MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE February 9, 1995 9:10 a.m. TAPES SFC-95, #3, Side 1 (260-end) SFC-95, #3, Side 2 (575-end) SFC-95, #5, Side 1 (000-403) CALL TO ORDER Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at approximately 9:10 a.m. PRESENT All committee members (Co-chairs Halford and Frank and Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, and Zharoff) were present. ALSO ATTENDING: Senate President Drue Pearce; Speaker of the House Gail Phillips; Senator Duncan; Representative Finkelstein; Pat Pourchot, Legislative Director, Office of the Governor; Former Juneau Mayor, Jamie Parsons; Chuck Achberger, Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce; Pam Neal, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce; Dave Hutchens, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Chip Wagoner; Josh Fink, aide to Senator Kelly; and aides to committee members and other members of the legislature. ALSO PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE: Don Schroer, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, Anchorage; Bob Lohr, Executive Director, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, Anchorage; and Jimmy Jackson, Attorney for GCI, Anchorage. SUMMARY INFORMATION The meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Barrow, Glennallen, Nome, and Valdez. HCR 1 - LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLANNING COMMISSION Discussion was had with Senator Pearce, Representative Phillips, Pat Pourchot, and Pam Neal. An amendment suggested by the administration was moved by Senator Donley but failed on a vote of 5 to 2. SCS CSHCR 1 (STA) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a $51.3 fiscal note from the Legislative Affairs Agency. HJR 7 - EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL Brief testimony was presented by Representative Finkelstein. CSHJR 7 (O&G)am was REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero fiscal note from the Dept. of Natural Resources and a note from the Dept. of Revenue showing potential revenues of $80 million. SB 19 - LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS TO BE IN ANCHORAGE Testimony was presented by Jamie Parsons, Chuck Achberger, and Chip Wagoner. The sponsor directed attention to a proposed committee substitute adding a relocation commission. The bill was HELD in committee for continuing work on fiscal notes. SB 47 - APUC EXTENSION AND REGULATORY COST CHARGE Testimony was presented by Josh Fink, Don Schroer, Bob Lohr, Jimmy Jackson, and Dave Hutchens. The bill was HELD in committee for scheduling on next week's agenda. CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7(O&G) am Supporting the lifting of the ban on the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil, requesting the President of the United States to present to the United States Congress a recommendation that it is both in the national interest to lift the ban on the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil and discriminatory to the state to maintain the ban, and endorsing passage of H.R. 70 and S. 70, companion federal legislation to remove restraints on the export of that oil. Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHJR 7 (O&G)am be brought on for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN, sponsor, came before committee. He noted that the proposed lifting of the ban on export of Alaska North Slope crude oil had been before previous legislatures. The climate in Washington, D.C., at this time, however, appears right for favorable consideration. Language in the resolution is straightforward. Projected revenues reflect figures from reports over the past few years. Co-chairman Halford called for comments or questions from committee members. None were forthcoming. Senator Phillips MOVED that CSHJR 7 (O&G)am pass from committee. No objection having been raised, CSHJR 7 (O&G)am was REPORTED OUT of committee with a zero fiscal note from the Dept. of Natural Resources and a note from the Dept. of Revenue showing projected revenues of $80 million. All members signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. CS FOR HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1(FIN) Creating the Long Range Financial Planning Commission. SENATE PRESIDENT DRUE PEARCE came before committee and directed attention to SCS CSHCR 1 (STA). She referenced a recommendation from Commonwealth North for a statewide effort involving Alaskan citizens in long-range financial planning. She further stressed need for a "soft landing" as Prudhoe Bay revenues fall and the state faces "huge budget deficits over the next ten years." The resolution would create a balanced, statewide commission. Pages 2 (lines 25-29) and 3 (through line 24) present specific areas of commission review. The Senate State Affairs' version calls for nine public members: 1. Three chosen by the Speaker of the House 2. Three chosen by the Senate President 3. Three chosen by the Governor The House-passed version required unanimous consent by the Governor, Speaker, and Senate President for all nine members. Concern arose that that type of consensus would involve a difficult and lengthy selection process and not provide the needed wide range of diversification. Senate State Affairs added a provision requiring that legislative appointments by both the House and Senate consist of one member of the majority and one member of the minority. Senator Pearce acknowledged that work to be undertaken by the commission should be done by the legislature. She then added that a long-range plan could probably not be developed without participation by the public. The resolution would allow the legislature to work with the public on development of new ideas for future budgeting. Senator Pearce spoke to constituent concern that the state does not presently have a budgetary plan. She referenced the Cremo Plan and the "safe landing plan" proposed by ISER. There has been no opportunity for review and discussion of these plans by the public. The resolution passed the House on a vote of 37 to 1. Senator Pearce noted support by the Alaska Municipal League, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Common Sense for Alaska, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Resource Development Council, etc. Senator Zharoff referenced fiscal note information indicating that public members would be selected from Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Southeast. Senator Pearce explained that since there is no way to anticipate where public members might come from, a regional diversity was simply set forth by Legislative Affairs. She said she expected rural members would participate and advised that the fiscal note could be revised to show membership from the four judicial districts, if that would provide a greater level of comfort. Senator Zharoff stressed need for participation by people from rural Alaska. Discussion followed regarding identification of anticipated fiscal gaps and recurring revenue and expenditures. Senator Pearce spoke to projections by the administration, Legislative Finance Division, the Oil and Gas Division with the Dept. of Revenue, etc. REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, sponsor, came before committee. In response to a question from Senator Zharoff, she spoke to need for involvement of more public than legislative members. A total of nine was selected to "keep the committee from getting too big." Senator Zharoff asked how the public members would be selected. Representative Phillips referenced lists of people who have been involved in state financial planning for some time as well as experts and volunteers. Senator Halford expressed his hope that membership would not be weighted toward direct or significant indirect beneficiaries of state spending. More general beneficiaries should be well represented. Senator Rieger voiced support for the resolution, saying that it would create a mechanism for protecting state reserves such as the earnings of the permanent fund, AHFC, AIDEA, etc. PAT POURCHOT, Legislative Director, Office of the Governor, next came before committee. He voiced support for the idea of a long-range fiscal planning commission, but noted disagreement regarding composition of the members. All members must have equal involvement in the process to ensure both the function and credibility of the commission. The Governor's position is that commission members should work toward consensus and avoid vote count situations. The proposed fifteen-member commission could lead to an eight to seven configuration. Mr. Pourchot proposed that the commission consist of a structure that does not include the typical tie-breaking vote. He noted that when the vote is eight to seven, the credibility of commission work is greatly weakened. He pointed to an even number of members on the PERS and TRS investment board and even representation of management and employee interests. In that situation, members are forced to work together to reach consensus. Mr. Pourchot suggested addition of another public member, appointed by the Governor, for a sixteen-member commission, including ten public members: four appointed by the Governor, three by the Senate, and three by the House. He cautioned that lessening the Governor's role in selection of commission members might force him into a "less proactive role in the ultimate recommendations of the commission." PAM NEAL, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, next came before committee. She told the committee that the chamber represents approximately 700 businesses, employing 80,000 people. She voiced support for the resolution and said that reduction in state spending and long-range financial planning are the first priorities on the chamber's legislative agenda. The chamber is less concerned by composition of the commission than the requirement that it include: 1. Statewide representation. 2. Representatives of beneficiaries of state spending. 3. Representatives of providers of state revenue (the business community). Speaking to questions regarding need for the commission, Ms. Neal stressed that it would "help get this process rolling . . . get something on the table that everybody can look at." Referencing commission costs, Ms. Neal noted that planning is a necessary and beneficial process in the business community. It thus justifies the expense. The $51.3 fiscal note is a small price to pay for a solution to state deficits. Co-chairman Halford called for additional testimony on the resolution. None was forthcoming. Senator Donley MOVED for adoption of the amendment suggested by the administration: Page 2, Line 6: Change "nine members of the public" to "ten members of the public" Page 2, Line 8: Change "three" to "four" appointed by the Governor. Page 2, Lines 7 and 8: Include language specifying appointment of three public members, each, by both the Senate and House. End: SFC-95, #3, Side 1 Begin: SFC-95, #3, Side 2 Senator Rieger voiced support for the resolution without the proposed amendment. Senator Zharoff spoke in support of the change, stressing need for the sixteen-member commission to reach consensus. Co-chairman Halford called for a show of hands on the motion. The motion FAILED on a vote of 2 to 5. Senator Rieger MOVED that SCS CSHCR 1 (STA) pass from committee with individual recommendations. No objection having been raised, SCS CSHCR 1 (STA) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a $51.3 fiscal note from the Legislative Affairs Agency. Co-chairman Frank and Senators Rieger and Sharp signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Co-chairman Halford and Senators Donley and Zharoff signed "no recommendation." Senator Phillips signed "do not pass." SENATE BILL NO. 47 An Act relating to the extent to which the Alaska Public Utilities Commission may exercise its powers when regulating utilities; establishing a regulatory cost charge on public utilities and pipeline carriers; relating to the allocation of costs in hearings before the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to the method by which utilities are exempted from and made subject to regulation by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to the monetary threshold for regulation of certain kinds of utilities by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; extending the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to staggered terms for members of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; and providing for an effective date. Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 47 be brought on for discussion. JOSH FINK, aide to Senator Kelly, came before committee. He directed attention to a sectional analysis prepared by Senator Kelly, sponsor, and a separate sectional prepared by Legislative Legal Services. He explained that SB 47 reflects reintroduction of SB 213 from the previous legislature. It accomplishes two goals: 1. Extension of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission currently scheduled to sunset the end of June, 1995. 2. Reenactment of the regulatory cost charge that expired December 31, 1994. Given the unknown and potentially serious ramifications of expiration of APUC, SB 47 was introduced as consensus legislation. All provisions have been extensively debated and are either unopposed or the result of compromise by all concerned parties, in the best interest of consumer protection. SB 47 is almost identical to the version that reached the House floor last May and failed to pass prior to adjournment. A separate bill including further APUC amendments has also been introduced. It is Senator Kelly's hope that SB 47 will remain unamended as it travels through the legislative process. Mr. Fink provided a review of the sponsor's sectional analysis (copy on file in the SFC file for SB 47) and highlighted the following provisions: 1. Sec. 1 replaces language granting the commission "liberally construed" powers with language allowing the commission to do "all things necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and exercise the powers expressly granted or reasonably implied." The foregoing reflects compromise language developed last year. 2. Secs. 2, 3, 10 and 11 reenact the regulation cost charge for utilities and pipelines. Reenactment does not include sunset provisions. The RCC should be considered when the commission "comes up for sunset." 3. On Page 3, Lines 11-13, provisions adjust allocation of the RCC for electric utilities by subtracting the cost of power from gross revenues. 4. On Page 2, Line 27 and Page 6, Line 4, the ceiling on the RCC for utilities and pipeline carriers is raised from .61 % to .8 %. The RCC has never reached the ceiling. If the cost of power is subtracted from gross revenues for electric utilities, the ceiling for other utilities must be increased or sufficient program receipts will not be generated to cover the commission budget. 5. Page 3, Lines 20-24 and Page 6, Lines 15-19, contain language requiring the Dept. of Administration to earmark regulatory cost charge collection overages for possible appropriation by the legislature for the commission's next fiscal year, thus lowering the RCC for that year. That charge is passed directly to consumers and averages $10 annually, for all utilities. 6. Secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the result of audit recommendations. Secs. 4, 8, and 9 permit subscribers of small utilities or utilities exempt from regulation to petition for regulation under the same procedures used by subscribers of a regulated utility to petition for removal from regulation. 7. Sec. 12 extends the sunset date for the commission to June 30, 1999. 8. Sec. 13 staggers the terms of commission members. Two terms presently expire at the same time. The new provision will not impact the terms of current commissioners. 9. Secs. 14 and 15 provide for new language enacted in Sec. 1 (changing language from "liberally construed" to "reasonably implied") to become effective July 1, 1996. 10. Sec. 16 provides an immediate effective date for all provisions with the exception of Sec. 1. Senator Donley voiced concern over the above-noted language change in Sec. 1, suggesting that it would lead to increased litigation over the meaning of the new standard. Consumers will pay the cost of that litigation through increased utility bills. He then inquired concerning why the change was made. Mr. Fink deferred to APUC staff. He briefly referenced situations in which utilities felt the commission overstepped its authority and made policy decisions beyond its statutory mandate. Alternatively, other utilities were pleased that the commission had authority to grant temporary operating permits, a function for which it does not have express authority. Compromise language is "a shade more restrictive." Senator Sharp attested to the fact that under "liberally construed," commission philosophy often swung in accordance with the make up of the commission. Administrative and court challenges are expensive. "Necessary and proper" is better, particularly in light of provisions which allow the commission to levy the RCC to cover its budget expenses. Senator Rieger voiced support for the more moderate language. Senator Donley cautioned that new language appears "ripe with potential for litigation." Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that should the proposed bill not pass, utility bills would decrease because the RCC would not be applied. Mr. Fink concurred that individual bills would decrease by approximately $10. He pointed, however, to federal mandates associated with utilities and suggested that staff from APUC speak to potential problems should APUC cease to exist. Senator Donley next addressed statements by Mr. Fink that reenactment of the RCC reflects a compromise, noting that while it might represent a compromise among utilities, it is not a compromise "among the consumers." He then attested to constituent complaints over new charges on utility bills. The situation is worsened by the proposed legislation which enacts the "first, new tax bill of this year." Further, restructuring increases the tax for urban residents more than for those in rural Alaska. DON SCHROER, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, next spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. He stressed the importance of early action on SB 47, and noted the audit recommendation for a ten-year extension, since the commission is fulfilling its public purpose. During the past two years, no one has testified in favor of APUC sunset. Mr. Schroer acknowledged that SB 47 contains provisions the commission could "live without." It is, however, supported in its present form, in the interest of the impending time crunch. Mr. Schroer further spoke to investigative delays and uncertainty in APUC hire as a result of scheduled sunset. He thanked utilities for their cooperation through early, lump-sum payment of the RCC prior to expiration of commission authority to levy the charge. He urged passage of SB 47 without amendment. In response to a question from Co-chairman Halford concerning areas of the bill the commission does not look favorably upon, Mr. Schroer replied that while the commission sees no need to change "liberally construed" to the proposed new language, the change is acceptable. Discussion followed regarding ability of a utility to opt out of APUC regulation. BOB LOHR, Executive Director, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, testified from Anchorage. He explained that a number of utilities may not opt out of economic regulation because of size. Proposed changes in the bill would increase the number of utilities allowed to do so, but maximum size prohibitions would remain. Cooperatives may opt out regardless of size, and municipal utilities are exempt from regulation by law, unless the municipal utility competes with a privately owned utility. If one of a number of utilities owned by a municipality elects to compete with a private utility, all of the utilities owned by the municipality are automatically subject to economic regulation by the commission. Senator Zharoff commented upon the amount of paperwork and duplication in state and federal filings for small utilities. Mr. Schroer attested to recent regulations allowing simplified rate filings for both electric and telephone utilities. JIMMY JACKSON, Attorney for GCI, next spoke from Anchorage. He voiced support for passage of the legislation as quickly as possible, without amendment. The present state of "limbo" is undesirable and imposing an adverse affect on the agency. DAVE HUTCHENS, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association, next came before committee, voicing support for the legislation. He attested to the fact that the commission should be extended for the same reasons it was initially created: to prohibit territorial utility wars, which are both wasteful and destructive, and bring peace in the electric utility industry. Mr. Hutchens reiterated previous testimony asking that SB 47 be passed in its present form, without amendments. Speaking to language in Sec. 1, Mr. Hutchens advocated the change from "liberally construed" to "necessary or proper . . . or reasonably implied." In response to a question from Co-chairman Halford, Mr. Hutchens voiced his understanding that new language means that the commission cannot embark on new kinds of regulation which "liberally construed" previously allowed. As an example, he cited application by the community of King Cove and the resulting three-to-two vote by the commission regarding whether environmental issues and regulations should be included in deliberations. The community and AIDEA prevailed, but the vote was close. With different members on the commission, the vote could easily have gone the other way. The supreme court supported the commission exclusion, but the ruling was accompanied by a long dissenting opinion. That is the type of situation the new language seeks to prevent. If there is to be an expansion of commission powers, that decision should be made by the legislature rather than the commission and the courts. Co-chairman Halford asked if the APUC would come under standard statutory language (reasonably necessary to implement the statute) if there was no specific language relating to regulatory standards for the commission. Mr. Hutchens responded affirmatively and said that was what he originally proposed. Changes within Sec. 1 reflect compromise language modeled on wording from the state of Wisconsin. Mr. Hutchens next addressed adjustments to the regulatory cost charge. He voiced concurrence in comments by Senator Donley and agreed that utilities do not enjoy serving as tax collectors. However, if the decision is that utilities should play that role, the burden of collection should be equitably distributed. An adjustment was the primary recommendation of legislative audit. The proposal was to allocate the RCC based on time records evidencing how commission time is expended on regulation. That approach was determined to be too time consuming. The present formula keys the RCC to retail revenues, but revenue dollars have no real relationship to commission activities. While electric utility regulation comprises 30% of commission activity, electric utilities were paying 45% of the cost of the commission. The proposal contained within SB 47 was crafted by Senator Sharp as a means of providing equity in allocation of regulatory costs. Co-chairman Halford asked if cost charges would increase in Anchorage while decreasing in other locations. Mr. Hutchens responded, "Perhaps, very slightly . . . ." Reallocation could have that effect because of availability of heat from a regulated natural gas utility. In other areas, providers of heat are unregulated and thus not taxed to support the commission. Senator Zharoff sought clarification of the impact of increasing the RCC rate. Mr. Lohr explained that the effect of allowing the cost-of-power exclusion for electric utilities shifts approximately 45% of the cost of the commission to all other utilities. Since the commission is mandated to collect its operating budget from all sources subject to the RCC, a reduction for one type of utility requires a commensurate increase for others. RCC rates for utilities other than electrical will increase by roughly 31% to offset the 45% reduction to electric utilities. The commission is only authorized to collect the amount necessary to cover its budget. Mr. Lohr reiterated that the RCC has never hit the existing ceiling. The initial rate equivalent of .45% has dropped since inception. It was .42% last year. While the trend has been downward, the commission seeks to maintain latitude within the ceiling, in light of proposed changes in levies upon electric utilities. Discussion followed between APUC staff in Anchorage and Senator Rieger regarding activity (brush clearing and tree removal) in utility right-of-ways. End: SFC-95, #3, Side 2 Begin: SFC-95, #5, Side 1 Co-chairman Halford called for additional testimony on the bill. None was forthcoming. He then advised that the testimony portion of committee review was concluded and directed that SB 47 be HELD in committee and available for further consideration during the coming week. SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 19 An Act relating to the location of the convening of the legislature in regular session. Co-chairman Halford directed that SSSB 19 be brought on for discussion. Senator Randy Phillips explained that he introduced the proposed bill to move the legislature from Juneau to Anchorage to improve access to the capital. The move would be concluded by January, 1998. Senator Phillips referenced a draft CSSSSB 19 (9-LS0288\F, Cook, 2/3/95) and explained that it provides for establishment of a state government relocation commission. By March 1, 1996, the commission would submit a report of relocation costs, including the amount of bondable costs subject to voter approval under AS 44.06.055. Senator Phillips stressed that the main purpose of the bill is access. Proposed movement of the legislature, alone, should not devastate the economy of Juneau. The Senator further stressed the importance of face-to-face rather than teleconference access by constituents. He then said he would request that the bill be held in committee pending additional work on fiscal notes as well as a comparison of costs of retaining the capital in Juneau versus moving it to Anchorage. JAMIE PARSONS, former mayor of Juneau, came before committee in opposition to SSSB 19, which he termed "nothing more than a back door capital move." Three months ago, Alaskan residents voted by a 9.4% margin against movement of the capital from Juneau to Wasilla. Mr. Parsons pointed to Juneau's efforts to provide excellent health, police, fire, emergency, and recreational services. He acknowledged that the recent capital move campaign pointed out improvements that should be made to make government work better for all Alaskans. The statewide Alaska Committee, which led the campaign to keep the capital in Juneau, is in the process of converting to a statewide, nonprofit organization to follow up on those improvements. Mr. Parsons asked that the legislature give Juneau a few years to address issues such as housing, electronic and telecommunication access, improved air and land access. He next spoke to more important issues facing the state: budget deficits, declining revenues, reduced Prudhoe Bay production, increasing demand for services as a result of population growth, crime, educational standards, etc. CHUCK ACHBERGER, Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce, next came before committee in opposition to the bill. He attested to access to legislative activity through telecommunications. The electronic data base allows Alaskans free telephone access to the status of bills, committee action, etc. Mr. Achberger advised that he accessed fiscal notes accompanying SSSB 19. He then spoke to past experience with the fiscal note associated with movement of the Governor's office from the capitol building to the Court Plaza Building. The initial note was $400.0. Six months later, the note for what was essentially a move across the street had escalated to $2 million. In his closing remarks, Mr. Achberger advised that Juneau residents fought hard to retain the capital, and the community made a number of promises for improvements. He asked that Juneau be given time to fulfill those promises. Mr. Achberger took exception to the statement that the proposed move would not have an adverse economic impact on Juneau. He noted that legislative housing and other residential and commercial construction would not occur while SSSB 19 remains a threat. Senator Phillips voiced his recollection that escalating costs associated with the proposed move of the Governor's office resulted from needed code upgrades at the Court Plaza Building. Co-chairman Halford asked Mr. Achberger if he would prefer the bill to go to the floor for a definitive vote or remain in committee where it would be potentially viable. Mr. Achberger said that his first choice was for the bill to cease to exist. He then expressed his second choice: that the bill remain in committee until final adjournment. That would give Juneau time to work on access problems and other improvements. Senator Phillips stressed that the proposed legislation does not represent a personal crusade. He attested to constituents in his district who continually complain about lack of access. They voted "two out of three" to move the entire capital. A number of those constituents are not happy with the proposed move of only the legislature. Lack of access is a valid concern. Mr. Achberger replied that he did not view the proposed legislation as a personal attach on Juneau. However, those whose jobs are impacted are not likely to feel the same. He again asked that Juneau be given time to work on access. Mr. Achberger stressed that legislators are within their districts seven months of the year. It is not difficult for constituents to get appointments during that time. CHIP WAGONER next came before committee, advising that he is both a republican and a Juneau resident. He acknowledged that the proposed legislation does not represent a personal crusade concerning Juneau but a crusade for access. Mr. Wagoner stressed, however, that access is not a "burning issue." Voters dealt with the issue in the last election when movement of the capital was defeated. He observed that the proposed bill represents a capital move regardless of how it is characterized. Other issues are of much greater importance to Alaskans. Mr. Wagoner stressed that as a republican he seeks success for the current republican leadership in both the House and Senate. To accomplish that, the leadership must deal with issues of concern to Alaskans. The first of those concerns is the budget. Less time should be expended on bills such as SSSB 19 and more effort devoted to deferred maintenance at the university, fishing issues, mining, timber, tourism, etc. He urged that the republican caucus focus on voter concerns and ignore the proposed legislative move. Mr. Wagoner next attested to electronic filing of legislation, and access thereto, at the national level. He suggested that the average voter does not want to physically come before committee so much as to be able to access the legislature from his or her own home. He urged support for increased electronic access. Senator Phillips again stressed the importance of access to his constituents. Mr. Wagoner reiterated that there are issues of much greater importance facing the present legislature. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.