR LEMAN has a concern with a comment in the sponsor's
statement that "hundreds of legislative staff would be impacted".
That's probably what we need to deal with, more than changing the
day.
MR. SPERBER responded that Representative Davis has the belief that
all legislators, as well as their staff, would want to be able to
fully honor and celebrate Dr. King on this holiday, by being able
to attend other events. He knows that Representative Davis has
expressed her frustration in the past about not being able to
attend certain other events honoring Dr. King, because of
legislative scheduling conflicts.
SENATOR LEMAN understands that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented he can also see savings for all
legislative staff of at least one day, because you would bring them
on one day later.
SENATOR LEMAN suggests that, instead of just moving the day one
day, somehow we could get the first day, Monday, to still count as
a day, so we wouldn't then just shift the whole session by one day.
He also asked why the bill specifies "the third Tuesday", rather
than specifying "the Tuesday following the third Monday".
MR. SPERBER does not think there would be any difference. He
thinks the net affect would be the same.
SENATOR LEMAN stated that is not necessarily so.
[If the month of January begins on a Tuesday, then the third
Tuesday would follow the second Monday, and not the third Monday.]
It is noted that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is on the third Monday
in January.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated he likes Senator Leman's idea of
having that day still count towards the session limit.
SENATOR DONLEY doesn't think that could be done, because the 120
day provision is set into the constitution. Actually, there is a
starting time in the constitution, but it states "unless otherwise
provided by statute". He thinks it would be pretty difficult to
utilize Senator Leman's idea without amending the constitution.
SENATOR LEMAN thinks that every once in a while, the schedule would
be thrown off in such a way that the legislature would actually
start four days prior to Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Senator Leman if he wishes to propose an
amendment to HB 90.
SENATOR LEMAN asked Mr. Sperber if he would have any objection to
that.
MR. SPERBER replied he does not believe that Representative Davis
would have any objection. Her primary concern is to not have a
conflict between a holiday and a legislative session.
Number 320
SENATOR LEMAN thinks that would be a better way to define it. He
offered an amendment to HB 90.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that basically on page 1, line 8, the wording
would be changed at the end of the sentence to "on the Tuesday
following the third Monday".
SENATOR LEMAN said, either that, or "on the day following the third
Monday". Obviously it would be a Tuesday. Whichever way the
drafters-
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted there would also have to be the same change on
page 2, line 1.
SENATOR LEMAN replied that is correct.
Number 345
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there were objections to the amendment.
Hearing none, the chairman stated the amendment was adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to discharge HB 90 and accompanying
fiscal notes with individual recommendations from committee.
Number 355
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, ordered HB 90 released from
the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
SSTA - 2/22/96
SCR 22 UNIFORM RULES/HOURS OF DAILY SESSION
SENATOR SHARP brought up SCR 22 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called Senator Donley
to testify.
Number 360
SENATOR DONLEY, prime sponsor of SCR 22, relayed information
contained in the sponsor's statement. SCR 22 specifies that the
legislature will not conduct business on the floor past 9:00 p.m.,
nor would it do so before 8:00 a.m. Senator Donley does not feel
it is in the public's interest for the legislature to work into the
wee hours. The only concern he's heard raised regarding SCR 22 is
that it may be necessary to close off the session at some time. He
acknowledges that, and wouldn't mind a conceptual amendment
exempting the last several days of session. He would like feedback
from committee members regarding what an appropriate time span
would be. He is open to suggestions.
SENATOR LEMAN commented he especially likes the morning limitation.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if this wouldn't require a 2/3 vote.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that a concurrent resolution that amends
the uniform rules requires 2/3 of each body.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS added that if both houses meet as a joint
body, then it is a simple majority: 31 votes.
SENATOR DONLEY doesn't know if that's ever been done.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS replied that was done in 1981. He stated he
would be interested in removing the time limitations during the
last five days of session. He thinks that would be a reasonable
amount of time.
Number 390
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked how that would be addressed in the resolution.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that the language could simply specify,
"prior to the 115th day of the session...".
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked other committee members if they think
five days is a workable amount of time not to have the rule.
SENATOR LEMAN replied he is not sure it would even be needed then,
other than perhaps the last day of session.
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented that sometimes the delay action works
pretty good on caucuses and so forth. You can waste a lot of time
up to 9:00 p.m. when the last days' crunch comes. He thinks there
needs to be more leeway than one or two days.
SENATOR DONLEY stated he would like to see a consensus, because he
would like to see SCR 22 pass. He thinks any limitation is a good
step forward. Five days is a good step forward from where we are
now. Sometimes we go into two or three weeks of late-night
meetings. Frankly, it's debilitating on your health.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that last year, we got into some late-night
floor sessions only halfway through.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks there is very little you could do at 9:00
p.m. that you couldn't come back and do at 8:00 a.m. the next day.
Number 415
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated the committee is looking at a conceptual
amendment on line 13. "Prior to the 115th day of a regular session
a house shall adjourn."
SENATOR LEMAN stated that "prior to the 115th day" would give them
six days. If you want five days, it would be "prior to the 116th
day".
CHAIRMAN SHARP replied, ok, 116th day. [There being no further
comment on the amendment, it seems to be general consensus that it
was adopted, though there was no motion.] [The actual language in
the Senate State Affairs committee substitute is, "This subsection
does not apply during a regular session after the one hundred and
fifteenth day of that session." So the last six days of a regular
session are exempt from that subsection.]
SENATOR LEMAN asked if they wanted any limitation put on the final
days.
CHAIRMAN SHARP said, "Just let 'er roll."
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what do you do during daylight savings
time.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that happens at 2:00 a.m. in the morning, so
it won't affect SCR 22.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if five minutes is enough of a warning.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks that's enough time.
Number 435
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS suggested giving a ten-minute warning, since
that's the same amount of warning we have before session.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that's fine with him.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted there was a conceptual amendment on line 15 to
change 8:55 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
[There is no comment on the amendment. There seems to be general
consensus that it was adopted, though there was no motion.]
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there were any other comments or proposed
amendments.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if State Affairs was the only
committee of referral.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks so. He thinks having the last five days
unrestricted should alleviate a lot of concerns regarding
flexibility at the end of session.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 450
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to discharge SCR 22 from committee
with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated SCR 22 was released
from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations.
SSTA - 2/22/96
SJR 24 CHANGE TIMING OF VETO OVERRIDE
Number 453
SENATOR SHARP brought up SJR 24 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called Senator Donley
to testify.
Number 455
SENATOR DONLEY, prime sponsor of SJR 24, stated they tried to
incorporate the recommendations of the committee in a sponsor
substitute for SJR 24, which is in the members' packets. At
Senator Leman's request, he restored the "excluding Sundays"
language throughout the timing sections of the bill, consistent
with the present constitutional provisions. It was clarified that
a subsequent legislature couldn't consider vetoed legislation of a
prior legislature. The section regarding shortening the time frame
in which the governor acts on bills following the adjournment of
the legislature has been deleted. He thinks those are all the
changes made to the legislation.
Number 470
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if Section 4 was removed.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that section was completely removed.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if this proposed constitutional
amendment is put on the ballot, how will the public understand it?
SENATOR DONLEY stated it will be difficult for them to understand
it. Hopefully, people will read the voters' guide. He finds it
hard to believe there would be much opposition to it, since it
really corrects some empty areas in the constitution, as far as the
transmittal of bills. The only area in which there may be some
concern would be changing the way special sessions are called. At
the same time, it seems like a reasonable method of polling
members. Senator Phillips is right though: people may just see a
lot of language and become confused or concerned with that much
language and just vote "no".
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that was his concern: that people
would vote "no" because it's complicated.
Number 500
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he is concerned regarding the seven-day time
period at the end of the session. With the massive amount of
legislation that comes out of both bodies at the end of session--
this says, if it doesn't return within 48 hours, excluding Sundays,
that they'll duplicate it and send it over.
SENATOR DONLEY remembered that the committee asked him to check
into that with the clerk's office. He stated that he has talked to
the clerks, and they said that at no time they can remember have
they ever not been able to transmit a bill within 24 hours. They
have the capability of doing it. Now there have been times where
they haven't been transmitted, but it hasn't been because the
clerks couldn't do it. They said that, basically, even at the end
of session they can move legislation in 45 minutes. They said
they've never failed to get a bill over within 24 hours for any
technical reason; it's always been because of a political reason.
SENATOR LEMAN asked, they said that?
SENATOR DONLEY replied yes.
SENATOR LEMAN asked who said that.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that what they said was they've never not
been able to do it within 24 hours. And most of the time they say
they can do it in 45 minutes, even at the end of the session.
They're all ready to go, when the bill is passed. The only problem
is if there are floor amendments, that slows them down a little
bit.
Number 520
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated it is his understanding that the procedure is
that when a bill has made final passage, it is engrossed, and then
enrolled. Another problem is that sometimes the president or the
speaker is not in town to sign legislation. If that was the case,
would the legislation automatically move up without their
signatures, under SJR 24?
SENATOR DONLEY replied that is correct. He does not know how else
to address the problem of someone intentionally not moving
legislation along.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated they have seen that happen for 30 and 40 days
at a time. He is concerned that the security of final review by
legal services not be breached though. He is also concerned with
putting the clerks and the secretaries in the political situation
of having to move bills without them being signed off by the
presiding officers.
SENATOR DONLEY stated the 24 hour provision is the shortest time
frame that has to be dealt with. That is for returning the
legislation to the body of origin.
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute was adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented he hasn't had anyone step forward and say
it's not do-able. This resolution still goes to the Judiciary and
Finance Committees.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Mr. Baldwin to comment on SJR 24. He asked
Mr. Baldwin if his concerns have been addressed in the committee
substitute.
Number 565
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, stated he has a couple
of comments, and they probably can be resolved in later committees.
He thinks there is some new language concerning calling sessions to
take up vetoes. He is particularly looking at the language that
begins on page 2, line 29, which specifies that a joint session
must be called before the legislature adjourns. He wondered if a
provision like this could be used to extend the session, because
once the legislature is in extra-special session there is no
limitation on what they can take up. He sees the same problem in
subsection (b) on page 3. So he thinks the implications should be
thought out: not only may you be bringing on a special session for
overrides, but you could be getting into other areas.
SENATOR DONLEY replied to the last point, that he is not scared of
the legislature in session. He understands why the executive
branch would be.
TAPE 96-14, SIDE B
Number 590
SENATOR DONLEY stated that if there is business to do at that time,
he thinks they should do it. So that doesn't concern him. The
reason it doesn't concern him is that they would have to be
violating the constitution in the first place not to hold the joint
session. So to use this legislation to violate the 121 day session
limit, they would have to break the constitution to get to that
point. Unless Mr. Baldwin is going to presume that people are
going to willy-nilly violate the constitution, then it shouldn't be
a problem.
MR. BALDWIN stated he agrees with Senator Donley that the first
point he made is kind of remote. But the second one isn't. He has
seen situations where legislators did not want a special session
called, just as much as the executive. He asked that the
consequences of not limiting the subject matter of a special
session be considered. Once you're in special session, you can
take up any matter. One way to take care of that would be to limit
what you could do at a special session.
Number 572
SENATOR DONLEY stated the reason it is drafted the way it is, is
that if we start to qualify on what we're holding the special
session, we'll never be able to reach a consensus. That is why it
is phrased in a simple "yes" or "no".
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there are any questions for Mr. Baldwin.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Mr. Baldwin if he is going to write a
little thing in the election pamphlet against SJR 24.
MR. BALDWIN responded he works for the Division of Elections, and
they couldn't ever do that. But there are plenty of public-
spirited citizens willing to come forward to comment on
legislation.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he still has concerns over the length of time
for getting legislation to legal services and back again. He would
like to extend that 7 days to 14, excluding Sundays.
SENATOR DONLEY commented he would have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that in his conversations with legal
services, they thought 10 days would probably do it, but 14 days
would be very safe.
Number 560
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that if the sponsor does not have a problem
with that, he would like to make a motion that on page 2, line 1
change "7 days" to "14 days" and add "excluding Sundays".
SENATOR DONLEY stated he would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP made a motion to adopt that amendment.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection stated the amendment had been
adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that he would really welcome other
suggestions from members of the committee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked how he's going to market SJR 24.
SENATOR DONLEY replied he hoped that they could talk to newspaper
editorial boards and other things like that and convince them that
it is really a good government proposal.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that one suggestion might be to have
something in the election pamphlet explaining SJR 24.
SENATOR DONLEY replied that the voter's guide has been pretty
flexible. You could probably do that in the pro statement in the
voter's guide.
Number 530
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated another point that was brought up by staff
was that to protect the Senate Secretary and Chief Clerk there
should be language for verifying contact. The chairman suggested
language specifying that legislators shall contact the Chief Clerk
and the Senate Secretary in written form.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that they could just insert "in written
form".
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that language would be inserted after
"indicated" on page 3, line 4.
SENATOR DONLEY stated what might happen, if SJR 24 passes this
session, that it would be alright if just the first section made it
on the ballot this year, if the legislation was focused down to
just that section.
Number 490
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to discharge SJR 24 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP added, "As amended, with small fiscal note."
Hearing no objection, stated SJR 24 was released from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 4:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|